Jon Stewart is a genius … but you knew that. On a recent show he weighed in on the whole pink slime thing, suggesting that instead of “pink slime” or “lean finely textured beef,” (its brand name) consumers should use the term “ammonia-soaked centrifuge separated byproduct paste.”
Sad life that I lead, I got to thinking more deeply about pink slime the other day. At a meeting of environmental leaders we got into a conversation of how to better communicate the need for strategies to adapt to Climate Change. We noted that often we use words and terminology that unintentionally evokes the wrong message and that the lexicon of environmental sustainability is rarely a positive or inspiring one. As I’ve said before, “recycle, reuse, reduce” feel way to close to “remorse, regret and regress”…hardly ways to get the troops fired up. Which brings me back to pink slime.
Lean finely textured beef, or LFTB*, has been around for years. For the last decade, it’s been in an estimated 70% of the ground beef we consume. And while the factories that produce it have been questioned over some of their health safety practices, by and of itself it won’t hurt you. Ironically, although it uses a gross sounding process, so beautifully captured by Stewart, the result of that process is to remove fat from the beef. So less fat should be good, right? Well, let’s not get sidetracked by scientific data here. As our pals at Food Safety News note, “In hindsight, the controversy surrounding the product serves as a reminder that food safety, a topic often viewed through the lenses of science and risk assessment, can never entirely escape politics and emotion.”
Ah yes…emotion…which brings me back to the genius of Jon Stewart. In one short phrase, he manages to pull some fabulous emotional triggers…let’s deconstruct. “Ammonia soaked”…personally, I’m somewhere between smelling a nasty old mop, and worrying about the danger of those eye stinging plastic bottles found way under the sink. “Centrifuge separated”…hey, don’t they do that to make NUCLEAR BOMBS! And finally, “byproduct paste”, which rhymes with waste and of course, stands for dog food…yummy. So indeed, the troops got fired up, our elected leaders became appalled, the pundits hit the blogosphere, and pink slime is likely slithering away into the annals of history. Well, at least it’s not being served at Mickey D’s any longer. And I’m not saying that this is a bad thing. There may be many valid reasons to have less pink slime in our lives…heck, I love how even saying the words makes me hate the stuff. It’s just that the reasons for that fear and loathing are not based on science, that’s all.
In the scientific communication field, there has been a lot of talk recently about the need to pay closer attention to branding and messaging. “Science’s future lies in its power to inspire, and inspiration does not come from desiccated academic jargon. Time to wise up to the power of the brand.” (New Scientist Oct 12, 2011). They’re right…sciency sounding stuff is confusing at best, scary at worst. When I tell you that enzymatic reactions converting nitrate to nitrites, aided by the introduction of micrococcus bacteria are part of making sausage, or that Sodium Ferrocyanide is a safe food additive, you may well blanch. We might even write our congressional representatives demanding protection from these awful sounding things. But will it stop us from buying artisan salumi or nduja at the farmers market? Meh…probably not.
As noted, the choice of words and terms can trigger emotional reactions that may have little to do with the objective scientific data that underpins their usefulness, meaning or safety. My other favorite current examples include fracking, “the god particle”, and clean coal. I guarantee you that the person who coined the term “fracking” rues the day. It just sounds ominous…as possible kin to racking, smacking, cracking and sacking, it just couldn’t be OK to frack, could it? But “the god particle” is surely great, no? I mean, don’t we all want to find it? Finally, folks are clearly starting to pay closer attention to the images these words evoke, no doubt resulting in the cynical Orwellian term, clean coal. The good people at America’s Power (the coal industry) came up with that one, and I think it’s doomed to fail. But it points to another aspect of all this…simply branding something in the hopes of shaping our opinions won’t always work. Just ask the LFTB folks about that.
So going forward, as with all things regarding science, we need to be thoughtful, critical and vigilant. Are our beliefs around an issue based on the underlying scientific data behind it, or something as simple as a name or the choice of terms to describe it? And from my personal point of view, how can we invoke the “genius” of the Jon Stewarts of the world to create messages that provide positive motivations to tackle some of our most compelling challenges? So, what do you believe?
*For the truly curious with way too much free time on their hands, you can read a fascinating summary of the whole thing here.
An occasional blog that explores how and why we decide what to believe, and the implications for science education and learning.
