{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.013179571663920923, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 4.968058968058968, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Public Perception of Food Safety

HERE WAS a time when the scientist was regarded as an expert and held in some esteem by the general public, notwithstanding the amused but nevertheless tolerant view of the boffin. The scientist was the man (women scientists did not share the same respect) exploring the frontiers of knowledge and the fruits of his labours would fuel the white heat of technology to the benefit of mankind. Insomuch as he was considered at all, the food scientist shared this pedestal because he was instrumental in the provision of wholesome and safe food that contributed one of the pleasures of life. This rosy image has undergone a serious metamorphosis in recent years and something of a love-hate relationship has developed. On the one hand television documentaries on science subjects still attract a large following by conveying something of the drama and excitement and wonderment that the research scientist experiences; but this same medium portrays the disasters that ordinary people suffer when improperly controlled technology gets out of hand. Given the avidity of press and television for controversy and scapegoats, the disasters tend to get top billing and the successes go unannounced. This is made worse by the need to simplify. There is a general assumption that ordinary people cannot grasp the complexities of science so that the messages must be simplified, some would say trivialised. Scientists themselves are not good at this. For the sake of accuracy, they are driven to qualify their statements which is often interpreted as sitting on the fence. Such indecisiveness is irritating to the media and viewers, breeding a good deal of impatience. Some scientists have recognised this and have developed techniques to communicate simplified conclusions that gain much publicity for their views but more often than not alienate their peers because of the propagation of false conclusions or, at least, unsubstantiated ideas. This leads to further controversy and greater disaffection among the public. In the field of food science and technology these problems occur at their most stark. There are a number of reasons for this. First, nutrition is a complex topic and among the most difficult to simplify without distortion. Thus we are bombarded with propaganda about fat, sugar, salt and fibre out of the thousands of nutrients that should be considered. The scientific evidence in