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.
Lundy, Lisa K. (author), Rogers-Randolph, Tiffany M. (author), Lindsey, Angela B. (author), Hurdle, Clay (author), Ryan, Heather (author), Telg, Ricky W. (author), Irani, Tracy (author), and University of Florida
Format:
Online journal article
Publication Date:
2018
Published:
United States: New Prairie Press
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 152 Document Number: D10155
16 pages, via online journal article, Farming, by the very nature of the occupation, is riddled with uncertainty. The risks associated with the agriculture industry are just as diverse as the industry itself. For all risks, one challenge is the development and dissemination of safety communication materials tailored for diverse audiences. Valkenburg, Semetko, and Vreese (1999) examined common frames used in news media. Their analysis pointed to four commonly used news frames: conflict, human interest, responsibility and economic consequences. The purpose of this study was to describe the agricultural and health safety issues discussed in Florida news media during the year 2016, discussing the prominence of the frames outlined by Valkenburg et al. (1999). In this study, the most prominent frame was the human interest frame, followed by responsibility, economic consequences, and conflict. Frames carry a great deal of weight in shaping individuals’ opinions, attitudes, and actions towards agriculturally based messages; therefore it is essential for agricultural communicators to understand the framing of agricultural health and safety issues. Acknowledging the frames used in the reporting of agricultural issues allows agricultural communicators to enter into informed interactions with media outlets and better prepare the resources they provide to them. These framing analyses also provide agricultural communicators with a solid foundation on which to best position and frame their messaging on behalf of the industry. Further research is recommended to examine frames from an audience perspective and to investigate the impact of human interest frames in the presentation of agricultural news articles.
18 pages, via online journal article, Blue Bell Creameries faced an unprecedented situation when it pulled all of its products during a Listeria outbreak in 2015. Despite a very public crisis that resulted in three deaths, Blue Bell survived the disaster and maintained a large and loyal customer base. A content analysis of the Blue Bell Ice Cream Facebook page was conducted to evaluate Blue Bell’s public communications, and its followers’ public reactions to the Facebook communication during the crisis. Results indicated that Blue Bell primarily posted messages that included recall and restocking information, thankfulness to stakeholders, and details about improvements to food safety during the crisis. These messages created a sense of transparency, which can increase customers’ trust and brand loyalty. Their consumers largely responded with comments containing overwhelming loyalty themes as well as questions and messages of thanks. Recommendations for agri-food companies include operating transparently before, during, and after a crisis. Organizations should follow Blue Bell’s example and avoid publishing messages that include attacks, denial, scapegoating, or excuses during a crisis.
Oesterreicher, Shelby (author), Lundy, Lisa K. (author), Rumble, Joy (author), Telg, Ricky W. (author), and University of Florida
The Ohio State University
Format:
Journal article
Publication Date:
2018
Published:
United States: New Prairie Press
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 152 Document Number: D10157
15 pages, via online journal article, Millennial consumers are stepping into important roles as decision makers and consumers. A knowledge and communication gap exists between cattle producers and consumers this knowledge seeking generation. This study focused on collegiate millennials' perceptions of locally produced beef. The research design was qualitative in nature using focus groups. Participants associated the beef industry and beef products with the environment, management practices, treatment of animals, human health concerns, retail, experience with the beef industry, experience with beef, and transparency. Results of this study showed participants had minimal knowledge of the industry and relatively negative perceptions of the industry and beef products. Participants were skeptical of communication materials promotion beef and expressed particular distrust toward video messages. Participants revealed a knowledge and communication gap between producers and consumers
20 pages., Via online journal., Consumers are concerned about the risks related to genetically modified (GM) food, and there is a need for agricultural communicators and educators to address those concerns. The purpose of this study was to explore Florida residents’ latitudes of acceptance, rejection, and noncommitment toward GM food messages. The findings from this study can be used to guide communication and education campaigns for GM food. An online survey was distributed to a non-probability sample of 500 Florida residents to fulfill the purpose of the study. The messages that most aligned with the respondents’ views toward GM food discussed how potential risks related to human health had not been adequately investigated and that GM food may be riskier to consume compared to traditional food. The messages that most opposed the respondents’ views were that GM food was safe for consumption and that it caused cancer in humans. People whose views most aligned with the message that GM food caused cancer in humans had the largest latitude of rejection, likely due to their extreme attitude, confirmation bias, and ego-involvement. The largest percentage of respondents accepted messages that aligned with their position but expressed noncommitment to messages that opposed their views. This lack of rejection and indication of alignment with messages related to potential risk and uncertainty indicated Florida consumers were unsure about the effects of GM food. Communicators and educators should acknowledge these concerns when delivering information about GM food to enhance the effectiveness of communication with consumers.
18 pages., via online journal, As the public has expressed increasing concerns regarding the humane raising and handling of farm animals, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and industry organizations have developed a series of standards enforcing animal welfare in the poultry industry. Labels and value-added claims were created and defined to differentiate products and to inform consumers’ purchasing decisions. This study identified five labels related to animal welfare that are frequently found on food packages in the U.S. grocery stores, including both the mandatory labels and third-party, voluntary labels. Using a controlled online experiment (N=249), we examined the labels’ effects on consumers’ perception of humane treatment and purchasing tendencies toward egg products. Results showed that while most consumers lack knowledge regarding the labels’ meaning and certification standards, they rely on the labels with simplistic terms (e.g., "certified humane," "cage free") as heuristic cues to judge the ethical treatment of hens on the farm. However, the selected labels did not lead consumers to pay a higher premium for the labeled products. We discussed the implications for regulators, food marketers, and agricultural communicators.
