Consumer concerns around AI use in food manufacturing pose threat to industry, shows research
A large majority of consumers believe F&B manufacturers should be obliged to declare whether a product has been made with assistance from AI and that such products may be less safe, according to a new survey. Researchers say the findings reveal a risk that public miscomprehension around AI could harm the industry historically.
The survey, commissioned by Ingredient Communications and conducted by SurveyGoo, collected data from over 1,000 adults in the US and UK. While over half (52%) said they believe AI technology is a positive development for humanity, 21% disagreed, and 27% said they think the use of AI in F&B production is a negative development.
Eighty-three percent of respondents agreed that companies should be forced to declare on a product’s label if it has been designed or manufactured using AI technology. More than half of all those surveyed — 55% — agreed with this assertion strongly, and 4% disagreed with it altogether.
Richard Clarke, owner and managing director at Ingredient Communications, tells Food Ingredients First that the results may indicate public misunderstandings, which, if left unaddressed, could harm the F&B industry.
“Looking at the results of the survey, some people might argue that consumers don’t truly understand AI or how it's used in the food industry, so these findings are nothing to worry about — but it would only take a few sensationalist news stories to spread fear and misunderstanding.”
“It’s what happened in the 1990s with GMOs, and that was at a time when there was no social media to amplify messages so quickly and widely. I would encourage food companies to engage with consumers to help them understand the benefits of AI in food production — and why it's nothing to lose sleep over.”
Findings
Nearly two-thirds of respondents (64%) said they believed that F&B products made with AI technology should not be labeled as natural, but 12% disagreed.
There was also strong support for regulation, with 78% of respondents saying the government should introduce laws controlling the ways food and drink companies can use AI technology to design and manufacture their products, and 6% disagreeing.
Just under half of respondents (44%) said they believed that an F&B product made with the help of AI might be less safe to consume. But a quarter (26%) said they would be more likely to buy a product produced with AI, with 29% stating they would be less likely.
The survey also revealed a generational divide. The majority of Generation Z and Millennial respondents felt positive about the use of AI in the food industry (65% and 57%, respectively). The same figure was found among Generation X and Boomers, which was lower — 44% and 25%, respectively.
Approaching with caution
Clarke says the industry needs to remember the fears that were raised around GMO crops in the nineties.
“Thirty years ago, the media dubbed GMOs ‘Frankenstein foods’. It terrified consumers and killed off any chance of such products being sold in supermarkets — in Europe at least. Only now, belatedly, are we waking up to the fact that GMOs have the potential to solve many of the global food supply problems we face today.”
“Many food companies are embracing AI tech now – but I don’t see much evidence of them communicating this proactively to the public about why and how. I would urge them to consider how they might go about doing this.”
“We’ve seen a huge backlash against AI in the arts and entertainment business. To avoid the same fate, F&B manufacturers should pause to reflect on whether they are being sufficiently transparent about their use of AI. Companies would be wise to implement a communications strategy to ensure the public is kept informed about the ways in which they harness the power of AI tech.”
Other takeaways from the survey included 79% of respondents agreeing that savings made by food and beverage companies through the use of AI should be passed on to shoppers in the form of lower retail prices.
However, sentiment shifted if this came at the expense of employment, with 40% considering it unacceptable if the use of AI technology to design and manufacture a food or beverage product meant somebody lost their job — even products were cheaper as a result. A third of respondents (33%) considered this an acceptable outcome.
