Cracking the Code on Food Issues: Consumer Insights on Animal Agriculture - Allyson Perry, Center for Food Integrity, from the 2015 Iowa Pork Congress, January 28-29, Des Moines, IA, USA. More presentations at http://www.swinecast.com/2015-iowa-pork-congress

1. Cracking the Code on
Food Issues
Consumer Insights on Animal Agriculture

2. Mission:
To build consumer trust and confidence in
today’s food system.
Center for Food Integrity

3. Thank You 2014 Research Sponsors
National Sponsors

4. Thank You 2014 Research Sponsors
State Sponsors

5. Mom, Millennials and Foodies
Just less than half did not fall
into one of these three
categories.
Moms 30%
Foodies 21%
Millennials 37%
N=2005
Note: These groups
are not mutually
exclusive.
Respondents can
qualify as more than
one (i.e. a Mom who
is a Foodie).

6. Millennials . . . . Who are they?
• Currently range in age from
19-34
• Relatively unattached to
organized politics and
religion
• Linked by social media
• Burdened by debt
• Distrustful of people
• In no rush to marry
• And … optimistic about the
future
Millennials 37%
Source: The Pew Charitable Trusts

7. 11%
33%
28%
11% 12%
1%
4%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Income of Millennials
N=734

8. Moms
Moms 30%
N=2005
Must have children at home
under the age of 18

9. 10%
31%
27%
13%
15%
1%
3%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Income of Moms
N=605

10. Ages of Moms
9%
38%
29%
19%
5%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
21-25 26-34 35-44 45-54 55-65
N=605

11. Foodies . . . .Who are they?
Foodie:
Person who has an
ardent or refined interest
in food and alcoholic
beverages. A foodie seeks
new food experiences as
a hobby rather than
simply eating out of
convenience or hunger.
Source: The American heritage dictionary of
the English language. (4th ed.)
Foodies 21%
N=2005

12. Ages of Foodies
11%
35%
25%
17%
11%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
21 to 25 26 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 65
N=416

13. 9%
28%
26%
16%
17%
1% 2%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Income of Foodies
N=416

14. Consumer Concerns About
Life and Current Events

15. All of the Most Concerning Life Issues are Beyond the
Consumer’s Direct Control
Women were more
concerned than men
about most issues
Additional Food System Concerns*
•Imported Food Safety (63%)
•Food Safety (62%)
•Enough to Feed U.S. (55%)
•Humane Treatment of Farm Animals (49%) – 51% last year
•Environmental Sustainability in Farming (49%)
•Access to Accurate Info to Make Healthy Food Choices (49%)
33%
Lowest concern was for having enough
food to feed people outside the U.S.
Early Adopters
Earlier Adopters were more
concerned about all issues than
later adopters
*Top Box ratings (8-10)

16. Consumers Less Concerned About All Top Issues in 2014
Change in Top
Concerns
2013 vs. 2014
U.S. Economy (same)
Rising Cost of Food (same)
Rising Healthcare Costs (-3%)
Rising Energy Costs (-4%)
No Increase
in Top
Concerns
Environmental
Sustainability in Farming
(same)
Safety of Imported Food
(-3%)
Food Safety (-1%)
Enough to Feed U.S. (-1%)
Humane Treatment of
Farm Animals (-2%)
No Increase
in Top
Concerns
Change in Food
Concerns
2013 vs. 2014

17. Right Direction/Wrong Track
43%
Right Direction 27%
Unsure
30%
Wrong Track
Early Adopters
36%
believe the
food system is
on the wrong
track
48%
Right
Direction
32%
Wrong
Track
34%
38%
28%

18. Moms
• Rising Cost of Food
(8.71)
• Keeping Healthy Food
Affordable (8.65)
• Rising Healthcare Costs
(8.51)
• Rising Energy Costs
(8.35)
• Food Safety (8.29)
• U.S. Economy (8.28)
Top Concerns About Issues by Segments
Millennials
• Keeping Healthy Food
Affordable (8.18)
• Rising Cost of Food
(8.13)
• Rising Healthcare
Costs (8.09)
• U.S. Economy (8.01)
Foodies
• Keeping Healthy Food
Affordable (9.27)
• Food Safety (9.18)
• Rising Cost of Food (9.10)
• Rising Healthcare Costs
(9.08)
• U.S. Economy (9.08)

19. Right Direction/Wrong Track
Right/Wrong Moms Millennials Foodies
Right Direction 36% 41% 49%
Wrong
Track
35% 33% 35%
Unsure 29% 26% 16%

20. Moms Expressed Concern About Food Issues
Moms’ Most Strongly Held Attitudes Toward Food
Issues
1. I believe that the less processed a food is the
healthier it is (8.44).
2. I prefer to purchase fruits and vegetables that
are in season in my area (8.10).
3. It is important to me that farmers who produce
the food I buy receive fair compensation for their
work (8.07).
4. I prefer to buy locally produced farm products
when they are available (7.92).
5. I like to support farmers in my community by
buying their products (7.88).
Numbers are mean scores on a
0-10 agreement scale.

21. Millennials Expressed Concern About Food Issues
Millennials’ Most Strongly Held Attitudes Toward
Food Issues
1. I believe that the less processed a food is the
healthier it is (8.12).
2. It is important to me that farmers who produce
the food I buy receive fair compensation for
their work (7.83).
3. I prefer to purchase fruits and vegetables that
are in season in my area (7.66).
4. Organically produced food is grown using fewer
chemicals than non-organically produced food
(7.66).
5. Animals are treated better on free range farms
than animals on farms where they are confined
(7.62).
Numbers are mean scores on a
0-10 agreement scale.

22. Foodies Expressed Concern About Food Issues
Foodies’ Most Strongly Held Attitudes Toward
Food Issues
1. I believe that the less processed a food is the
healthier it is (9.35).
2. It is important to me that farmers who produce
the food I buy receive fair compensation for
their work (9.34).
3. I like to support farmers in my community by
buying their products (9.30).
4. Organically produced food is better for the
environment (9.25).
5. I prefer to buy locally produced farm products
when they are available (9.26).
Numbers are mean scores on a
0-10 agreement scale.

23. Where Consumers go for
Information

24. Consumers Search Online and Watch Local TV for Info
on Food System Issues
Ranked First as Info Source
on Food System Issues
Websites
20%
(Highest %
of Top
Source
Mentions
for Early
Adopters)
Local TV
Station
16%
Friends-
Not
Online
12%
Family-
Not
Online
12%
Google
10%
22% 23%

25. Top Sources of Information on Food System Issues
Moms
Top Sources Ranked #1
• Websites (21%)
• Family-Not Online (14%)
• Google (12%)
• Local TV Station (12%)
• Friends-Not Online (11%)

26. Millennials
Top Sources Ranked #1
• Websites (22%)
• Friends-Not Online (16%)
• Google (15%)
• Family-Not Online (13%)
• Friends-Online (8%)
>45% Online
Top Sources of Information on Food System Issues

27. Top Sources of Information on Food System Issues
Foodies
Top Sources Ranked #1
• Websites (25%)
• Friends-Not Online (15%)
• Google (12%)
• Family-Not Online (10%)
• Food Specific TV Programs
or Networks (9%)

28. 2014 Research …
What does all this mean?

29. CFI Trust Model

30. What Drives Consumer Trust?

31. Science Denied: The Challenge of Introducing
Complex, Controversial Issues
• Breaking down communication barriers is critical
to fostering informed decision making

32. When Science and Consumers Collide
How do we connect?
Our Goal:
To better understand how to introduce science and technical
information about agriculture and food, so they are considered
in the social decision-making process.

33. When Science and Consumers Collide
How do we connect?
Our Goal:
Better understand communication channels and processes used
by Moms, Millennials and Foodies when forming attitudes and
opinions about issues in agriculture and food.

34. Why Facts Alone Don’t Drive Decisions
Cultural Cognition
• Tendency for people to
conform beliefs about
controversial matters to
group values that define
their cultural identities.

35. Why Facts Alone Don’t Drive Decisions
Confirmation Bias
• Tendency for people to
favor information that
confirms existing
beliefs.

36. Online Communication is Tribal/Insular
Consumer
Consumer
Consumer
Traditional
Communication
Model
Expert
Family
Online
Friends
Neighbor
FamilyFriend
Tribal
Communication
Model
Family
Online
Friends
Blogs

37. The “Mom” Tribe
What information sources have you used to come to your
conclusion that GMOs are dangerous?
Heidi: “I’m part of a moms
group. When there is a big
consensus, I think ‘there’s
something here.’ You don’t
need doctors or scientists
confirming it when you have
hundreds of moms.”

38. • Negative information weighs
more heavily on our decisions
than positive information.
• A single item of negative
information is capable of
neutralizing five similar pieces of
positive information
Bad News Bias

39. Big is Bad
Shared Values = Trust Big is Bad
Inverse relationship between size and
the perception of shared values

40. Millennials … Most Mistrusting …

41. The Decision-Making Maze

42. 2014 Research …

43. 2014 Research: Making Science Relevant
• Asked consumers to rate their trust in 11 different
messengers
• Focused more in-depth research on three
messengers – A Mom Scientist, A Federal
Government Scientist and A Peer (shared interests)
• Measured messenger trust prior to sharing key
messages/scenarios and after.

44. Theoretical Approach to Measurement
• Scenarios were developed using Fundamental Message
Elements and Outrage Factors
• Scenarios were also written in different “voices” to test the
trust in the messenger: Mom Scientist, Federal Government
Scientist and a Peer “who shares my interest about food.”
Mom Scientist Govt. Scientist Peer

45. Theoretical Approach to Measurement
(Continued)
• Two food industry topics were chosen to serve as the vehicle for testing the
impact of the Fundamental Message Elements and the Outrage Factors
(Antibiotic Resistance, GM Ingredients in Food).
Please note that the intent of the research is to identify elements in
technical messaging that promotes consumer believability in the message
and trust in the messenger—not to identify specific messages to promote
the two topics.

46. What Promotes
Messenger Trust?

47. • Perceptions of the Messenger’s
Competence and the Confidence
are strong predictors of Trust in the
Messenger.
• Confidence typically carries at least
twice the weight in predicting Trust
with the Messenger.
Trust in the MESSENGER: Key Findings

48. Which Elements Most
Promote Believability of the
Message?

49. Most Impactful Elements for Believability
Accurate Presentation of Risks: Present known risks since known risks
“trump” unknown risks by accurately communicating safety facts
Openness/Transparency: Acknowledge both sides of the story,
provide level of depth so it does not look like “holding back,” avoid
oversimplification
Unifying Message: Singular, compelling message that touches the
deeper drivers of human behavior - values
Fundamental Message Elements

50. Moms
Composite Value Score
• Shows the Highest
Composite Value Score for
Mom Scientist in 2 of 3
Antibiotic Resistance
Scenarios; Govt. Scientist in
Other Scenario.
Based on Composite Value Scores, Mom Scientist and Govt.
Scientist are Viewed as the Best Source for
Antibiotic Resistance Information

51. Moms
Composite Value Scores
• Shows the Highest
Composite Value Score for
Mom Scientist in both GM
Food Scenarios; Govt.
Scientist Second in Both
Scenarios; Peer Last in Both.
Based on Composite Value Scores, Mom Scientist and Govt.
Scientist are Viewed as the Best Source for GM
Food Information

52. Millennials
Composite Value Scores
• Shows the Highest
Composite Value Score for
Mom Scientist in 2 of 3
Antibiotic Resistance
Scenarios; Govt. Scientist in
Other Scenario.
Based on Composite Value Scores, Mom Scientist and Govt.
Scientist are Viewed as the Best Source
for Antibiotic Resistance Information

53. Millennials
Composite Value Scores
• Shows the Highest
Composite Value Score for
Mom Scientist in 1 of 2 GM
Food Scenarios; Govt.
Scientist Highest in Other
Scenario.
Based on Composite Value Scores, Mom Scientist and Govt.
Scientist are Viewed as the Best Source for GM
Food Information

54. Foodies
Composite Value Scores
• Shows the Highest
Composite Value Score for
Mom Scientist in 2 of 3
Antibiotic Resistance
Scenarios; Govt. Scientist in
Other Scenario.
Based on Composite Value Scores, Mom Scientist and Govt.
Scientist are Viewed as the Best Source
for Antibiotic Resistance Information

55. Foodies
Composite Value Scores
• Shows the Highest
Composite Value Score for
Govt. Scientist in Both GM
Food Scenarios; Mom
Scientist Second in one;
Peer Second in Other
Scenario.
Based on Composite Value Scores, Mom Scientist and Govt.
Scientist are Viewed as the Best Source for GM
Food Information

56. Trust in Specific Sources

57. Level of Trust in Sources of Information About Antibiotic
Resistance by Segment
Sources of Information
Total
(A)
(Base) (2005)
My family doctor 7.22
A university scientist 6.78
A scientist who is a mom 6.64
A veterinarian who treats animals raised for food 6.54
A farmer who raises animals for food 6.39
A peer who shares my interests about food 6.24
A state government scientist 5.82
A federal government scientist 5.77
Someone who is a mom 5.76
A well-known food blogger 5.26
Dr. Oz 5.12

58. Level of Trust in Sources of Information About
Genetically Modified Foods by Segment
Sources of Information
Total
(A)
(Base) (2005)
A university scientist 6.66
A scientist who is a mom 6.41
A farmer 6.31
A peer who shares my interests about food 5.86
A state government scientist 5.83
A federal government scientist 5.82
An advocacy group 5.52
Someone who is a mom 5.39
A well-known food blogger 5.07
Dr. Oz 5.00
A celebrity chef 4.92

59. Level of Trust in Sources of Information About Genetically
Modified Foods by Segment (Continued)
Moms
• A scientist who is a mom (6.68)
• A farmer (6.64)
• A university scientist (6.49)
• A peer who share my interest (6.22)
• An advocacy group (6.02)
• Someone who is a mom (5.99)
• A state government scientist (5.69)
• A federal government scientist (5.68)
• A well-known food blogger (5.68)
• Dr. Oz (5.52)
• A celebrity chef (5.33)

60. Level of Trust in Sources of Information About Genetically
Modified Foods by Segment (Continued)
Millennials
• A university scientist (6.86)
• A farmer (6.67)
• A scientist who is a mom (6.63)
• A peer who share my interest (6.16)
• A state government scientist (6.10)
• A federal government scientist (6.04)
• An advocacy group (5.94)
• A well-known food blogger (5.80)
• Someone who is a mom (5.77)
• A celebrity chef (5.49)
• Dr. Oz (5.27)

61. Level of Trust in Sources of Information About Genetically
Modified Foods by Segment (Continued)
Foodies
• A scientist who is a mom (7.63)
• A university scientist (7.62)
• A farmer (7.61)
• A peer who share my interest (7.57)
• An advocacy group (7.29)
• Someone who is a mom (7.20)
• A well-known food blogger (7.13)
• A federal government scientist (6.72)
• A state government scientist (6.70)
• A celebrity chef (6.66)
• Dr. Oz (6.77)

62. Farm Animal Welfare

63. “If farm animals are treated decently and humanely, I
have no problem consuming meat, milk or eggs.”
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
2013
2014
6%
5%
42%
41%
52%
55%
0 to 3 4 to 7 8 to 10
2014 Mean 7.46
2013 Mean 7.28
7.68
7.41
7.08
7.29
7.20
7.14
7.28
7.46
6.50
6.70
6.90
7.10
7.30
7.50
7.70
7.90
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Eight Year Mean

64. “U.S. meat is derived from humanely treated animals.”
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
2013
2014
19%
20%
56%
56%
24%
24%
0 to 3 4 to 7 8 to 10
2014 Mean 5.54
2013 Mean 5.58
5.02
4.80
5.50
5.89
5.38
5.24
5.58 5.54
4.50
4.70
4.90
5.10
5.30
5.50
5.70
5.90
6.10
6.30
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Eight Year Mean

65. “I would support a law in my state to ensure the
humane treatment of farm animals.”
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
2013
2014
7%
7%
41%
41%
52%
53%
0 to 3 4 to 7 8 to 10
6.91
6.81
7.22
6.72
6.70
7.31 7.32
6.50
6.70
6.90
7.10
7.30
7.50
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
2014 Mean 7.32
2013 Mean 7.31
Seven Year Mean

66. Sustainability

67. “I am more concerned about global warming than I was
one year ago.”
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
2013
2014
24%
20%
43%
43%
34%
36%
0 to 3 4 to 7 8 to 10
5.65
5.49 5.51
5.37
5.32
5.73
5.98
5.10
5.30
5.50
5.70
5.90
6.10
6.30
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
2014 Mean 5.98
2013 Mean 5.73
Seven Year Mean

68. Feeding the World

69. “The U.S. has a responsibility to provide food for the
rest of the world.”
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
2013
2014
40%
32%
41%
46%
20%
22%
0 to 3 4 to 7 8 to 10
4.23
4.03
4.47
4.86
3.80
4.00
4.20
4.40
4.60
4.80
5.00
5.20
5.40
2011 2012 2013 2014
2014 Mean 4.86
2013 Mean 4.47
Four Year Mean

70. “It is more important for the U.S. to teach developing nations how
to feed themselves than to export food to them.”
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
2013
2014
5%
6%
41%
43%
54%
52%
0 to 3 4 to 7 8 to 10
2014 Mean 7.30
2013 Mean 7.40
7.35
6.99
7.40
7.30
6.80
7.00
7.20
7.40
2011 2012 2013 2014
Four Year Mean

71. Bias Against Size/Scale

72. “Family farms are likely to put their interests ahead of
my interests.”
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
2013
2014
22%
17%
52%
53%
27%
30%
0 to 3 4 to 7 8 to 10
2014 Mean 5.98
2013 Mean 5.67
5.60 5.67
5.98
5.00
6.00
7.00
8.00
2012 2013 2014
Three Year Mean

73. “Commercial farms are likely to put their interests
ahead of my interests.”
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
2013
2014
6%
6%
45%
45%
49%
50%
0 to 3 4 to 7 8 to 10
2014 Mean 7.19
2013 Mean 7.20
6.86
7.20 7.19
6.50
6.70
6.90
7.10
7.30
7.50
2012 2013 2014
Three Year Mean

74. “Small farms are likely to put their interests ahead of
my interests.”
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
2013
2014
19%
16%
53%
53%
28%
31%
0 to 3 4 to 7 8 to 10
2014 Mean 5.99
2013 Mean 5.75
5.75
5.99
5.50
5.70
5.90
6.10
6.30
6.50
2013 2014
Two Year Mean

75. “Large farms are likely to put their interests ahead
of my interests.”
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
2013
2014
7%
6%
45%
47%
48%
47%
0 to 3 4 to 7 8 to 10
2014 Mean 7.04
2013 Mean 7.10
7.10 7.04
6.50
6.70
6.90
7.10
7.30
7.50
2013 2014
Two Year Mean

76. “Small food companies are likely to put their interests
ahead of my interests.”
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
2013
2014
15%
13%
55%
55%
31%
32%
0 to 3 4 to 7 8 to 10
2014 Mean 6.20
2013 Mean 6.06
6.06
6.20
5.50
5.70
5.90
6.10
6.30
6.50
2013 2014
Two Year Mean

77. “Large food companies are likely to put their interests
ahead of my interests.”
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
2013
2014
6%
5%
41%
42%
53%
54%
0 to 3 4 to 7 8 to 10
2014 Mean 7.42
2013 Mean 7.38
7.38
7.42
7.20
7.40
7.60
2013 2014
Two Year Mean

78. “Local food companies are likely to put their interests
ahead of my interests.”
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
2013
2014
13%
13%
55%
51%
32%
36%
0 to 3 4 to 7 8 to 10
2014 Mean 6.35
2013 Mean 6.20
6.20
6.35
6.00
6.20
6.40
6.60
6.80
2013 2014
Two Year Mean

79. “National food companies are likely to put their
interests ahead of mine.”
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
2013
2014
6%
5%
43%
45%
52%
49%
0 to 3 4 to 7 8 to 10
2014 Mean 7.26
2013 Mean 7.27
7.27
7.26
6.50
6.70
6.90
7.10
7.30
7.50
2013 2014
Two Year Mean

80. Concern/Confidence/Trust

81. “I have access to all of the information I want about where
my food comes from, how it is produced and its safety.”
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
2013
2014
21%
16%
52%
54%
27%
31%
0 to 3 4 to 7 8 to 10
2014 Mean 5.99
2013 Mean 5.67
4.60
4.71
5.58
5.69
5.41
5.54
5.67
5.99
4.50
4.70
4.90
5.10
5.30
5.50
5.70
5.90
6.10
6.30
6.50
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Eight Year Mean

82. “I am more concerned about healthy eating than I was
a year ago.”
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
2013
2014
9%
8%
44%
47%
46%
45%
0 to 3 4 to 7 8 to 10
2014 Mean 6.90
2013 Mean 6.91
6.91
6.90
6.70
6.90
7.10
2013 2014
Two Year Mean

83. “I feel confident about the food choices I make for my
family.”
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
2013
2014
3%
3%
53%
49%
43%
47%
0 to 3 4 to 7 8 to 10
2014 Mean 7.15
2013 Mean 7.03
7.03
7.15
6.50
6.70
6.90
7.10
7.30
7.50
2013 2014
Two Year Mean

84. “I am concerned about the affordability of healthy
food.”
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
2013
2014
5%
5%
37%
40%
58%
55%
0 to 3 4 to 7 8 to 10
2014 Mean 7.46
2013 Mean 7.58
7.58
7.46
7.20
7.40
7.60
7.80
8.00
2013 2014
Two Year Mean

85. “I am more concerned about the affordability of
healthy food than I was a year ago.”
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
2013
2014
8%
8%
43%
44%
50%
48%
0 to 3 4 to 7 8 to 10
2014 Mean 7.03
2013 Mean 7.13
7.13
7.03
6.50
6.70
6.90
7.10
7.30
7.50
2013 2014
Two Year Mean

86. “I trust today’s food system.”
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
2014 17% 55% 28%
0 to 3 4 to 7 8 to 10
2014 Mean 5.84

87. 1. Believability is a key driver in creating
information that is trusted.
2. Identify the groups you would like to engage.
3. Meet Them Where They Are.
4. Develop a values based engagement strategy
that starts with listening and embracing
skepticism.
5. Commit to engaging over time.
Putting the Research to Work

88. Future Webinars
January 29
Insight into Moms
February 12
Insight into Foodies
February 26
Insight into Antibiotic Resistance
March 12
Insight into Food with GM Ingredients

89. 24 page summary available online
www.foodintegrity.org
For more information or
presentations please contact:
learnmore@foodintegrity.org
Research Summary

90. Cracking the Code on
Food Issues
Consumer Insights on Animal Agriculture