Facts, Fear and the Feed at Midwest AOAC Annual Meeting

Blake Ebersole Presents “Facts, Fear and the Feed: Why Food and Supplement Science Needs Better Context”

Food contaminants are suddenly everywhere in the public conversation.

Heavy metals. Pesticides. PFAS. Glyphosate. Mycotoxins. Microplastics. Residues. Allergens. Adulterants. The list keeps growing, and so does public concern.

That made the timing of the Midwest Section AOAC Annual Meeting from June 8-10, 2026 especially important. Held in Lafayette, Indiana – in the heart of the country’s dairy, corn, soy, tomato, egg, pumpkin, mint, and broader agricultural economy – the meeting brought together scientists, laboratories, industry leaders, and regulators working on one of the most important questions in food science today:

When something is detected, what does it actually mean?

That question sits at the center of modern food and supplement communication.

[DOWNLOAD “FACTS, FEAR AND THE FEED” PRESENTATION]

A laboratory finding by itself is not the same thing as a public health conclusion. Detection is not the same as danger. Hazard is not the same as risk. And a number without method, dose, exposure, matrix, uncertainty, and regulatory context can easily be misunderstood.

This is where AOAC’s role is so important.

AOAC member work helps ensure that a number is real, the method is valid, the result is reproducible, and the finding can be interpreted in context. Validated methods and reliable data are part of the public trust infrastructure behind food safety, supplement quality, and regulatory decision-making.

But in 2026, good measurement is no longer enough by itself.

Most consumers do not read validation reports, analytical method papers, or technical risk assessments. They get information from headlines, social media posts, short videos, and search results. By the time a scientific finding reaches the public, it may have passed through several layers of simplification, emotion, and incentive.

That is where misinformation often begins.

Not always with something completely false, but with something real placed in the wrong frame.

A lab finds a contaminant, and the message becomes: “Your food is toxic.”

An ingredient has a hazard at some extreme dose, and the message becomes: “This ingredient causes cancer.”

A regulatory agency opens a review, and the message becomes: “The whole category is corrupt.”

The problem is not that people are asking questions. They should ask questions. The problem is when valid concerns are detached from proportion, exposure, method quality, and practical meaning.

That was the focus of my talk at the Midwest Section AOAC meeting: “Facts, Fear and the Feed: Responding to Food and Supplement Misinformation With Context.”

The central challenge is this: misinformation is optimized for attention, while science is optimized for accuracy. We now have to communicate accurately inside systems built for attention.

That does not mean making science more sensational. It means making it more transmissible.

For food and supplement companies, laboratories, and trade organizations, this requires a different communication model. Technical accuracy still matters, but so does clarity. A good response to misinformation should:

1. Start with the claim people are already hearing.
2. Acknowledge the legitimate concern.
3. Identify the part that is true.
4. Separate the true issue from the false conclusion.
5. Explain the missing context: dose, exposure, method, matrix, limits, uncertainty, and risk.
6. End with one clear takeaway people can remember and repeat.

The goal is not to dismiss public fear. Dismissing fear usually makes it stronger. The better approach is to help people worry with the right questions.

Instead of asking, “Was something detected?” we should also ask:

–How much was detected?

–Was the method valid for that matrix?

–Was the result reproducible?

–How does the level compare with regulatory limits or typical background exposure?

–Is the concern based on hazard or actual risk?

–Who is the vulnerable population, if any?

–What action, if any, is appropriate?

These are the questions that turn a scary number into useful information.

For the food and supplement industries, this is no longer just a public relations issue. Misinformation can affect consumer trust, brand reputation, regulatory pressure, litigation risk, and the perceived credibility of entire categories. Companies and organizations should treat public misinformation as a business and quality risk, not just a communications nuisance.

That means developing internal guardrails for public communication, preparing accurate educational content before crises emerge, improving collaboration between technical and marketing teams, and supporting customers with clear explanations of what test results do and do not mean.

At NaturPro, this issue connects directly to our work in supplement quality, regulatory strategy, ingredient review, formulation, and public-facing scientific communication. Whether we are reviewing a formula, evaluating ingredient documentation, assessing contaminants, or helping companies respond to market concerns, the same principle applies:

Good science has to be measured correctly, but it also has to be communicated correctly.

If industry experts do not explain what a finding means, someone else will. And if we do not explain dose, exposure, method validity, limits, uncertainty, and risk, the feed will supply its own conclusion.

Somewhere between the technical report and the viral headline sits the credibility of the entire food and supplement system.

That’s where we have to do better.