260. Food Fights: Definitions Matter

Posted on June 11, 2026 by Christophe Pelletier

As you are quite aware, conversations about food and agriculture are loaded with disagreements, controversies and endless arguments. One of the main reasons fueling this is the one nobody ever hardly mentions. Yet, it is at the core of much of all the excitement. It is something I emphasize in many of my presentations because it can help bring back serenity and especially more empathy. Of course, there are groups on both end of the spectrum that are not interested in mutual understanding. For them, it is all about “my way or the highway”. It keeps people busy, but it is not helpful to prepare for the future.

Colored light waves representing red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, and violet with their wavelengths in nanometers

What does cause the conflicts? You guessed it from the title of this post: definitions. All the conversations -and discussions- always hit the same problem. Not only are we all subjective to some extent, and here are many reasons why we look at the world in different manners, we often end up in such arguments because we assume that we talk about the same thing. That is a big mistake. As the famous joke says: “when you assume you make an ass of you and me”. (If you did not know this quote or do not get it, here is a hint: ass-u-me). What puzzles me is that artificial intelligence seems to show signs of subjectivity and to run on assumptions, too.

When I speak about topics that cause a rift between food producers and the public, I always like to make the audience wonder if they all have the same definition of particular words. I always like to remind professional audiences that, even in the same room, there is a good chance that not everybody has quite the same definition of such words. I am also not shy to tell them that there is a good chance that I do not have the same definition, either. And I conclude by making them aware that the general public, which does not have the technical background, is even more likely to have a totally different idea of what some of those word mean to them.

To illustrate my point, here are a number of examples of words and concepts that about everybody uses or hears countless times on a daily basis, for which the lack of clarity about what they actually mean for those saying or hearing them is a major source of conflict.

Let’s start with an old one: genetically modified organisms, the scary GMOs that used to be referred to as Frankenfoods, as a reference to the story of Dr. Frankenstein (actually, nowadays, the technology closest to that story regarding the use of living tissues to produce food would probably be cellular meat). Of course, the early attempts of inserting genes from fish into tomatoes were cause for concern, but that was a long time ago. Yet, the stigma on GMOs is still very vivid today. The thing is that genetic engineering has substantially evolved since then. Today’s genetic engineering covers a multitude of applications and painting all of the applications with the same brush is rather pointless. If people want to debate about GMOs, they need to be quite specific about which applications they are talking about, and discuss it on a case-by-case basis. Generalising will only lead to arguments and nobody will even be able to understand what the other side is saying. Definitions matter.

Sustainability is another of such concepts that have about as many meanings as there are people. It all depends on what you consider needs to be included in sustainability or not. This is fertile ground for many disappointments and accusations of greenwashing. Sustainability lives in the realm of subjectivity, and attempts to make it more objective is a delicate task. But the term of sustainability seems to have now become less ubiquitous. Probably, this is because another, sexier, term has arisen: regenerative agriculture. It sounds more practical and somehow less abstract, therefore less subject to criticism. Or is it? I ask the question because it seems that a non-negligeable part about the talk of regenerative agriculture is that nobody seems to be able to give a clear definition of the term, that different actors use different aspects of food production to promote themselves, but it seems that nobody can really demonstrate if the claims are really regenerative or not. So, we fall back in the same situation as with sustainability. The truth is in the eye of the beholder.

Another common concept is quality. What is quality? This is a question that I have heard all my life, both as a student and as a food and agriculture professional. Everybody claims to produce quality (I have never heard of anyone bragging that they sold crap). Yet, customers have very different opinions about whether a product is a quality one or not. It is just because quality is a very subjective concept. What some people consider quality, others would consider garbage, and they both might be right. To be able to agree, a definition, based on objective criteria, is an absolute requirement. Yet, this is difficult to put in place.

Among the currently ubiquitous buzzwords, here is another one that needs to be defined properly: ultra processed foods (UPFs). What does it mean exactly? There are attempts to define UPFs, but those are contested. Clearly, there is not even a consensus about how to define them. The problem is that, just like GMOs, foods called UPFs are a very diverse group and it is about impossible to give a definition that applies to all of them. Just like I said about GMOs, these products need to be looked at on a case-by-case basis. Generalizing will lead nowhere, except endless conflicts and arguments. Just for starters, where is even the line between processed and ultra processed? What does make a food product cross that line? There again, it might be possible to define it and assess it on an individual basis. What we really need to focus on is whether a food product is detrimental to health and also under which conditions. How much, how often do people need to eat them to get sick? Is there a problem if you eat it once a year? Once a month? Once a day? Many lines to draw, really.

The same thing can be said for much more mundane products. What is good bread and not? What is good meat and not? What is good cheese and not? What are good strawberries and not? And so on, and so on. Similarly, what does natural really mean? What is authentic?

I mentioned meat. Let’s talk protein! If there is a popular topic these days, that probably would be it. Today, many people, not least in the animal products industries, use the term protein instead of meat. Yet, meat is not just protein. Actually, the main component is water, about 60% of the raw product. Depending on the type of meat and the cut, meat can also contain a substantial amount of fat. Ah, fat, the f-word everybody loves to hate, which is why it is tempting to reduce meat to protein only. The problem with this is that hushing about fat does not make it disappear. But is fat a problem at all? On that point, too, opinions vary. Of course, they vary because it all depends on how much you eat and what the quality of the fat is. The thing is, and I am frustrated time and time over to see that many people in animal productions do not seem to know that the fatty acids profile in the animal product can be influenced by the fatty acids profile of the feed that the animals eat. They are missing a great opportunity. Of course, fat sources in animal feed vary in price and quality. The only industry that really focus on that profile is the salmon farming, and for a simple reason. They have to compete against wild salmon, which is rich in omega-3 fatty acids. They have to find feed ingredients that can help match the omega-3 content of wild salmon. If not, it would affect the image of the product.

Since I am talking about fatty acids profile, I should talk about the amino acids profile, and in particular the essential amino acids profile. Protein is popular, but not all proteins are equal. From a nutritional point of view, we need to get enough of all the essential amino acids every day. So, it is not just a matter of having them all, it is also a matter of enough and balance. That, unfortunately, is not always the case. Clearly, a clear definition of protein is important. Some protein sources are of high quality, and some are not. Make sure that you look beyond the word protein to make your choice. To give so extreme examples about what bad or useless protein could be, I would mention hair and finger nails which are made of keratin, a protein, but which have zero nutritional value, so forget about biting your nails as a supplement. The other example would be prions, which are also part of the protein family. The problem with prions is that they are the cause of diseases, the most famous of which is the “mad cow” disease, as well as its human equivalent of the Creutzfeld-Jacob disease.

So, you see, we use many words in a general sense while they often cover many different situations, and if we are not clear about what they mean exactly to us, we end up talking about different things and cannot agree on anything, and as a result we do not really make well=thought decisions. When we skip the definition part of the conversation, we are just debating assumptions and perceptions. It is not a genuine dialog. If you look at it, that is pretty much politics. It certainly is not what we need the most: collaboration.

As you see, if we truly are working on solving problems and building a better future, we need to make sure that we are on the same wave length as early as possible in the conversation. Only then, do we really know what we are debating and when we do that, we can make progress better and faster. And if the outcome is that we should agree to disagree, at least by doing so we do not create bad blood. That, in turn, allows the conversation to resume and to continue. Isn’t it what we need most?

255. Communication: Humanity and Authenticity make for Effective Conversations

Posted on December 10, 2025 by Christophe Pelletier

As usual, listen here to a Chrome AI-generated podcast-type playback of this article:

The original non-AI generated article follows below:

A question that I get regularly is: “How to communicate effectively with the general public about food and agriculture?” My answer usually surprises the person who asked the question. I guess it is because it sounds simple. Yes, shouldn’t the answer to that question be a complicated one, preferably? Well, what I recommend has worked for me all my professional life, in which I also would include my coming from a butcher’s family and having interactions with customers in the shop or on the market when I was a kid.

My answer is: Start a conversation!

It surprises them, and that in turn always surprises me. Then, the following question I get is: “How do you start a conversation?” My usual answer to this seems to even puzzle them more: “Say hello and see what happens next!” Apparently, this often seems to sound like a scary idea. Don’t ask me why because I do not know. Yes, every good conversation begins with “Hello!”. I will continue with how the conversation can succeed later in this post. First, I would like to quickly review the issue of trust with the general public.

The general public has lost trust but there is hope

The issue of trust is not new, but it certainly has strongly deteriorated over the past decade, mostly because of all the disinformation and the weirdest nonsense that social media have helped to spread. For most people, it has become quite difficult, if not impossible, to sort out what is true and what is not, and who can be trusted and who cannot. The public does not trust anything or anyone anymore, be it politics, industry, business, non-profits, mainstream media and even social media. Let’s face it, they are right to think that way. All those parts of society have done an amazing job of losing credibility on an almost daily basis.

In the past, I posted an article and a YouTube video on the issue of trust, (see at bottom of this article) in which I indicated that trust is about safety and that any confusion creates fear. The good news is that an antidote exists for fear: hope.

The general public does not trust. In the case of food and agriculture, this applies particularly to entities that they cannot really identify with a person. The public really craves for humanity. Putting a human face on a farm or a business makes a huge difference. If the industry seems to be a faceless “thing”, they will not trust. Dehumanization is a trust killer, and not just in food and agriculture, but in all aspects of daily life.

Even though this sounds gloomy, it is not all lost. The public does not trust but it would love to know. They would really like to find someone who could explain to them how things truly are and whom they could trust. The large majority of the public are interested in hearing how food is produced and why it is produced the way it is. Many people are open to hear about how it is done. What they do not want to hear anymore is all the disinformation, the misinformation and all the communication lies from all sides. The members of the public have their opinions about food and agriculture. They have beliefs, which sometimes are correct and sometimes are incorrect. Beliefs are tricky. Much research has been done on beliefs and why people stick to them. One recurrent conclusion is that beliefs always trump facts and science. If you tell people a story that goes against their beliefs, their natural reaction will be to not believe you, even if what you tell is the truth and their beliefs are false. Beliefs give people structure and values. Taking the beliefs away feels to them like their world collapses, and they cannot have that. Probably, none of us, including me, can have that. So, if beliefs always trump facts, how to convince them of the truth if it is not what they believe?

Facts and science are the favorite approach of food and agriculture communication specialists. And for all my life, I have seen this approach fail over and over again. The reason? What I just wrote about beliefs vs. facts and science. It fails every time and yet, they keep doing it. Sounds absurd? Well, not so much so, because of what I just wrote about beliefs. Communication operatives believe that facts and science are what the public needs to know. You can show the communicators facts that prove that facts and science is the wrong approach, they will not believe you. And here it is: I have come full circle on the topic of beliefs vs. facts. But then, industry communication specialists will ask what they can talk about if they should not talk about facts and science.

The way to do it

The public wants to know but they do not trust anyone. That sounds like an impossible equation to solve. Not really. The fact that they do not trust anyone does not mean that they cannot get information. Actually, information is everywhere, especially with all of today’s tools. What they do, and the way they want to do it, is to search for the truth themselves. They do not want a guide, and that is quite an adventure. They will find all sorts of points of views and their opposites. So how can they choose the right -and truthful- sources?

I like to tell that getting trusted with communication is like dating. Who goes on a first date with a lengthy pack of slides to show all the facts about themselves, such as health records or bank statements? Some people probably do, but it does not seem like the way to go, does it? No, the first contact is just that. If you communicate about your activities, always assume that people are not necessarily interested in knowing everything all at once. Most probably have never heard of you and they want to get acquainted first, before going into details.

Rule #1: Do not be pushy or aggressive! Say hello and see how the conversation goes. The purpose is not to convince or win an argument. The purpose is to create a connection and generate interest. The convincing will come later. Just let the public know you exist, that you are interesting and that you are there if they want to ask you questions. Communication is much more effective when you answer questions. The reason is simple. The questions are precisely about what the public wants to know. If you tell a story without knowing if it is interesting to the audience, there is a good chance that you will not address what they want you to address.

Rule #2: Be likable! It is a quality that goes along with rule #1, but it is more than that. The success of communication is not about the amount of information but it is about the quality of the interaction. Effective communication is first and foremost about connecting. The public needs to like the communicator, because if they do not, there will be no second date. Then, it is game over. The public will go with someone else. It is interesting to note that industries generally never have any popular celebrity to communicate for them, while activist organizations can pull actors, singers, models and other rich and famous to speak for them. The life background of celebrities often explains why they are on the side of activists. There are usually good reasons and they have nothing directly to do with the issue, but that is another story that I might tell in a future post. Any way, long story short: likable people win the communication war.

Rule #3: Relax! What always strikes me is how Pavlovian communication often is. All it takes is a little attack, a little controversy and immediately, there comes the facts and science stuff again. Stay cool and think first if it is a battle worth being fought. Does it deserve a response? Most stuff on social media has a lifespan shorter than a mayfly. Choose your battles carefully and use your time and energy wisely. Often, silence is the most powerful weapon. Often, rabble rousing is just a way of getting visibility and get trendy by using you to do that very work, thanks to algorithms. Silence is kryptonite to people who crave attention. If a response is necessary, it is most powerful when it is short and concise. Repeating consistently the same message also works well. The message eventually gets through. No need for tangents.

Rule #4: Be confident! You know your stuff and that must be crystal clear for the audience. You are the expert, but always be humble. The public must be the ones who conclude that you are indeed the expert. It is always much more powerful to let the audience conclude than trying to tell them what they should think. Actually, the latter will kill any authority you are trying to build. Haven’t we all had bosses who had to always tell they were the bosses every time there was a disagreement? See the similarity? Remember, you are cool and relaxed. That makes people feel comfortable.

Rule #5: Be respectful, always! First be respectful of the public’s opinions. They have good reasons to think the way they think, even if they are wrong. These are their reasons, not yours. Make clear to the audience that you know their opinions and that you respect them. That will earn you respect, and that is the foundation for trust. In the process of connecting, it is also quite valuable to go through a number of agreements to disagree, all in full respect. It is impossible to agree with everyone all of the time. Just take your time and move one small agreement at a time, and say thank you for the good conversation. Make sure the public will be looking forward to a next conversation. Be human, that will make you likable.

The way not to do it

Error #1: Long technical stories. In this age of short attention span, the shorter the communication the better. So, keep it short! Besides, when it comes to make a point, short is much more powerful than long stories. Ideally, pictures are much more powerful than words. They can carry many subliminal messages. This is why activists use the power of images and of associations so much. Unfortunately, the industry has a tendency to linger on with their facts. Long stories full of facts, science and beautiful busy charts work only when the industry speaks to the industry. That is preaching to the choir. The audience is already an ally. This is not communication with the general public. This kind of communication would work mostly with nerds, but that is not really the general public. Most people are not food and agriculture insiders. They do not have a specialized background in those areas. When flooded with technical information, most people will unplug and do something else. This kind of communication is not likable.

Error #2: The boring school teacher. The important thing to keep in mind about the public, especially younger generations, is the need for a strong dose of entertainment. They love it. Actually, they crave it. Communication and connection must feel like a game. It is learning by playing. It needs to include a playful element. This can be the nature of the dialogue or it can be the medium or platform used to communicate. The entertainment value will strongly impact the quality of the interaction. What does not work well is the opposite of entertainment: the boring lecture. It does not work because it is boring and because it feels like a lecture. It feels like “all work and no play” and that, as the saying goes, is dull. The feeling of lecture is always reminiscent of school. It makes the public members feel like there is a power distance. A sure way to create that distance is to start the conversation with “Did you know…?” For most people, this makes them feel like they are treated as ignorant and as inferior, and that does not create friends. Once again, it makes the communication perceived as not likable. Recently, in a presentation, I told an industry audience that boring technical communication makes them sound like PBS, while the public prefers to watch reality TV. The comparison is rather accurate. PBS is quite interesting if you set your mind on serious educative material. Personally, I always found that PBS had excellent programming, but that is just for a certain public at certain times. Having fun is important in life. The trick is to make educative material fun. That should be priority #1 for communicators.

Error #3: Denial. An important mistake not to make, that the industry makes time and time over, is to rush into denial. Don’t, especially if the issue is a complex one! It is much better to acknowledge that the issue is indeed one that floats around and that you are aware of it. The difference with upfront denial is that it does not sound defensive. Just that acknowledgment already defuses tension, which is important when you want to have a fruitful conversation. Tension kills a conversation because, when tense, people do not listen. They shift into Pavlovian mode. One word and there is the trigger for confrontation, instead of connection. Most of the fights around food and agriculture, or any industry or even opinions, is that nothing is really black and white. A lot of the differences of opinions are in the grey areas, in the nuance. Unfortunately, polarization does not like grey because grey and nuance undermine polarization. Yet, the debate needs nuance badly, and most of the general public knows that. The key for effective communication is to avoid the trap of polarization and shift into nuance, but well thought-out and solid nuance, that is.

Error #4: Being self-centered. Avoid, the tendency to talk about yourself or about only about your industry or company when dealing with controversy. When communicating, the most important person is the recipient. If you are a communicator, communication is never and never must be about you. Communication is a sales process. The public is the customer. The communicator sells a point of view, an opinion, an angle. For this very reason, communication must be market-oriented. Usually, communicators do not think nor act that way. Instead, they have a production-oriented approach. It does not work well. It is much more effective to communicate to the public about what the public is interested in than trying to push a message that does not align with their curiosity. This is why, just like a skilled salesperson does with a buyer, it is essential to start with hello and ask questions about what the “customer” is looking for. Do not talk about you, your company or your industry because that is not what the public wants to hear. Instead, find out what is important to them and come with an answer that meets their needs and show them why your point of view is valuable to them. Start by looking at the world from their perspective and then, let them see the world from yours. This creates empathy and mutual understanding. Take the time it deserves. Forcing the process will only work against you. Trust me, this approach is very likable and will deliver many dividends.

Error #5: The sound of PR. This is lethal for communication. Keep in mind that everybody knows how public relations sounds. They hear it all the time from businesses, from industries or from politicians. The sound of PR, with its techniques to twist facts, to say half truths and to spin reality is well-known. The sound of PR is what has destroyed trust in everything, as I mentioned at the beginning of this article. The public knows it and the public loathes it. So. forget the mechanics and the techniques that make you sound like a predictable robot. There is a chance that you are more transparent than you think. To be likable, use the very opposite of the technical stuff: humanity and authenticity. You will not believe how much you can achieve with them.

Further, if you are interested, I also have a playlist about communication on my YouTube channel:

Next week: Let’s not Take Food for Granted! Understanding Food Security this Holiday Season

Like it or not, emotions come first when connecting with the public and consumers!

Posted on December 7, 2024 by Christophe Pelletier

Listen here to a Chrome AI-generated podcast type playback of the original article

With this post, I am going to start a new format on this blog. Since a growing number of people now prefer videos or audio to reading, I will post here the videos that I shoot, accompanied by the transcript of the video. I will try to make the videos relatively short, so that they can fit within the current level of attention span of most readers and viewers. You will tell me if this has been a good idea. My videos will also take a slightly more opiniated tone that my previous works. You can see all of my past videos on my YouTube channel.

To launch this new format, here is a topic that I have presented at conferences before, and that has been well received. I explain why emotions come first when communicating with the public. I also explain that beliefs always trump facts and science and why it is essential to focus first on the emotions of consumers to have an effective connection and gaining the public’s trust.

You know in agriculture there is one topic that comes back regularly in the conversation and it is how to connect and how can we really get the consumers listen to us and every time.

I’ve been involved in those conversations and I met the same problem.

The problem is that the industry of course is basically production-driven. It’s a technical activity and they always go back to the science and to the facts. I always tell them: you know beliefs always trump facts; beliefs always trump science. If the facts you present, even if they’re totally true, but it goes against the beliefs of the people who listen to you, they will say: Nah, I don’t believe that and that’s it. And then, you do not succeed.

So, how can you really get the message across? And what I say all the time is you have to connect you must not focus only on communicating; you must connect. Not connecting like it is on social media, I follow you and you follow me. That’s not connecting just teenage dreams.

To me, connecting means that you have to really get at the same level; and when we deal with issues, especially resistance in agriculture, we basically deal with emotional issues. That’s always the thing: people are all emotions but [we bring up] “the science says” or “the facts are”

The problem is that when you deal with emotions, you cannot talk about science and facts; you cannot bring the discussion at a rational level as long as you have not basically helped the other person process their emotions as long as you have not connected at that emotional level.

There is one thing that I’ve written in my second book and I give an example. I say imagine you have a child who has a nightmare and he’s screaming. The parents are coming in the bedroom and say: ok, what’s going on? and the child is all screaming and he say: there is a green monster under my bed and he wants to eat me.

Then, I say, here is exactly what you must do and what you must not do. What good parents would do is, well, they take the child in their arms. They would try to comfort him; they try to make him feel safe, bring a feeling that, you know, we’re here for you, don’t worry. If the monster comes, then we’re going to deal with the monster and then you basically ask the kid: ok what happened exactly? Now where is the monster? where is the monster? and says it is under my bed.

OK, and then, bit by bit, through questions you help the child to get the story out, and then you’re going to go and have a look under the bed. First, you can say: OK I’m going to have a look under the bed, you stay here you’re safe here let me have a look!

And then you can say: OK, I don’t see anything. You can take a stick, you know, a broomstick and under the bed and the child will see that the broomstick passes through and through under the bed and there is nothing probably and then, bit by bit, you’re going to be able to bring the child. Even, if you want. you say OK let’s have a look together under the bed and then that’s how you bring basically that very high emotional situation into a more rational one, bit by bit and then the child is going to realize there is no green monster under the bed. Then he’s going to feel safer, but it’s very possible that he doesn’t want to go in in the bed, or you can say: OK we’re going to leave the light on, or okay you come and sleep with us tonight. And tomorrow, we’ll have a good look at that and we’ll make sure that you know there is no monster at all. That’s the right way to do things. It’s connecting at the emotional level and, bit by bit, know making the child realize that it was just mostly in his in his head and it’s not real.

What unfortunately in my opinion the industry in food agriculture but all industries do is basically say to the child: “well, science has demonstrated that there are no such thing as green monsters living under children’s beds and eating them, so go back to bed because there is no reason for you to worry!”

But when you do that well what’s going to happen well your child is going of course he’s going to scream and to not trust you anymore. What do you expect? If you treat the emotions of a child that way, he is not going to trust you anymore. Unfortunately, because it’s not just about children having nightmares, in the industry if we want to really connect with consumers, if we really want to regain that trust, we have to connect first at that emotional level and only once we have done that, and bit by bit brought the conversation bit by bit, bit by bit, back to more a rational level, then we will be able to pass our message.

But, if we want to fight emotions with science and with facts, [if it is about] the message of the industry versus the emotions of the public, you will never win, so forget it! Don’t spend your money on PR on communication if that’s what you want to do. No, you have to have a little bit of empathy and you have to really help the consumers understand what you’re doing. You have to basically take the fear away but you have to do it bit by bit, both at emotional level and at the rational level.

Introducing two new services: Regaining Trust – Second Opinion

Posted on April 2, 2024 by Christophe Pelletier

It is just a month away from the 15^th anniversary of The Food Futurist. In the course of these years, it has become increasingly clear to me that some areas need more attention and effective action for the food and agriculture sector to remain successful. Indeed, the future of food and agriculture is not just about what cute robots will do in the future and what funky foods scientists will figure out. It is much broader than that. It is about making the right things happen. In the end, it is not just about producing foods, but it is to produce them in ways that have a future, and also to sell them to increasingly critical and discerning consumers. This milestone anniversary seems like just the perfect opportunity for me to reflect and reshuffle my services to some extent. By doing this exercise, I have decided to introduce two new areas of services by May 1^st 2024. These are areas where many organizations miss opportunities. These are also two areas in which I am quite qualified, for having delivered strong performance in my professional career.

The first one is centered on Regaining Trust

It is no secret that trust is eroding in many areas. It happens with politics, with traditional media and even with some social media outlets, and it happens with food producers, especially the larger companies. One of the challenges that many food and agriculture organizations have been facing for decades is the loss of trust from consumers. The reasons why are many. Some are justified and some are not. Regardless of that, the loss of trust is a challenge that is becoming more and more difficult to overcome. In my career, I have had to deal with this problem in many occasions, but I always found ways of breaking the vicious circle of mistrust. In my opinion, the difficulty for organizations is not so much that people distrust some food producers, as it is to find the right way of addressing the issue and of truly creating a connection for a further conversation. PR does not work all that much anymore, simply because about everyone knows how it sounds and spot the communication exercise in action, which further erodes trust. Also, the timing is too often wrong and it makes the connection much more difficult. As a practitioner of martial arts for many years, I also see attempts to regain trust much more as an exercise in strength as one in flexibility and agility, and that is usually a losing tactic.

As a teaser, here are the pillars that we will use to build the tailor-made programs. You need to Relate

R: Respect

E: Empathy

L: Listening

A: Authenticity

T: Truth/Transparency

E: Exchange

Trust is essential for an organization in order to have a solid future. In this respect, I believe that it fits very well with the activities of The Food Futurist.

The second area of service will be Second Opinion

From what I have seen during my professional life, I believe that this is the kind of service that most organizations need. The number of strategic errors or implementation planning missteps that happen every day is there to prove that getting a second opinion is not a luxury, but in fact can prevent many costly mistakes.

Sometimes, it is about getting things done in some rush to meet a deadline. Sometimes it is about an excess of optimism and self-confidence. Sometimes it is the lack of a new eye. You name it. There are many reasons why an organization overlooks some details, or is becoming somehow blind out of habit, or is too eager to jump an anything that looks like a trend out of fear of missing out. An independent and objective second opinion can save many headaches.

I see this service quite useful for established businesses, but also for young companies, and also for investors who might benefit from a second opinion before risking their money in the wrong concept.

This service, too, deals with the future and as such fits quite well with the activities of The Food Futurist. The format and scope of this service will be adaptable and tailor-made for the specific needs of the client.

Launching my YouTube channel

Posted on October 27, 2023 by Christophe Pelletier

It was something that I have had on my mind for some time but I will admit I have been guilty of procrastination. In the past, I had placed some videos on a YouTube channel but I had not pursued that avenue. These videos are actually still there and you can find them in different areas of this website. Since I have no recollection of how to access that old account and I have not been able to retrieve the necessary information, I have just decided to create a new one, called -you’ll never guess- “The Food Futurist”.

My purpose with this channel is to post short videos, of three to five minutes maximum, in which I will share my thoughts on whichever topic I will find useful. Of course, if anyone of you wishes me to address one particular subject, I will be happy to listen to your requests. My goal is primarily to provoke some thoughts from the viewers and have them reflect on some issues. It is meant to be entertaining, and hopefully informative as well. I am not interested in playing influencer.

You might wonder why am I doing this? I have several reasons:

I do keynote presentations on a regular basis. Therefore, a large part of my professional activities is about speaking. Sharing videos are just a logical step.
More and more, people prefer watching videos rather than reading. Perhaps, this is because watching is more convenient and requires less effort. Anyway, once again, videos are a logical step.
From my end, making short videos off the cuff requires less time for me than elaborating a written article. Also, since I am still in the process of writing the book on value marketing that I mentioned in a previous post, I can use a different form of communication with you.
Having my own channel will allow me to share my thoughts in a direct and (almost) uncut manner. It is more authentic and genuine. I have been regularly interviewed by media outlets since the beginning of this website (2009) and my works as “The Food Futurist”. I always found that exercise frustrating because the interviews last between half an hour and an hour but in the end, the journalists extract just a few sentences in their final articles. Then, most of what I said does not make it to their readers. The excerpts tend to miss context as they are isolated from the rest of what we discussed. Also, and perhaps the most frustrating is that usually the excerpts are not the most important and useful bits of what I told them. They are just the ones that resonate with the particular audience of that media outlet, and the interview ends up producing just a few catchy or trendy statements. At least with my own channel, I control the content, from producer to consumer.

Swimming in circles – Part II: BC salmon farmers are proud!

Posted on December 9, 2010 by Christophe Pelletier

In Swimming in circles, I was mentioning that salmon farmers should communicate more about their people, their work and the pride of doing what they do. My article had caught their attention, as I have several contacts and retweets and other things of the same nature. I do not know if my article is the cause, or if communicating pride was in the works anyway, but over the last few days, I have seen quite a number of messages and blogs on that very theme. Of course, this made me curious and I clicked on the links. The titles were clear: they are proud of being salmon farmers, but the text comes a bit short of communicating the passion. That is too bad. I had expected better.

I do not think that the message will reach the public this way. What the salmon farmers need to do is to come over here to Vancouver and talk to people in the street. Only by having personal contact, will they have a true chance of convincing the passers-by. One of the reasons why the environmentalists are successful is exactly because they go to the people to bring their message. They ask you in the street if you have a minute to talk about whatever it is they want to talk to you. The salmon superheroes that I was mentioning in that previous article of mine understand that communication is a contact sport. They went to the offices of the salmon farming companies in Campbell River to hand over the (super?) condoms, even if that meant having to deal with the company’s security officer.

I know to ideal spots in Vancouver for such interaction with the public about salmon farming. The first one is in Kitsilano, at the corner of 4^th Avenue and Vine Street. There is the Capers Community Market (now owned by USA’s Whole Foods Market). This is a store selling many organic food items, sometimes for twice the price as at the Canadian Superstore, for the very same items. Environmentally conscious Kitsilano shoppers are quite eager to pay the voluntary eco-tax (Unless in their case it is the ego-tax. Not sure). Interesting details: the David Suzuki Foundation, a strong opponent of salmon farming in open nets, has its offices in the very same block as this store. Great way of killing two birds with one stone.

The second spot is the Fishermen Wharf, near Granville Island. Fishermen sell their catches there to the same ecgo-tax volunteers. The public is welcome there with a sign telling “Friends don’t let friends eat farmed salmon” and other similar “friendly” slogans. After all, fishermen are proud, too.

Swimming in circles

Posted on November 21, 2010 by Christophe Pelletier

If there is a never-ending feud in the food industry, the one here in British Columbia (BC) about farmed salmon certainly should be put on top of the list. The fight between salmon farmers and environmentalists has been going on for as long as the industry has been around, and it looks as if it will keep lasting for a long time to come.

In previous articles, I have addressed some of my views about the poor perception of some areas of food production and the inability of the industry to connect. The BC salmon industry certainly seems to have difficulties to fight this battle.

I still do not quite understand why they have such a hard time. On the other hand, maybe I just do know too well why.

The controversy is much fiercer in BC than it is in other farmed salmon producing countries. Perhaps, this is because BC farms salmon in the only region where wild salmon is still quite abundant, and this region of the world is still a direct interface between wilderness and human activity.

Opponents of salmon farming came out last week with “superheroes” who were going to put things right of course. Here is their website. Clearly, some people have a lot of imagination. Another PR event was the release, also last week, by the salmon farming industry of a 30-minute video, titled Silver Harvest, that would put things right of course. Here is the link to Silver Harvest. These two recent PR activities made me come to write the following lines.

I have not so much to say about the superheroes stunt, except that their creators are a bit short on sense of humor and of creativity. Captain Condom? Batman and Spider-Salmon? Come on, anyone can do better than that. Since they are there to save the wild salmon, the least they could have done is to give the names of the wild Pacific salmon. I had expected Captain Sockeye, Lady Pink, King Chinook, Mighty Coho and Superchum instead. Unless they are stuck in teen years, they sound more like Halloween pranksters.

The industry video was announced with lots of fervor by industry tweets and I was curious to see if finally they would reach the hearts of the public. There, too, I ended disappointed. After a good start, a farmers’ crew sailing to the farms, I thought they would glorify the farmer’s job by showing a typical day at the farm. Not really. The video then focused about how many mistakes the industry made in the past, making me think that, after all, the industry opponents were right to be as active as they had been. I am not going to go in details about a number of statements that made me raise my eyebrows. I prefer to express here what I would like this industry to communicate, instead of the constant defensiveness, the constant reference to facts and science that do not interest the public. Is this video aimed at the public? I am not sure it is, and I am not sure it should be. Who are farmed salmon consumers? For BC farmed salmon, they are mostly North American consumers, and to a lesser extent Japanese and other Asian nationals. Are these consumers concerned about the type of containment system? Hardly. They hardly care where the fresh salmon they buy in stores comes from. With Chile’s ISA epidemics problem that about decimated their production, consumers shifted to Norwegian and BC farmed salmon massively without any further concerns. When Chile’s production returns to previous levels, they will switch back to Chilean salmon just as easily. One of the most important criteria for consumers is the price in the store. Most consumers have no idea how farmed salmon is produced. Only a tiny minority of consumers know, and those who allegedly care do not eat farmed salmon anyway.

I would have liked to see the video showing all the tasks carried out on a farm. I would have loved to see the camera follow a farmer explaining what viewers could see going on on-site, explaining them what they do and why they do it. I would have enjoyed seeing the pride of being a salmon farmer and of providing people with food. Farms employees are good people who want to do a good job that is meaningful to society. They should say very clearly once and for all that they do not accept to be stigmatized and ostracized. They are family people. They have kids to feed and to bring up. They must make clear that no group of society that has the monopoly of morals and ethics. They have to say that enough is enough, and that they deserve respect, even if some do not agree with what they do for a living. A couple of years ago, an email from one of the environmentalists stated that “it is so much fun to torment the salmon farmers”. Harassment is not a sign of superior intelligence. Salmon farmers must also state that if people have ideas to improve production while also ensuring economic activity, they are open to suggestions, but that only constructive and productive criticism is acceptable. The public would understand that.

I wish the video had shown all the steps of production from the egg to the delivery to the final consumers. The content would have been similar, but it would have told an enthusiastic story that could have ended with a group of friends having a blast at a barbecue party with some farmed salmon on the grill. They could have addressed the very same topics but, instead of vague statements of being sustainable, responsible, etc…, well the usual politically correct stuff, they had the opportunity with Silver Harvest to show specifically the precise actions that they have taken, and demonstrate the improvements they made. Thus, the viewers would have seen firsthand the daily activities that ensure that the fish they produce indeed meet all the standards that they claim to use. That does not really happen in Silver Harvest. Instead, I got to listen to a list of topics without real cohesiveness between each other and the announced purpose of the video. People do not like to be told how they should think. They love to come to the conclusions themselves. They do not like being lectured. The public is not stupid, just ignorant. After all, no group has the monopoly of knowledge and science. In Silver Harvest, the speaker who, in my view, would reach the public’s hearts is Richard Harry, President of the Aboriginal Aquaculture Association. He made such a clear and strong plea for the communities that depend so much on aquaculture for their livelihoods.

Too few consumers have a chance to visit a salmon farm, especially considering how far away from farms they live. The camera could have been their eyes. Most people with whom I have talked about farmed salmon in Vancouver simply tell me that they know nothing about salmon farming, but they hear “things”. I always enjoy telling them how farmed salmon is produced, about the good things as well as the areas for improvement. After such a conversation, they usually look at the issue with a different perspective. They are interested in learning more, but they need to know that they can trust the one telling them the story.

Talking spontaneously from the heart about one’s passion is what reaches and wins others’ hearts the best.

How to attract people to food production?

Posted on October 18, 2010 by Christophe Pelletier

With the population increase, food production becomes an increasingly strategic activity. Yet, the food sector does not seem to have the appeal it deserves, and attracting new people appears to be a challenging task.

In countries where the percentage of the active population in agriculture is low, many young people simply have never had any exposure to food production. Their food knowledge is limited to their visits to the local supermarket. Since one can love only what one knows, this seriously restricts the number of potential candidates. In a previous article, “Who will be the farmers of the future?“, I had already asked the question of who would be the farmers of the future. To get the attention of the youth, the food sector needs to become more visible and more approachable. There is a need for more interaction between education and visits to farms and food processors. As I mentioned in “Nutrition basics should be taught in school”, such activities should be part of the normal curriculum. Understanding food is understanding Nature, and understanding Nature is understanding who we are. Food, together with water and air, is the one thing that we cannot live without. This should make clear beyond any doubt how important food production and food supply are for the future of our species.

To attract new people to the food sector, it is also quite important to tell what kind of jobs this sector has to offer. These jobs need to be not only interesting, but they also must offer the candidates the prospect of competitive income, long-term opportunities, and a perceived positive social status. Many students have no idea about the amazing diversity of jobs that agriculture (including aquaculture) and food production have to offer. This is what both the sector and the schools must communicate. Just to name a few and in no particular order, here are some of the possibilities: farming, processing, logistics, planning, sales, marketing, trade, operations, procurement, quality, customer service, IT, banking and finance, nutrition (both animal and human), agronomy, animal husbandry, genetics, microbiology, biochemistry, soil science, ecology, climatology, equipment, machinery, fertilizers, irrigation, consumer products, retail, research, education, plant protection, communication and PR, legal, management, knowledge transfer, innovation, politics, services, etc… Now, you may breathe again!

All these types of activities offer possibilities for work that can be both local and international. These jobs can be indoor or outdoor occupations. Employers are both small and large businesses. Jobs are available in industries, in government agencies, in not-for-profit organizations. Agriculture and food are about life science, and life science is about life. Not many economic sectors can offer such a broad choice of professions.

This said, getting more students in the field of food production will require relentless communication about the present situation as well as about future perspectives. It is necessary for colleges and universities to envision the future. Educating students today must help making them operational for the challenges of the future. Education is nothing less than developing the human resources that will increase the prosperity, the stability and the dynamics of the society of tomorrow. Attracting new students goes further than just agriculture and food production at large. Within food production, every sector also competes to attract new people. Some healthy competition should benefit the whole food chain.

Clearly, there is a need to identify future trends, future challenges and future needs to produce better food and more food. This will require a practical approach. Identify future needs is not an intellectual exercise. It is about providing people with food on a daily basis for the years to come. Identifying future challenges is a team effort between education, research, farmers, businesses and governments. All must work together to create a more secure future. If we want to avoid suboptimal solutions, there cannot be walls between the links of the food production chain.

In my opinion, the most effective way to work towards developing the proper curriculum and attracting students for the jobs of the future is to have a market-driven approach. The question is not only what type of jobs will be needed, but also where will they be needed? To be effective in this process, it is necessary to develop a vision of the things to come for the coming 10 to 20 years, which is the purpose of The Food Futurist (see mission statement). In our fast-changing world, today already belongs to the past. Developing a curriculum on current issues will not prepare students properly for their professional lives, and neither will it serve society properly. Only by identifying what skills will be needed is it possible to offer the best job perspectives for future food professionals, and being able to overcome future challenges. And feeding 9 billion people by 2050 is quite an objective! Identifying the challenges of the future indicates where the best job opportunities are. The action plans to develop tomorrow’s curricula will depend greatly on geographic location. Clearly, India will face with very different demographic, environmental and economic situations than North America, Europe or Brazil will. However, when it comes to food, we will become even more globally interdependent than we are today. This offers many opportunities to train people for work abroad, too.

As my head teacher in Animal Production, the late Julien Coléou, taught us in the first lesson of our final year at the Institut National Agronomique Paris-Grignon: “To live is to learn, to create and to fight”. When it comes being prepared for the future, these three pillars of life all need to be on the curriculum.

Regaining the consumer’s trust

Posted on September 29, 2010 by Christophe Pelletier

I read many blogs, articles and opinions about food on a regular basis. Yesterday, I came across an interesting blog post on Meatingplace.com. Yvonne Vizzier Thaxton, an authority in the US poultry industry, wrote the article, titled “Consumer trust” after she found out about a survey carried out by the Center for Food Integrity. Basically, the survey concluded that as farms were growing in size, consumers started to wonder if they still had the same values, and although small farms still have the public opinion’s trust, large-scale farms are looked at with suspicion.

That article brought me to think about trust, how it works, and what to do to win it back once it has been lost.

Instead of trying to figure out which group of the population to influence, as the author suggests, I prefer to go back to the basics. If I stop trusting someone, what would he/she have to do to convince me that he/she is trustworthy again? The empathic exercise is a much better way to find out what might work or not. In my opinion, that is exactly what the food sector should do first, instead of pushing the same message without much success.

First, people stops trusting when they are disappointed, when they feel betrayed or when they feel unsafe. By finding out which one of the above caused the loss of trust, and what more specific reasons made the public change their minds, the food sector will already make huge progress.

The second thing to keep in mind is regaining trust is even much more difficult than winning it in the first place. The baggage will stay in the way for a long time. Therefore, a lot of patience is required. There will be no quick fix. A cute video clip, well-thought press releases will not be enough. Far from it. Trust is not something that can be forced, it must be earned. Trust is the result of consistent and positive behavior that benefits the other party.

Once people have lost trust, per definition, they do not believe anything they hear from the distrusted party. In fact, they will hardly listen. Therefore, words will have little impact, unless they go along with actions that confirm that the message is true. If the food industry does not want to change and hopes that communication will be enough to change the public’s mind, nothing will change. When you want someone to prove to you that he/she is reliable, you want to see tangible proof that something is changing in your favor. The most powerful communication tool that really works for regaining trust is the non-verbal communication. The distrusted one must sweat to win trust back. This does not take away that verbal communication must continue. It will keep the relationship alive, but it will not be the critical part for turning around the situation.

Here is just an example to illustrate this. The US meat and poultry sector has undergone many recall procedures about bacterial contamination over the years, and at this day, this problem seems to continue. The industry takes measures to solve the problem, because such recalls are very costly, but as long as there will not be an obvious change in food safety, and recalls keep on happening, consumers will keep doubting how their meat is produced.

Food suppliers have no other choice than to listen to the consumers. The customer is always king. The customer is always right, even when he/she is wrong. A lot of this is about perception. Here is an example of the above. Last June, Greenpeace came with a ranking of Canadian retailers about their seafood procurement, and in particular about their sustainability score on seafood. Costco scored poorly, and their first reaction was to dismiss Greenpeace’s assessment, by basically saying that they are professionals who know what they do, and that they do not really need advice from Greenpeace. Yet, a few weeks later, Costco reorganized its seafood assortment from 15 species back to seven sustainably produced seafood species. That is successful non-verbal communication.

Regaining the consumers’ trust will require transparency, integrity, honesty, a lot of patience and communication, and most of all action towards change that meet the market’s demand. This does not mean that all consumers wishes can be met. After all, life is a continuous negotiation. Food producers and the public need to meet somewhere halfway. Market-driven always trumps production-driven.

Involve in order to convince!

Posted on September 16, 2010 by Christophe Pelletier

A couple of days ago, I came across the following quote: “Tell me and I will forget, show me and I may not remember, involve me and I will understand”.

I cannot confirm who the author is, as it has been attributed to brilliant thinkers such as Confucius, Aristotle, Benjamin Franklin or an unknown Native American. It does not really matter.

This quote brought me to start thinking about what it could mean for the agricultural and food sectors, as they are under fire on a regular basis. Why cannot it convince the public of its message(s)?

Opponents of agribusiness tell a lot about their opinions, they also show a lot of pictures, documents or footage of what they criticize, and they certainly are very active involving as many people as they can. The agriculture and food sector, including aquaculture, also tells a lot, shows some, but not enough about their daily operations, and they seem to have a hard time involving enough outsiders of the industry.

I read many blogs and articles from both sides and I regularly come across the “agri-food” authors wondering why the public is so difficult to convince. After all, the industry claims to have the scientific facts that prove its points. The industry is wondering whether the difference in communication effectiveness is linked to budget amounts or whether it has to do with the quality of the PR officers from both sides. I do not think that it has much to do with either. I have concluded that it comes from the ability to make people understand the story. Therefore, it has to do the ability to involve the public with the industry.

To involve the public, it is necessary to create an emotional connection first. This is critical and, unfortunately for the agribusiness, this appears to be a difficult area. Indeed, how to connect with people who have little, if any, connection with the agricultural world and who rarely get to see the reality by themselves. Media and internet are the channels where they find information. Opponents of agriculture have an easier job in the sense that they want to change the system. The worst that can happen to them if they fail is the status quo. They win nothing, but they lose nothing, either. The industry is the one that has the most to lose. Generally, this translates into a defensive approach, and that does not communicate well. Per definition, being defensive means having lost the initiative. Only the ones who have the initiative can lead, and only the ones who lead have followers.

Connecting emotionally means exactly what it says. Rational arguments do not work. At least not until the connection is made. The typical response of the agri-food sector is about bringing scientific facts, but how to convince people who 1) do not trust you, 2) who are worried about their food and 3) who do not have the scientific knowledge to comprehend these scientific facts? Cold scientific explanations will not work. All this does is creating distance. Not ideal when you need to connect.

I always like to make a comparison with parents of children that just had a nightmare. The children’s fears are not rational, but they are quite real, as you certainly can remember. Normal parents try to comfort the children. And how do they do that? They ask what the problem is. They listen. They empathize. They tell the children that they will go with them to the bedroom and show them that there is no green monster hiding under the bed. They will lie down on the floor and look under the bed. Then, they will take the child to have a look, and that is involving the child! This is how they connect emotionally, which allows them to switch to rational arguments and get the child to go back to sleep. Of course, they will not close the door and leave a little light so that the child does not feel thrown back at the green monster again. They empathize again.

Do you think that telling the child that there is no scientific evidence of green monsters would work, or that research has showed that nightmares are not real? And do you think that dismissing the child’s fear as unfounded and therefore about stupid would work, although that is pretty much the truth? Of course, it would not work, and the child would remain fearful and possibly lose trust in the parents in such a case.

If the agribusiness wants to win the public’s trust, it will have go look under the bed and, together with the public, take a peek at it. The public could hardly care less for the industry’s scientific facts, but it cares about being listened to and being empathized with. Interesting challenge, is it not?