The Center for Food Integrity

Transcription

1 The Center for Food Integrity Building consumer trust and confidence in the contemporary U.S. food system Charlie Arnot

2 Earning and Maintaining the Social License (Sapp/CMA) Confidence Value Similarity Competence Influential Others Trust Social License Freedom to Operate

3 Consumer Trust in the Food System Summary Slides October, 2009 This information is wholly owned by CMA and licensed to CFI; Study was conducted by Gestalt Inc.

4 Thank You to the 2009 Consumer Trust Research Sponsors

5 What Drives Trust? Confidence and Competence blah

6 Consumer Trust Modeling R 2 represents the percentage of explained variance in the model Values greater than.30 are considered significant by sociologists Numbers in blocks (beta coefficients) represent the percentage of R 2 variance explained R 2 = 1.0 Trust Confidence Competence Model Originally Tested in Consumer Trust in the Food System Study, October 2007 blah

7 Drivers of Consumer Trust to Ensure Food Safety (across all groups) 1 Competence R 2 =.69 Trust CFI Consumer blah Trust Study

8 Drivers of Consumer Trust to Ensure Food Safety (across all groups) 1 Confidence Competence R 2 = Trust CFI Consumer blah Trust Study

9 Drivers of Consumer Trust in Sustainability of Products (across all groups) 1 Competence R 2 =.82 Trust CFI Consumer blah Trust Study

10 Drivers of Consumer Trust in Sustainability of Products (across all groups) 1 Confidence Competence 0.74 R 2 =.82 Trust CFI Consumer blah Trust Study

11 Drivers of Consumer Trust to Ensure the Humane Treatment of Farm Animals (across all groups) 1 Competence R 2 =.70 Trust CFI Consumer blah Trust Study

12 Drivers of Consumer Trust to Ensure the Humane Treatment of Farm Animals (across all groups) 1 Confidence Competence 0.71 R 2 =.70 Trust CFI Consumer blah Trust Study

13 Drivers of Consumer Trust to Ensure Good Nutrition (across all groups) 1 Competence R 2 =.82 Trust CFI Consumer blah Trust Study

14 Drivers of Consumer Trust to Ensure Good Nutrition (across all groups) 1 Confidence Competence 0.83 R 2 =.82 Trust CFI Consumer blah Trust Study

15 What Drives Consumer Trust? Skills Shared values Shared values are 4-5X more important in building trust than demonstrating competence blah

16 CFI Annual Consumer Trust Survey Qualitative research component added for 2009 Study What will cause consumers to grant more social license? Eight consumer focus groups April 2: Des Moines, IA April 7: Syracuse, NY April 8: Nashville, TN April 13: Fresno, CA Farms, size matters (trust family farms, not company farms) Consumers responsible for nutrition Everyone has responsibility for food safety

17 Key Observation Consumers are largely disinterested & uninformed "Give me safe food, and I will trust you to give me safe food. I will trust you until you do something to break that trust. Connie, Nashville focus group They could let us know more about what they do I ve never been on a farm, I don t know what they do. Judy, Des Moines focus group

18 The Challenge Building trust and confidence in the contemporary food system among a public that is largely disinterested and uninformed. The contemporary food system is not perceived as being consistent with the understanding or values of consumers. Voices questioning current food system practices are increasing in number, volume and impact.

19 Adopter Segments Past research has shown that the Adopter Segments are normally distributed in a social system/market (bell curve) Innovator 2.5% Early Adopter 13.5% Early Majority 34% Late Majority 34% Laggards 16% X - 2sd X - 1sd X X - 1sd 19

20 Building Trust in Food System Practices Among Early Adopters Early Adopters Are opinion leaders Can influence others Gate-keepers Drive social change Seek educational information: Web sites and topicspecific TV programs/networks Significantly more likely to believe and be impacted by educational food system information, than Laggards

21 Attributes of Early Adopters Socio-Economic More educated Higher social status Greater upward mobility Communication behavior Larger interpersonal networks Greater exposure to mass media and interpersonal communication Information seekers More knowledge of innovations Opinion leaders Personality Greater empathy Less dogmatic Greater ability to deal with abstractions Greater rationality Higher intelligence More favorable toward change Able to deal with uncertainty and risk More favorable attitude toward science Less fatalistic Have higher aspirations Adapted from Rogers

22 Attributes of Early Adopters Socio-Economic More educated Higher social status Greater upward mobility Communication behavior Larger interpersonal networks Greater exposure to mass media and interpersonal communication Information seekers More knowledge of innovations Opinion leaders Personality Greater empathy Less dogmatic Greater ability to deal with abstractions Greater rationality Higher intelligence More favorable toward change Able to deal with uncertainty and risk More favorable attitude toward science Less fatalistic Have higher aspirations Adapted from Rogers

23 Adopter Classification Scheme Adopter classification is issue dependent Consumers may be an Early Adopter in one issue area, such as food safety, but may be an Early or Late Majority in along another issue such as Humane Treatment of Farm Animals Self-classification into segments identifies those who believe they are Early Adopters Adopter classification is accomplished in this study through self-classification for each key issue

24 Innovator Self-Classification Along Food Safety Issues Segments Total (A) (Base) (1009) I m quick to form opinions on food safety and rarely rely on others for input (Innovator) 15.8% I actively seek information on food safety issues so I can weigh the issues and have informed opinions (Early Adopter) 36.7 I usually make up my mind about food safety issues after others have debated the issues at length (Early Majority) 13.7 I don t really think about food safety issues unless I happen to hear something on the radio or see something on TV (Late Majority) 28.0 I only think about food safety issues if I m forced to (Laggard) 5.8 Over one-third of respondents (36.7%) self-classified themselves as Early Adopters along Food Safety issues. Please note: Innovator segment labels were not shown to respondents

25 Innovator Self-Classification Along Humane Treatment of Farm Animals Issues Segments Total (A) (Base) (1009) I m quick to form opinions on humane treatment of farm animals and rarely rely on others for input (Innovators) 15.9% I actively seek information on humane treatment of farm animal issues so I can weigh the issues and have informed opinions (Early Adopters) 21.9 I usually make up my mind about humane treatment of farm animals issues after others have debated the issues at length (Early Majority) 17.3 I don t really think about humane treatment of farm animals issues unless I happen to hear something on the radio or see something on TV (Late Majority) 35.1 I only think about humane treatment of farm animals issues if I m forced to (Laggards) 9.8 Approximately one out of five (21.9%) self-classified themselves as Early Adopters on Humane Treatment of Farm Animal Issues. Please note: Innovator segment labels were not shown to respondents

26 Innovator Self-classification Along Sustainability of Products Issues Segments Total (A) (Base) (1009) I m quick to form opinions on sustainability issues and rarely rely on others for input (Innovators) 11.6% I actively seek information on sustainability issues so I can weigh the issues and have informed opinions (Early Adopters) 36.3 I usually make up my mind about sustainability issues after others have debated the issues at length (Early Majority) 16.8 I don t really think about sustainability issues unless I happen to hear something on the radio or see something on TV (Late Majority) 26.7 I only think about sustainability issues if I m forced to (Laggards) 8.6 Thirty-six percent self-classified themselves as Early Adopters on Sustainability issues. Please note: Innovator segment labels were not shown to respondents

27 Segments Innovator Self-Classification Along Nutrition Issues Total (A) (Base) (1009) I m quick to form opinions on nutrition and rarely rely on others for input (Innovator) 11.4% I actively seek information on nutrition issues so I can weigh the issues and have informed opinions (Early Adopter) 50.2 I usually make up my mind about nutrition issues after others have debated the issues at length (Early Majority) 14.5 I don t really think about nutrition issues unless I happen to hear something on the radio or see something on TV (Late Majority) 15.8 I only think about nutrition issues if I m forced to (Laggards) 8.1 Half of respondents (50.2%) self-classified themselves as Early Adopters on Nutrition issues. Please note: Innovator segment labels were not shown to respondents

28 Adoption/Diffusion of Innovations Building consumer trust in the food system requires affecting a change of attitudes toward practices, technologies and ideas used by key food system stakeholders from farm to fork. We can use the Rogers model and our research findings to build models, messages and programs that will enhance consumer trust and confidence in the contemporary US food system.

29 Five Steps of Innovation Decision Process 1. Knowledge Occurs when an individual is exposed to an innovation and gains understanding of how it functions 2. Persuasion Occurs when an individual forms an attitude towards the innovation 3. Decision Takes place when an individual chooses to adopt or reject the innovation 4. Implementation Occurs when the individual puts the new idea into use 5. Confirmation Takes place when an individual seeks reinforcement of the decision. Decision may be reversed if exposed to conflicting messages Adapted from Rogers

30 The Adoption/Acceptance Process Adoption/Acceptance Opinion Leader Early Adopter - 1. Knowledge Decision making unit characteristics Prior conditions Introduction Previous Practice Felt Needs Innovativeness Social Norms Adapted from Rogers

31

32 The Adoption/Acceptance Process Adoption/Acceptance Opinion Leader Early Adopter 2. Persuasion - 1. Knowledge Relative advantage Compatibility Complexity Trialability Observability Decision making unit characteristics Prior conditions Introduction Previous Practice Felt Needs Innovativeness Social Norms Adapted from Rogers

33 Relative Advantage Elements of Persuasion The degree to which an innovation is perceived as better than the idea is supersedes Compatibility The degree to which an innovation is perceived as consistent with existing values, past experiences and needs of potential adopters Complexity The degree to which an innovation is perceived as difficult to understand and use Trialability The degree to which an innovation may be experimented with on a limited basis Observability The degree to which the results of an innovation are visible to others Adapted from Rogers

34 The Adoption/Acceptance Process Adoption/Acceptance Opinion Leader Early Adopter 5. Confirmation 4. Implementation 3. Decision-Trial 2. Persuasion - 1. Knowledge Relative advantage Compatibility Complexity Trialability Observability Adoption or Discontinuance Replacement Disenchantment Decision making unit characteristics Prior conditions Introduction Previous Practice Felt Needs Innovativeness Social Norms Adapted from Rogers

35 Quantitative Research Summary of Findings

36 Quantitative Methodology and Sample Design Respondents were recruited to participate in the study through Survey Sampling International s consumer Web panel Survey Sampling International is a world leader in providing actively managed sample sources for Web-based surveys. Total of 2018 completed surveys (sampling error at 95% confidence level +/- 2.2%) The Web surveys averaged 25 minutes and data collection took place in August and September of 2009 Split sample to accommodate the survey content

37 Respondent Profile 57% female and 43% male 72% were primary shoppers in the house ~87% shop once or twice per week Representative of the typical U.S. food shopper regarding: education income political orientation vegetarian practices consumer advocacy

38 Concern About Issues Consumers were asked to indicate how concerned they were about several life and current event issues Used a 0 to 10 scale where 0 meant they had no concern about the issue and 10 meant they were very concerned about the issue: 0 to 3 ratings indicate relatively low level of concern 4 to 7 ratings indicate relatively ambivalent level of concern 8 to 10 ratings indicate relatively strong level of concern Highest concerns included (based on mean scores): The U.S. Economy (8.44) Rising Energy Costs (8.29) Rising Cost of Food (8.23) Rising Health Care Costs (8.21) Personal Financial Situation (8.04) Lowest Concern (based on mean scores): Global Warming (6.05)

39 Mean Summary of Concerns About Issues Issue Mean The U.S. Economy 8.44 Rising Energy Costs 8.29 Rising Cost of Food 8.23 Rising Health Care Costs 8.21 Personal Financial Situation 8.04 Food Safety 7.67 U.S. military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan 7.22 Access to accurate information to make healthy food choices 6.60 Humane Treatment of Farm Animals 6.43 Obesity in America 6.37 Global Warming 6.05 (n=2066)

40 Consumer Trust in Food Safety Consumers were asked to rate the following stakeholders on COMPETENCE, CONFIDENCE, RESPONSIBILITY and TRUST in the area of ensuring food safety. Farmers/ Producers Food Companies/ Processors Grocery Stores Restaurants You or others who prepare your food at home Federal Regulatory Agencies State Regulatory Agencies Advocacy Groups

41 Summary of Food Safety Ratings (0 to 10 Scale) (n=1027) Segments Competence Confidence Trust Responsibility* You or other persons who prepare your food at home Farmers/producers Grocery stores Restaurants Food companies/ processors Federal regulatory agencies State regulatory agencies Advocacy groups Consumers hold farmers/producers, themselves and food companies/processors primarily responsible for food safety, but they lack confidence and trust in these groups outside of themselves. * 100 point allocation

42 Consumer Trust in the Humane Treatment of Farm Animals Consumers were asked to rate the following stakeholders on COMPETENCE, CONFIDENCE, RESPONSIBILITY and TRUST in the area of ensuring the humane treatment of farm animals. Farmers/ Producers Food Companies/ Processors Grocery Stores Restaurants Federal Regulatory Agencies State Regulatory Agencies Advocacy Groups

43 Summary of Humane Treatment of Farm Animals Ratings (0 to 10 Scale) (n=1039) Segments Competence Confidence Trust Responsibility* Farmers/producers Advocacy groups State regulatory agencies Federal regulatory agencies Food companies/ processors Grocery stores Restaurants * 100 point allocation Consumers hold farmers/producers primarily responsible for humane treatment of farm animals, but they lack confidence and trust in all groups to ensure it.

44 Consumer Trust in the Sustainability of Products Consumers were asked to rate the following stakeholders on COMPETENCE, CONFIDENCE, RESPONSIBILITY and TRUST in the area of ensuring sustainability of products. Farmers/ Producers Food Companies/ Processors Grocery Stores Restaurants

45 Summary of Sustainability Ratings (0 to 10 Scale) (n=1039) Segments Competence Confidence Trust Responsibility* Farmers/producers Grocery stores Food companies/ processors Restaurants * 100 point allocation Consumers hold farmers/producers primarily responsible for sustainability, but they lack confidence and trust in all groups to ensure it.

46 Consumer Trust in Nutrition Consumers were asked to rate the following stakeholders on COMPETENCE, CONFIDENCE, RESPONSIBILITY and TRUST in the area of nutrition of food. Farmers/ Producers Food Companies/ Processors Grocery Stores Restaurants Federal Regulatory Agencies Advocacy Groups People who prepare food at home The K-12 School Syste m Doctors/ Dieticians

47 Summary of Nutrition Ratings (0 to 10 Scale) (n=1027) Segments Competence Confidence Trust Responsibility* You or other persons who prepare your food at home Doctors/Dieticians Farmers/producers Food companies/ processors Federal regulatory agencies Grocery stores Advocacy groups Restaurants The K-12 school system Consumers hold themselves, farmers/producers and food companies/processors primarily responsible for nutrition, but they lack confidence and trust in these groups outside of themselves. * 100 point allocation

48 Sources of Information About the Food System

49 Rank Order of Primary Sources of Information on Food System Issues (n=2066) RANK ORDER Sources of Information Ranked First Ranked Second Ranked Third Local TV Station 28.8% 23.8% 14.7% Friends and Family Newspaper Cable TV News Web Sites Food Specific Cable TV Programs or Networks Radio

50 Rank Order of Primary Sources of Information on Food System Issues (n=2066) RANK ORDER Sources of Information Ranked First Ranked Second Ranked Third Local TV Station 25.9% Friends and Family Web Sites Cable TV News Newspaper Food Specific Cable TV Programs or Networks Radio

51 Rank Order of Primary Sources of Information on Food System Issues by Innovator Segment Innovator Segments Sources of Information Total (A) Innovator (B) Early Adopter (C) Early Majority (D) Late Majority (E) Laggard (F) (Base) (1009) (159) (370) (138) (283) (59) Local TV Station 25.9% 23.3% 20.5% 32.6%bC 37.5%BC 27.1% Friends and Family BCDE Web Sites F 21.1BdEF 14.5eF 8.5F 1.7 Cable TV News Newspaper Food Specific Cable TV Programs or Networks dEF Radio Upper case letters indicate significance at the 95% level. Lower case letters indicate significance at the 90% level.

52 Additional Attitudes Toward the Food Supply

53 Additional Attitudes Toward the Food Supply Consumers rated their agreement with several additional statements regarding the food supply. Used a 0 to 10 scale where 0 meant they strongly disagreed and 10 meant they strongly agreed with the statement: 0 to 3 ratings indicate relatively low level of agreement 4 to 7 ratings indicate relatively moderate level of agreement 8 to 10 ratings indicate relatively strong level of agreement Consumers did not indicate strong agreement regarding the additional attitudinal statements. Mean agreement scores ranged from 4.84 to 7.32, on the 0 to 10 scale.

54 Economics

55 Food prices are a greater concern to me now than they were a year ago. 0 to 3 4 to 7 8 to % 38% 55% 2009 Mean % 36% 60% 2008 Mean % 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Two Year Mean

56 With the increase in food prices, we tend to eat out less often than one year ago. 0 to 3 4 to 7 8 to % 38% 50% 2009 Mean % 40% 47% 2008 Mean % 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Two Year Mean

57 With the increase in food prices, I am more likely to buy less expensive cuts of meat. 0 to 3 4 to 7 8 to % 42% 43% 2009 Mean % 46% 39% 2008 Mean % 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Two Year Mean

58 U.S. food is amongst the most affordable in the world today. 0 to 3 4 to 7 8 to % 49% 37% 2009 Mean % 53% 23% 2008 Mean % 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Three Year Mean

59 Food Safety

60 I am confident in the safety of the food I eat. 0 to 3 4 to 7 8 to % 51% 37% 2009 Mean % 52% 28% 2008 Mean % 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Three Year Mean

61 I am as confident in the safety of the food I eat as I was a year ago. 0 to 3 4 to 7 8 to % 50% 37% 27% 47% 26% 2009 Mean Mean % 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Three Year Mean

62 Today s food supply is safer than it was when I was growing up. 0 to 3 4 to 7 8 to % 47% 27% 2009 Mean % 50% 14% 2008 Mean % 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Three Year Mean

63 Government food safety agencies are doing a good job ensuring the safety of the food we eat. 0 to 3 4 to 7 8 to % 52% 27% 2009 Mean % 51% 17% 2008 Mean % 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Two Year Mean

64 I trust food produced in the U.S. more than I trust food produced outside the U.S. 0 to 3 4 to 7 8 to % 39% 54% 2009 Mean % 42% 51% 2008 Mean % 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Three Year Mean

65 I don t care where my food was produced as long as it is affordable, safe and wholesome. 0 to 3 4 to 7 8 to % 44% 24% 2009 Mean % 46% 23% 2008 Mean % 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Three Year Mean

66 I have access to all of the information I want about where my food comes from, how it is produced and its safety. 0 to 3 4 to 7 8 to % 54% 26% 2009 Mean % 50% 17% 2008 Mean % 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Three Year Mean

67 Farm Animal Welfare

68 If farm animals are treated decently and humanely, I have no problem consuming meat, milk and eggs. 0 to 3 4 to 7 8 to % 39% 52% 2009 Mean % 39% 55% 2008 Mean % 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Three Year Mean

69 U.S. meat is derived from humanely treated animals. 0 to 3 4 to 7 8 to % 53% 27% 2009 Mean % 55% 16% 2008 Mean % 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Three Year Mean

70 I would support a law in my state to ensure the humane treatment of farm animals. 0 to 3 4 to 7 8 to % 43% 46% 2009 Mean % 43% 47% 2008 Mean % 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Two Year Mean

71 Balancing for Success Economically Viable ROI Demand Cost Control Productivity Efficiency Profitability Economically Viable Sustainable Systems Scientifically Verified Scientifically Verified Data Driven Repeatable Measurable Specific Objectivity Ethically Grounded Ethically Grounded Compassion Responsibility Respect Fairness Truth Value Similarity

72 The Center for Food Integrity Building consumer trust and confidence in the contemporary U.S. food system Charlie Arnot