Artificial intelligence is shaping up to be one of the most profound and transformative technological shifts in modern history – and we are still only in the earliest stages of understanding what this will look like in two, five, or 10 years.
As an organization that reports on, connects, and communicates for the grocery industry, we are constantly engaging with both AI’s extraordinary potential and its very real drawbacks.
“AI slop” has become the shorthand term for digital content mass-produced through generative AI. As a former art student, I once assumed artists and creators would be insulated from automation. I was wrong. AI came for artists, artisans, and creative professionals first – and as a result, the internet is increasingly saturated with derivative, machine-generated content.
As generative AI continues to improve, distinguishing what is authentic from what is synthetic becomes more difficult by the day. And while AI can produce polished, compelling, even beautiful work, it does not truly create. It remixes.
One of the things I believe matters deeply about what we do at Food World & Food Trade News is that we contribute something real and original to the broader industry conversation. Whether it is an insight gathered at an event, information shared by trusted partners, or perspective shaped by years of experience, our goal is always to add to the industry’s collective intelligence – not simply recycle what already exists.
We intend to remain a forward-looking organization, willing to embrace any tool that meaningfully improves the quality of the news, analysis, and intelligence we deliver to our readers. We have been doing exactly that for more than 80 years.
To be transparent: we do use AI – specifically Large Language Models (LLMs) – as tools within our editorial process and image creation. At times, they assist with proofreading, copyediting, summarization, or helping analyze difficult datasets.
I would prefer our freelancers and staff writers use these tools in much the same way. Still, I also recognize the realities of modern publishing: I cannot guarantee every contributor will always use these systems exactly as intended. Ironically, my long-standing affection for the venerable em dash – something I learned to use editorially decades ago – often causes my own writing to be flagged as AI-generated.
If you have ever spoken with me for any length of time, you will know I tend to write the way I speak.
Our policy is straightforward: these tools may assist the process, but the reporting, creation, and editorial direction of an article must come from the author – never the AI itself. In my view, improving readability, tightening copy, and supporting editorial quality are among the most valuable and responsible uses of these systems.
What we oppose – unequivocally – is outsourcing journalism itself to a machine. We never want to rely on an LLM to tell us what is happening in the industry, and there is no reason our readers should either.
I cannot promise perfection. We will make mistakes, and there may be occasions where our standards are not met. What I can promise is transparency: we will acknowledge errors, issue corrections when necessary, and continue working to deliver the strongest industry intelligence possible.
It is an exciting – and at times slightly unsettling – moment in history. But we remain optimistic that technology; applied responsibly, can improve both our industry and the way we understand it.
Alexander Wissel
CEO & Executive Editor