20 pages, Knowledge of agricultural practices has declined in recent years, resulting in consumers becoming uncertain of where and how their food has been produced and the marketing tactics used to promote the product. Historically, the U.S. population’s rich agricultural heritage coincided with higher levels of agricultural literacy. Some scholars, however, have maintained that U.S. culture has begun to lose touch with its agricultural foundations. More recent evidence has demonstrated that consumers acquire knowledge about their food from various media, most notably the Internet and social media. Often these sources use incorrect information and promote food and agricultural marketing trends that may not be grounded in scientific data. In response, this historical narrative analyzed a reform effort that occurred in U.S. food labeling policy and practice in the 1900s, which contributed to food labeling issues and consumer distrust in the agricultural industry. Based on the findings of this investigation, we concluded that food labels were initially intended to provide consumers with more profound knowledge of the food they purchased. However, key legislative acts such as the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act and the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act shifted the food labeling movement into a branding device to differentiate products and brands. We recommend that agricultural practitioners explore new ways to communicate their message more effectively. We also call for producers to incorporate more personal and emotional appeals when marketing agricultural products to better compete with third-party branding efforts.
Damhorst, Mary Lynn (author), Lennon, Sharron J. (author), Kim, Minjeong (author), Johnson, Kim K.P. (author), Jolly, Laura D. (author), and Jasper, Cynthia R. (author)
Format:
Journal Article
Publication Date:
2007-04
Published:
USA
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Document Number: C30221
14pgs, As an unobservable attribute, food safety is likely to be under-provided by markets where regulatory enforcement is weak. In such settings, stimulating consumer demand for safer food can potentially encourage market actors to invest in food safety. Through a randomized trial in Kenya, we test the impact of informing consumers about which maize flour brands are most likely to comply with the regulatory standard for aflatoxin, a carcinogenic fungal byproduct. Providing information on safer brands alone does not significantly affect consumption behavior. However, when the same information is combined with a test performed on the maize flour stocked by the household, the likelihood that a safer brand is consumed 2 months later is 76% higher than in the comparison group. Our findings suggest that providing information on the relative riskiness of substitute foods could encourage consumers to make safer choices.
20pgs, This study aimed to better understand consumers’ perceptions toward superfoods, to reveal segments of consumers, and to describe their behavioral patterns and sociodemographic characteristics. Data were collected from a mail survey (n = 423). Consumer segmentation revealed six segments. The “superfoodies” (13%) showed a more positive attitude toward superfoods, believing in their health and sustainable benefits. Adventurous consumers (16%) showed less knowledge on superfoods, despite that, they believe in the benefits of those foods after receiving some information during the survey. Involved consumers (13%) presented high nutritional knowledge and believe in the future of superfoods. Indifferent consumers (23%) appear to have a neutral attitude toward superfoods. Skeptical consumers (21%) and rejectors (15%) seem to be more conservative and less interested and unconvinced about the benefits of consuming superfoods. These results help guide those producing, marketing, and selling superfoods, and serve as a basis to develop strategies for different target groups.
