23 pages., via online journal, Cultured meat has yet to reach store shelves but is nonetheless a growing issue for consumers, producers, and government regulators, many of whom have taken to social media to discuss it. Using a conceptual framework of social cognitive theory and issues management, this qualitative content analysis investigated social-media discourse surrounding the topic of cultured meat in the United States by describing the content of the discussion in late 2018 and identifying individual influencers and communities of influencers engaged in the discussion. Data were collected from Twitter using listening platform Sysomos MAP. The thematic analysis revealed eight themes: legality and marketing, sustainability, acceptance, business, animal concerns, science and technology, health concerns, and timeline, and indicated that conflicting views and questions about cultured meat exist among conversation participants. Top influencers included philanthropists, government officials, journalists and writers, and animal-welfare advocates. These influencers were grouped into four distinct communities based on interactions with each other and other users. The topics identified in the analysis provide insight into ways in which communicators can enter these conversations, and influencer communities represent groups of users whose broad reach could more easily transmit pro-agriculture messages.
18 pages, via online journal, Consumers are concerned about the quality and safety of their food at all times during the food supply chain, but sensationalized media coverage, lack of knowledge, and recent recalls have made it difficult for consumers to trust the agricultural industry. Because trust drives risk perceptions and acceptance, it is important for agricultural communicators to understand how personal characteristics influence trust in the food supply chain. To fulfill the purpose of this study, a national quota sample of 847 responses to an online questionnaire were collected in March 2019. The results indicated respondents held a moderate level of trust toward production agriculture, food processing, food retail, and food safety regulation, with the greatest level of trust assigned to production agriculture. Trust in these sectors of the food supply chain were also positively correlated to one another. Regression models for trust in each agricultural sector were significant but only accounted for 9% of the variance in the dependent variable at most. Direct engagement in agriculture was a positive predictor in trust across all four areas, and use of social media was a negative predictor for trust. Income and gender were also found to be predictors of trust in production agriculture, food processing, food retail, and food safety regulation. The findings from this study can be used to guide future communication to increase the level of trust in the food supply chain, which would also increase consumers’ purchasing intent.
18 pages., via online journal, As food products marketed as “gluten-free” become increasingly popular, many consumers start to exclude sources of gluten (e.g., wheat, barley, and rye) from their diets for both medical and non-medical purposes. The grain industry is facing a growing challenge to (re)boost consumers’ confidence in the healthiness and safety of its commodities. Using 561 participants recruited from the Amazon Mechanical Turk workers’ panel, this study implemented a 2 (pretzels vs. potato chips) * 2 (positive- vs. negative- frame) * 2 (wheat image vs. no wheat image) experiment to examine the effects of gluten-free labels on consumers’ perceived healthiness and safety of wheat, perceived benefits of labeled products, and their evaluation of the shown labels. Results showed that consumers evaluate the gluten-free labels most positively when they appear on products that could have contained gluten. For products that are naturally gluten-free, adding a gluten-free label only decreased consumers’ confidence in such labels. The presence of gluten-free labels increased consumers’ perceived benefits of the labeled products when they do not contain any misleading information (e.g., image of a wheat head). However, some gluten-free labels could have negative impacts on consumers’ perceptions of the healthiness and safety of wheat. Overall, food producers and marketers might have undervalued consumers’ literacy and overestimated their susceptibility to marketing strategies. We discussed the implications for food marketers, regulators, and communicators.
