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.
McLeod-Morin, Ashley (author), Telg, Ricky W. (author), Rumble, Joy (author), and Association for Communication Excellence (ACE)
University of Florida
The Ohio State University
Format:
Online journal article
Publication Date:
2020-02
Published:
United States: New Prairie Press
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 131 Document Number: D11306
18 pages., via online journal, This study explored the perceptions of science communication held by interdisciplinary agricultural research center directors and identified the directors’ goals and beliefs, specifically related to science communication. Ten interdisciplinary agricultural research center directors from top research, land-grant institutions were interviewed for this study. Findings from this study determined that the directors’ perceptions were rooted in service to the public, knowledge, public good, obligation, and relationships. Participants discussed attempting to bring awareness to science as a goal of science communication. They also discussed feeling obligated to communicate about science as part of a land-grant institution. Participants particularly believed that faculty with Extension appointments were more so obligated to communicate with the public. Future research should determine the science communication participation of Extension faculty. Additionally, future research should determine if faculty at land-grant institutions are more inclined to communicate about science when compared to faculty not associated with land-grant institutions.
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.