You don’t find many people with over two decades experience leading groups of tens of thousands of people. Christie Tarantino-Dean is one of them, having led major associations across different fields. In over a decade at the helm of one of the leading food science associations in the world, the Institute of Food Technologists, she’s steered it from a more traditional scientific association to be innovation and future-focused – a necessity in staying relevant right now. We sat down with her on everything from building an excellent board, to what needs to change to build trust in food technology and science, and why peer groups are a gamechanger in good leadership.
From a bird’s eye view, what stood out most to you and your team from this year’s IFT FIRST? What should people be paying attention to?
A number of things. The GLP-1 wave is reshaping product development, with suppliers showcasing protein formats optimized for smaller portions and companies rethinking satiety and nutritional density. Reformulation has also become intertwined with risk management as brands transition from artificial colors to natural colors in alignment with recent policy and customer preference. Healthier foods and ingredients were also seen throughout our expo floor with new products featuring the latest in fat, salt, and sugar reduction technologies. AI is also continuing to gain traction in early-stage R&D, with a lot of buzz around the launch of CoDeveloper, IFT’s proprietary AI-powered R&D platform.
Let’s go a bit deeper into that. CoDeveloper seems like a line in the sand you’re drawing – that the space needs to change now and move faster. How do you see these kinds of tools changing how food technologists operate?
The core is delivering science into the product development process, accelerating formula development and then overcoming technical roadblocks. We think our right to win is that it’s science backed, and the need to understand the scientific impacts of decisions you’re making around formulation or reformulation. We have so much information in our organization – 85 plus years of scientific research. Technical teams need to be able to convey the scientific reasoning and rationale behind their work and recommendations to other parts of the organization and do it quickly. This platform harnesses the computing speed of AI and connects users to IFT’s peer-reviewed and published content to ensure they’re developing market-competitive products backed by science.
Over all your years leading IFT, is there a shift you’ve seen in the interplay between FoodTech entrepreneurs and the major food corporates?
I think there’s a real interest from the bigger companies in what startups are doing;
since we’ve started tracking attendee movement on the IFT FIRST show floor and understand where people are interested in being, the startup area has been number one. The average R&D professional and members of our academic community – that’s where they’re spending a lot of their time. There’s this interest in learning but with an eye on acquisition, as larger organizations have struggled to have the funding for long term innovation projects.
On that note, food companies spend a small fraction of their revenue on R&D compared to pharma for example. What’s your take on that investment gap?
I’m not the expert on this, but I think it’s about margins and shareholder satisfaction. Historically, companies had larger teams that would work for years on something before it would come to market. Now it’s about speed, innovation, consumer preferences. There is such a demand to move faster to meet changing consumer needs and do it in a way that’s cost effective and can build returns on that investment. And there’s a lot which ties into why we launched CoDeveloper – that need to have speed and have the scientific expertise behind these products.
Having a strong board is one thing that’s not a particularly hot topic – but can make a world of difference for a company. You have a lot of experience on that front. What have you learned about constructing the best possible group to steer a company?
I think first and foremost, you have to be very thoughtful and intentional about how you build out your board. Organizations like IFT historically focused on members who have the most experience in the organization, which is not necessarily a bad thing. However, you might get a lot of people with similar points of view. In 2020 we recognized that the needs of the organization were changing rapidly and shifted to be incredibly intentional about ensuring we had the right diversity of skill sets, experience, points of view, regions of the world, and more to the best of our ability. We want to make sure we aren’t an echo chamber. We’re an 85-year-old organization and we recognize that we don’t want to look and act like one.
How dramatically did that change both the conversations you’re having and how IFT actually functions as an organization?
Very dramatically, but the ecosystem we operate in has also changed dramatically. Our process is designed to be rigorous and identify a diverse set of candidates to help inform the future of IFT and how we should align with the future of the food system. We now have board members who bring different expertise and can discuss and debate the challenges being faced across the food system and how IFT needs to change, adapt or invest to ensure we provide tools to help our members and customers address those challenges.
We can’t ignore the buzz over the U.S. administration’s plans for the food industry – the focus on phasing out artificial food dyes and promises to tackle additives, which obviously has a lot of significance for many of your members, whether big CPGs or innovators. There’s also the uncertainty over regulation of things like cultivated meat. How are people responding?
First of all, our position is that IFT must have a seat at the table. For example, The FDA just released a call to define ultra processed foods. IFT is very engaged in trying to ensure that science is at the heart of any regulatory or policy decisions. At the end of the day, we all have the same goal: making our food healthier. But we cannot be making emotionally based policy decisions that confuse consumers even more. There was this defensiveness around the science when I first got to IFT, which can be concerning and scary to people when it comes to their food. We’re still speaking in very scientific terms, but we’ve shifted our approach to provide more transparency and understanding around the science and engaging the mainstream media to try to help educate. So being at the table does not mean just criticizing other people’s points of view. It’s being part of that conversation to hopefully bring more awareness and impact these policy decisions.
Beyond the still-undefined ultra processed foods, the issue of food processing itself has generated confusion among consumers and policymakers. These shelf-stable foods help people who aren’t able or can’t afford to make fresh meals for their family every single night. Food processing has done a lot to fortify milk, to fortify golden rice and help prevent malnourishment and disease among other things. So it’s about considering the full scientific perspective and not making broad decisions based on limited evidence that will potentially have worse health consequences for people.
Do you find it to be a tough environment right now in terms of making sure science is at the forefront versus, like you say, emotion or perception not actually rooted in fact?
It is hard. I would not minimize that. But what we’re finding both through the media and through some of our work in Washington, D.C., is more people just want to understand the facts. We’re getting more requests to provide scientific information in an understandable way so that they can try to make the best possible policy decisions. But it’s challenging because there’s so much information and misinformation out there, it can be hard to cut through the noise.
How do you address that trust deficit with consumers in terms of being skeptical of food science and technology?
I think our community has not over time done the best job of talking about the benefits that science has brought to people and to their food. We have to recognize we can’t be so protective and criticize those who don’t understand. That actually creates more fear and distrust. Until I came to IFT, I had no idea what went into trying to make my food safe, and our community has to be more understanding about that lack of knowledge if we want to continue building trust in science among consumers. So how do we peel back the curtain, so to speak, and invite those reporters in who are covering food into our world so they can see all of the good and understand to some extent why food companies are doing what they’re doing; or the purpose-driven work that’s happening in all of these startups around sustainability. We have to be better communicators, not just scientists.
Let’s talk leadership for a moment, because it takes a lot of skill and I’m sure lessons learned along the way to lead such massive organizations across different fields. What are some of your biggest takeaways on leading effectively?
I am not a perfect leader. I think that is a big thing, to be able to admit when you don’t know something. And one of the things that I’ve really learned over the years is to surround myself with people who will tell me the truth or show me my blind spots, which we all have. Developing that network of trusted advisors, both in your space and out of your space, is huge. I started developing that group very early in my career. As an association management professional, we have our own professional Society as well that I joined 30 years ago; people I met there are in roles like the one I’m in today. And we have that trust. A peer group I think is so important, because you don’t just get into the seat and you know it all. We have to continuously learn.
Another point is to realize you just can’t make everybody happy and you have to learn to live with that. We’re in challenging times, and so how do we make those hard decisions with compassion, and just do the best that we can to support our teams when there’s so much uncertainty.
Do you have any tips on how to develop that kind of mentorship or peer group? Because it’s undeniably tougher today in an online world.
I don’t think people always appreciate the value of a peer group until they need it, and then it’s too late to develop it. I think it’s showing up and that’s the challenge we have now. I saw this in 2008 and 2009 in my last job, where we had a lot of layoffs going on, and then people suddenly want to build a network that they had not worked to develop. And now even more so when we’re in a much more virtual environment, showing up at meetings like IFT FIRST or others, that’s where you meet those people The best mentor relationships I’ve had were not people I asked to be my mentor. I had a conversation with them at an event. They took an interest in me. I was curious. We started a relationship and we followed up after the event. The value is being in person and developing those relationships. They are valuable and can be with you your entire career. We see it all the time at IFT. Members who got jobs by relationships they developed through their involvement, found a consultant to help them solve a problem or a recommendation for a supplier. It’s hard to leave the office, but when I do, I find answers and support when I need it most.