CRACKING THE CODE ON FOOD ISSUES: Insights from Moms, Millennials and Foodies

THE CENTER FOR FOOD INTEGRITY 2014 CONSUMER TRUST RESEARCH THE CENTER FOR FOOD INTEGRITY Building Trust When Science and Consumers Collide

How do we connect when scientific consensus and consumer beliefs are not aligned? When consumers don’t accept what science says is true? CFI CONSUMER TRUST MODEL

We set out to learn the answers to these questions in our 2014 research. Since 2007, we have conducted annual consumer trust research to track trends and attitudes, providing insights and guidance to those in food and CONFIDENCE TRUST agriculture on how to best engage today’s increasingly (SHARED VALUES) skeptical consumer.

Our 2014 research, the most in-depth to date, provides a roadmap to making complex and controversial technical information relevant and meaningful—particularly to

Moms, Millennials and Foodies—bringing balance to COMPETENCE the conversation and helping consumers make informed SOCIAL decisions about food. LICENSE

In partnership with Iowa State University, CFI was the first to build a research-based consumer trust model. Our peer- reviewed and published model for building trust in today’s INFLUENTIAL OTHERS food system shows that Confidence (shared values) is three- to-five times more important than Competence (skills and technical expertise or science) in building consumer trust. FREEDOM TO OPERATE In other words, it’s not just about giving consumers more science, more research, more information. It’s about demonstrating that you share their values when it comes to topics they care about most—safe food, quality nutrition, Earning and maintaining Social License, the privilege appropriate animal care, environmental stewardship of operating with minimal formalized restrictions, and others. depends largely on building trust based on shared Our mission at The Center for Food Integrity is to build values. Of the three primary elements that drive trust— trust and confidence in today’s food system. Our research Confidence (shared values and ethics), Competence is intended to help the food system better understand (skills and ability) and Influential Others (family, friends what it takes to earn and maintain consumer trust. The and credentialed individuals), our peer-reviewed 2014 research provides insight that can increase authentic research shows that Confidence, or shared values, is consumer engagement to foster informed decision making three-to-five times more important than Competence and help align food system practices with consumer values in building trust. and expectations. 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

4 SCIENCE DENIED: The Challenge of Introducing Complex, Controversial Issues into the Food Conversation

8 THE RESEARCH: Making Science Relevant in Today’s Conversation about Food and Agriculture

9 OUR RESEARCH APPROACH

12 METHODOLOGY and MEASUREMENT

14 MAIN FINDINGS

16 WHAT IT ALL MEANS

17 HOW TO APPLY WHAT WE’VE LEARNED

18 CONSUMER CONCERNS and ATTITUDES

24 ADVISORY PANEL and RESEARCH SPONSORS

CFI is a not-for-profit organization with members that represent every segment of the food system. CFI does not lobby or advocate for individual food companies or brands. Participating organizations represent the diversity of the food system, from farmers and ranchers to universities, NGOs, restaurants, food companies, retailers and food processors. 2014 RESEARCH EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

OUR CHALLENGE THE 2014 RESEARCH these issues to develop models that can The application of technology in food Our 2014 research explores consumers’ be applied across food and agriculture. and agriculture has provided countless complex decision-making processes to: benefits to society. Innovation and • Better understand how to introduce WHAT WE LEARNED technology help us meet one of science and technical information Trusted Messengers humanity’s most basic needs—the need into the public discussion on issues We tested messaging from three to provide safe, nutritious food for our in agriculture and food so that they different “voices”: children and our children’s children. are considered in the social decision- • Mom Scientist (A mother with making process. Today, our challenge is not just scientific educational and/or work better technology, but finding better • Better understand the communication experience) channels and processes used by ways to support the informed public • Federal Government Scientist Moms, Millennials, Foodies and Early evaluation of those technologies and (Self-explanatory) Adopters in today’s environment our food production system. • Peer (A person who shares your when forming attitudes and opinions interest about food) SCIENCE DENIED about issues in agriculture and food. No matter what science says, many The research provides a model for The data shows Mom Scientist was issues remain contentious because introducing and discussing complex the most trusted source of information the social decision-making process is controversial issues. It’s a model that before respondents read any stimulus complex. The ability to break down the can be applied when communicating information. As respondents were communication barriers is critical to and engaging with consumers to build exposed to more information from the fostering informed decision making trust around topics that are critical three different voices, trust in Mom that encourages technology and to our ability to meet the growing Scientist remained strong and the trust innovation in society’s best interest. demand for food while preserving and scores rose consistently for Government Scientist. The Peer voice ultimately Among the barriers: protecting our natural resources. dropped to the least-trusted source of Cultural Cognition: the tendency of OUR RESEARCH APPROACH information in most scenarios. people to conform their beliefs about The 2014 web-based survey was controversial matters to group values Later in this report, a breakdown of the completed in September by 2,005 that define their cultural identities. data as it pertains to Moms, Millennials respondents who reflect the general and Foodies will be provided, but a Confirmation Bias: the tendency U.S. consumer population. To provide clear theme in the survey results is of people to favor information that deeper insights, we segmented the that we can make a difference when we confirms their existing beliefs and respondents into three groups: Moms, choose to engage by first establishing opinions regardless of whether the Millennials and Foodies. shared values and then providing information is true. The issues we selected as stimulus for factual technical information that Tribal Communication: the Internet the research were genetically modified is relevant and meaningful from a and digital communication have created ingredients in food and antibiotic use credible source. After Confidence silos of interest where people can easily in animal agriculture. Our intent was (shared values) has been established, find online communities whose values not to define messages and strategies people are more willing to consider and interests align with theirs. specific to these issues, but to use technical information, or Competence,

2014 CONSUMER TRUST RESEARCH | THE CENTER FOR FOOD INTEGRITY in their decision-making process. The Believability is a key driver cultural norms as they will influence improved trust scores of Government 1 in creating information how to best share information. Scientist clearly indicate that having that is trusted. Evaluate Commit to engaging technical expertise and a credential the information you want to share over time. Building trust build credibility when communicating against the Fundamental Message 5 is a process, not an event. technical information, once shared Elements and Outrage Factors in the Authentic transparency and continued values have been established. research models (see pages 10–13) and engagement using the models modify where necessary to align your Trusted Information Sources developed through this research will information with the models. Here’s where Moms, Millennials and encourage objective evaluation of Identify the groups you Foodies go for food system information: information that supports informed would like to engage. Who decision making. • Websites are the top-ranked source 2 are the Early Adopters—or of information for food system The 2014 CFI Consumer Trust opinion leaders—within those groups? issues for all three segments. Moms Research includes more than can be What are their values and concerns? ranked Family (not online) second, shared in any single report. We have Who are the likely sources they view while Millennials and Foodies additional insight, segmentation as credible? Listen to the concerns prefer Friends (not online) as their and detail available. If you or your and understand their values before second choice. organization would like more developing your strategy. • Moms also rely on Local TV Stations, information or would like to schedule Meet them where they are. while Millennials rely on Online a presentation, please contact us by Today’s monitoring technology Friends as additional sources of email at [email protected] 3 allows you to identify the information. or by phone at 816-880-5360. digital and physical communities • Food-specific TV Program/ where conversations about food and Networks are important sources agriculture are taking place. Select of information about food system those communities that are important issues for Foodies (less so for Moms to you and develop engagement and Millennials). strategies. Be a good neighbor when Like Moms, Millennials and Foodies, the you “move in” to the community and top food system source for the general remember that how you choose to population is Websites, followed by engage will determine how your new Local TV Stations, Friends (not online), neighbors respond. Family (not online) and Google. Develop a values-based HOW TO APPLY engagement strategy that WHAT WE LEARNED 4 starts with listening and The 2014 CFI research provides a embracing skepticism. Engage with model that can help in creating and the groups you’ve identified and focus sharing information that fosters on building relationships before informed decision making. Here’s how sharing information. Understand and to apply the findings. appreciate the group expectations and

3 SCIENCE DENIED: The Challenge of Introducing Complex, Controversial Issues into the Food Conversation

values they share. As a result, says Overwhelming scientific consensus tells us that childhood Kahan, public debate about science is vaccines and genetically modified foods are safe, that humans strikingly polarizing. contribute more to antibiotic resistance than animals, and In addition, when new evidence is that climate change is real. Yet the debates rage on. introduced, cultural cognition causes people to interpret that evidence The public is intensely divided on issues that to scientists through the lens of pre-existing bias. shouldn’t be issues at all. As a result, groups with opposing views become more polarized, not less, when exposed to scientifically sound Those dedicated to improving our lives and oxygen combine to make water. But information, according to Kahan. through science-based technologies it’s more complicated than that. and innovation are left scratching Kahan equates cultural cognition to fans Today’s environment is one in which their heads. “Science says it’s so, so at a sporting event. No matter what the many factors drive consumer opinions, why is there still debate?” Many issues issue, they take their cues about what feelings and beliefs—particularly when remain contentious, no matter the facts, they should feel and believe from the it comes to controversial emotion-laden because the social decision-making cheers and boos of their team’s crowd. issues—and facts are only one element process is complex. in the decision-making equation. It’s There is more detail on cultural But why is that? What can we learn a complex, multi-dimensional process cognition later in the report (pages 9-10). from this historic and predictable that includes many factors. Sources: www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/ public resistance—and how can docs/Confirmation_bias.html Cultural Cognition Kahan, D. Fixing the Communications Failure. Nature 463, the food system communicate 296-297 (2010) controversial scientific and technical Cultural cognition is a distinct decision- making process that helps explain information so consumers and Confirmation Bias how people digest evidence and make stakeholders consider the science when Confirmation bias is the tendency decisions about controversial issues. making decisions? of people to favor information that confirms their existing beliefs and The ability to break down the It refers to the tendency of people opinions regardless of whether the communication barriers is critical to to conform their beliefs about information is true. Its effect is fostering informed decision making controversial matters— like climate stronger for emotionally charged that encourages technology and change, the death penalty and same- issues like choosing food to feed your innovation in society’s best interest. sex marriage—to group values that define their cultural identities. children and family.

WHY FACTS ALONE DON’T According to Dan Kahan, professor of Case in point, during presidential DRIVE DECISIONS law and psychology at Yale University election season engaged voters are We’d like to think that the social and a member of the Yale Law School likely to get their information from a decision-making process is logical and Cultural Cognition Project, people source consistent with their political rational—that we live in a world where endorse whichever position reinforces affiliation. Voters are likely to watch 2 + 2 = 4, the earth is round and hydrogen their connection to others whose either Fox News or MSNBC—but

2014 CONSUMER TRUST RESEARCH | THE CENTER FOR FOOD INTEGRITY not both. You’re not likely to find a or cause—from everyday people to You don’t need doctors or scientists gun control proponent following celebrities—the power and platform to confirming it when you have hundreds the National Rifle Association lead and impact change. of moms.” on Facebook. We tend to look for Consider Jenny McCarthy, TV host Along with tribal consensus comes information that confirms our current and actress, and her influence as an tribal shunning and the related belief structure and reject information anti-vaccine activist. She gave a high- personal guilt as illustrated by one that is inconsistent with our values or profile voice to a movement against panelist’s confession: “I think mom current worldview. childhood vaccinations, claiming guilt is a huge factor. If someone is Tribal Communication vaccines caused her son’s autism— telling you something is dangerous, We see cultural cognition and despite overwhelming scientific for example fructose, and you hear confirmation bias play out very consensus that vaccines are safe. the message more than once, you owe distinctly with the Internet and new digital technologies that have resulted “Time magazine’s article on the autism debate reports that the in the revival of a social system from experts are certain ‘vaccines don’t cause autism; they don’t  the distant past: tribes. injure children; they are the pillar of modern public health.’  In his book “Tribes,” entrepreneur, I say, ‘That’s a lie and we’re sick of it.’” marketer and digital expert Seth Godin JENNY MCCARTHY, Huffington Post, March 9, 2010 explains that while the Internet was supposed to homogenize everyone by it to yourself to research it or quit Banking consultant turned food connecting us, it has instead created consuming it. I can’t keep giving my ingredient activist Vani Hari has built silos of interest. Today we can easily kids fructose if there’s a potential a considerable following and garnered find online communities whose values problem. We have to do our best job.” and interests align with ours—whether a great deal of media attention as you’re a seamstress, Corvette enthusiast, the Food Babe, rallying her growing The challenge of tribal communication chef or animal rights activist. online tribe to successfully pressure is that it limits perspective and insight food companies to ban ingredients she to only those in the tribe and may lead “The Internet was supposed claims are dangerous despite scientific to assigning credibility to those who to homogenize everyone by evidence to the contrary. share tribal values but lack technical expertise to support decision making The power of tribes when it comes to connecting us all. Instead that incorporates factual information. what it’s allowed is silos of food issues was underscored during 2013 CFI consumer panels. Science is Hard interest.” In addition, we’re all exposed to When asked what sources of  SETH GODIN, TED Talks “The Tribes complex issues that we’re simply not information led to the conclusion that We Lead,” February 2009 qualified to evaluate. genetically modified food is dangerous, one mom replied, “I’m part of a moms As a result, we make decisions It’s an environment giving those who group. When there is a big consensus, and process information based on are passionate about a hobby, issue I think ‘There’s something here.’ bounded rationality—our access to

5 THE DECISION-MAKING MAZE

TRIBAL COMMUNICATION

BOUNDED SCIENTIFIC RATIONALITY ILLITERACY

A HISTORY OF CONTRADICTIONS INFORMED CONFIRMATION DECISION BIAS MAKING

INFLUENCE OF GROUP VALUES BAD NEWS BIG IS BAD BIAS BIAS

information, our cognitive ability to very little about. The complexity of Negative information weighs more understand the information and the science and scientific illiteracy can heavily on our decisions than positive time (or lack thereof) that we allocate impact informed decision making. information. And the impact is to the decision-making process. significant. It’s Complicated Another way to look at it: because Other factors, like the bad news bias, In fact, it has been shown that a single decision makers lack the ability and tend to complicate the environment. item of negative information is capable resources to arrive at the best solution, of neutralizing five similar pieces of they simply settle for the satisfactory It’s why negative political ad positive information (Richey, Koenigs, one. How many of us read the policy campaigns work and why we are Richey and Fortin 1975) and that positions of candidates before casting quick to believe the worst in the latest negative information more strongly our vote, or read all of the safety celebrity scandal. It also accounts influences attitudes and purchasing and performance research before for why negative claims about intentions (Weinberger and Dillon 1980). purchasing a car? agriculture and food—like GMOs are dangerous, foods with ingredients All it takes is for one person— a friend, Not being able to fully grasp a complex I can’t pronounce will harm me and a colleague, a reporter, a blogger—in issue does not preclude us from hormones in milk are causing early your sphere of influence to make a making decisions or having strong puberty—eclipse the science that single “bad news” claim and trust opinions, however. We often have says otherwise. begins to erode. strong opinions on issues that we know

2014 CONSUMER TRUST RESEARCH | THE CENTER FOR FOOD INTEGRITY The Bad News About Bad News Why does one unfounded disparaging claim carry • Negative information more strongly influences more weight than sound science? The bad news attitudes and purchasing intentions bias. Studies have shown that negative information • Negative information is more enduring than weighs more heavily on our decisions than positive positive information information, particularly when it comes to technology, It’s a hardwired response according to Ohio State and the impact is significant. research showing that the brain creates a greater In fact, it’s been shown that: surge of energy when exposed to negative images as opposed to positive images. The theory is that our • A single item of negative information is capable capacity to weigh negative input evolved to keep us of neutralizing five similar pieces of positive out of harm’s way, but it’s a phenomenon that can be information detrimental when fear outweighs fact.

A history of contradictions muddies the water, too. Remember when What information sources have you used to come to your conclusions butter, eggs and coffee were bad for us? that GMOs are dangerous? Now the research tells us that’s not so. It’s difficult to trust science when “I’m f part o a moms group. When there is a big consensus, I think conclusions seem to change like ‘There’s something here.’ You don’t need doctors or scientists the weather. confirming it when you have hundreds of moms.” Add to that the erosion of trust in HEIDI, CFI Moms Panel on GMOs, Orlando, April 2013 “big”—big food, big government, big oil, big corporations. There have been plenty of incidents that have resulted company or organization and the It’s a complex environment we find in a loss of trust in science-based perception of shared values that drive ourselves in today. There has to be technology that we were told was trust. Many consumers believe that a better way to encourage informed foolproof in the form of devastating “big” companies will put profit ahead social decision making that fairly oil spills and deadly crashes involving of public interest. So “big” technology evaluates food and agriculture and defective automobiles. CFI research from “big” companies is plagued by results in greater trust in those shows us that there’s an inverse significant public skepticism from systems that make food accessible relationship between the size of a the start. and sustainable.

7 THE RESEARCH: Making Science Relevant in Today’s Conversation about Food and Agriculture

The application of technology in food and agriculture has provided countless benefits to society, from refrigeration and precision planting to pasteurization and drought-tolerant hybrids. Innovation and technology help us meet one of humanity’s most basic needs—the need to provide safe, nutritious food for our children and our children’s children.

But more must be done. Producing Consumer concern and skepticism Our 2014 Consumer Trust Research, food has a greater impact on the planet about food production are “Cracking the Code on Food Issues: than any other human activity and we understandable. The consolidation, Insights from Moms, Millennials and have to produce more food, using fewer integration and application of Foodies,” explores consumers’ complex resources every year. The responsible technology that makes food safer, more decision-making processes to: use of technology is key to addressing available and more affordable than • Better understand how to introduce this moral imperative. ever before also prompt concerns about science and technical information whether technology benefits society or Our challenge is not just better into the public discussion on issues only those who control it, and increases technology, but finding better ways in agriculture and food so that skepticism about the motivation of to support the informed public they’re considered in the social those in food and agriculture. evaluation of those technologies decision-making process. and our food production system. • Better understand the communication While we know that science alone will channels and processes used by not build public support for complex, Moms, Millennials, Foodies and Early controversial technology, we need Adopters in today’s environment to encourage earnest consideration when forming attitudes and opinions of scientific consensus in the social about issues in agriculture and food. decision-making process when it comes to innovation and technology that drive The research provides a model for agriculture and food. introducing and discussing complex controversial issues. It’s a model that Our goal should not be to win a can be applied when communicating scientific or social argument, but to and engaging with consumers to build find more meaningful and relevant trust around topics that are critical methods to introduce science and to our ability to meet the growing technology in a way that encourages demand for food while preserving and thoughtful consideration and protecting our natural resources. informed decision making.

2014 CONSUMER TRUST RESEARCH | THE CENTER FOR FOOD INTEGRITY OUR RESEARCH APPROACH

Anthropology: The work of Dan Kahan and others at The Cultural Our goal in 2014 was to explore new paths to introducing Cognition Project at Yale University controversial and complex issues—no matter what the speaks to societal values that are subject—into the public dialogue. To encourage informed firmly embedded and drive our decision making, we must find ways to make the science decision-making process (Kahan, meaningful and relevant. Slovic, Braman and Gastil 2006). Specifically, cultural cognition refers to the influence of group values—ones The issues we selected as stimulus for We integrated previous work from relating to equality and authority, the research were genetically modified three areas of social science into our individualism and community—on ingredients in food and antibiotic use research—anthropology, psychology risk perceptions and related beliefs. in animal agriculture. Our intent was and sociology—to gain greater Members of a group hold tight to their not to define messages and strategies strategic insight. All three offer beliefs, regardless of evidence to the specific to these issues, but to use these important perspectives in determining contrary, for fear that rejecting beliefs issues to develop models that can be how consumers process information could drive a wedge between them and applied across food and agriculture. and develop attitudes and beliefs. their peers. For example, this “protective THREE KEYS TO STRATEGIC INSIGHTS INTO cognition” is a major cause of political conflict over the credibility of CONSUMER DECISION MAKING scientific data on climate change and other environmental risks, according to Kahan.

“Those with individualist values who ANTHROPOLOGY prize personal initiative and those with hierarchical values who respect authority tend to dismiss evidence

KEY of environmental risks because INSIGHTS the widespread acceptance of such INTO evidence would lead to restrictions on DECISION MAKING commerce and industry, activities they PSYCHOLOGY SOCIOLOGY admire,” writes Kahan. On the other hand, those with more egalitarian and communal community values see commerce and industry as unjust sources of disparity and, as a result, are more likely to believe that

9 restrictions should be imposed due to unacceptable risks.

The bias explained by cultural cognition illustrates the disagreement Outrage Factors more completely than differences in • Voluntary vs. Imposed People tolerate more risk if it has individual characteristics like gender, been voluntarily entered into rather than forced upon race, income, education level and them (the difference between being pushed out of an political ideology. airplane with a parachute against your will as opposed to

Source: Fixing the Communications Failure, Dan Kahan choosing to skydive). • Control vs. No Control The extent to which government Psychology: We built our agencies address the risk in a competent manner. measurement approach around People feel alienated and frightened when they believe Outrage Factors as detailed in the that government agencies are not doing a good job of research of Peter Sandman and regulating potential hazards (if I choose to go skydiving, others on risk communication and then I hope the skydiving company is being well-regulated). previous work by CFI. Sandman and • Familiar vs. Exotic It is difficult to feel threatened by his colleagues studied what causes something familiar—your basement recreation room (in the public to become outraged about the case of radon) or the car (in the case of seat belts). a situation that they deem hazardous, But anything perceived as strange and unfamiliar can when in fact there is very little raise the concern just on that fact alone (skydiving for evidence of risk. the first time). For example, more parents are refusing to vaccinate their children, potentially exposing them to dangerous and sometimes deadly “Unlike anyone else in the arena of consumer trust, diseases. Yet scientific consensus tells CFI’s approach to the 2014 research is comprehensive. us vaccines are safe. More recently, public outrage erupted when a handful Incorporating lessons learned from anthropology, of Ebola cases were diagnosed in the psychology and sociology gives us much greater insight.” United States. But where is the outrage DR. STEPHEN SAPP, Professor, Department of Sociology, Iowa State University about influenza, the highly contagious illness that can cause life-threatening complications and hospitalizes more new and controversial, and especially who have little scientific knowledge than 200,000 people in the U.S. in light of hearing conflicting claims by about the particular technology will each year? those attempting to gain favor for their evaluate the technology to determine side, people with all levels of formal if it is friendly or a threat, using the When confronted with information education and across all categories of Outrage Factors above. about technologies perceived as being social-demographic characteristics

2014 CONSUMER TRUST RESEARCH | THE CENTER FOR FOOD INTEGRITY Outrage Factors • Not Memorable vs. Memorable Events that elicit much traffic. The entire community benefits from the economic public discussion and news media coverage can seem activity, but immediate neighbors have to deal with the more risky. For example, a plane crash that results in challenges of the plant. multiple fatalities is rare but very memorable when • Morally Acceptable vs. Unacceptable Certain actions compared to the thousands that die each year in car are unacceptable to most people regardless of the crashes. (Talk radio, 24-hour news and some bloggers calculated risk (e.g., deliberate contamination/pollution work to make issues more memorable and tend to polarize of groundwater used for drinking and deliberate abuse debate to secure listeners, viewers and readers.) of animals). It is not unusual for this outrage factor to • Commonplace vs. Dreaded Certain diseases, be the trump card in decision making because moral contaminants or forces understandably are dreaded, outrage elicits a strong emotional response. and more so if they are not commonplace. Examples • Responsive vs. Unresponsive Does the agency/ would include rare cancers and radioactive waste, or organization/company tell people what’s going on before more recently, Ebola compared to influenza. the real decisions are made? Is it willing to engage • Fair vs. Unfair People who have to endure greater in authentic dialogue? Does it listen and respond to risks than others are naturally outraged, especially if it community concerns? appears the decisions that create the risk are based on politics instead of science. For example, neighbors of an Source: “Risk Communication: Evolution and Revolution” By Vincent Covello and Peter M. Sandman; In Solutions to an Environment in Peril, Anthony Wolbarst (ed.), John Hopkins industrial plant may feel unfairly burdened by noise or University Press (2001), pp 164–178

Sociology: Our research explores the seekers with a higher social status, how to align information with the Diffusion of Innovation, a theory by higher level of education and higher lens of those interested in agriculture communication scholar and sociologist incomes, Early Adopters are the opinion and food can help focus our efforts to Everett Rogers that seeks to explain leaders in their social circles. They’re an increase understanding and informed how, why and at what rate new ideas important group to evaluate as others decision making. and technology spread through look to Early Adopters for information cultures. In his model, social groups when making decisions. are divided into five adopter categories: Innovators, Early Adopters, Early SUMMARY Majority, Late Majority and Laggards. As individuals we don’t ignore science, we simply interpret it through our We focus on Early Adopters as it’s the cultural, psychological and social lens group with the highest degree of opinion as we integrate it into our decision- leadership. Typically information making process. Better understanding

11 METHODOLOGY and MEASUREMENT

WHAT WE MEASURED

SURVEY RESPONDENTS Believability The 2014 web-based survey was completed in September • Which scenario is most believable? by 2,005 respondents who reflect the general U.S. consumer »» For Moms, Millennials and population. To provide deeper insights, we segmented the Foodies respondents into three groups of special interest: Moms, • Which type of information is most Millennials and Foodies. believable for all consumers and each segment? »» Fundamental Message SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT • Trusted Sources: leveraging trusted Elements (unifying message, A multi-step process was used to sources openness/transparency, develop information that was tested in accurate presentation of risks, this year’s research. Next, we combined Outrage Factors trusted sources ) into three groups to create three »» Outrage Factors First, we developed overarching key different scenarios for each topic. • Which type of information drives/ messages for the topics of genetically Scenario 1: Voluntariness, • predicts the overall believability of modified ingredients in food and Familiarity and Control antibiotic resistance. Based on a the scenario for all consumers and • Scenario 2: Fairness, Morality comprehensive review of each topic, for each segment? and Process we identified four Fundamental »» Fundamental Message Scenario 3: Memorability and Dread Message Elements that are key to • Elements (unifying message, openness/transparency, effectively communicating a Finally, we took each of the three accurate presentation of risks, technical message. scenarios and wrote in three different trusted sources ) • Unifying Message: a singular “voices” to determine how consumers compelling message that touches the viewed information coming from »» Outrage Factors deeper drivers of human behavior various messengers and to compare Comfort (connecting on shared values) the impact of experts with those who • Which scenario makes consumers • Openness/Transparency: are connected by shared interests: feel most comfortable eating acknowledging both sides of • Mom Scientist (A mother with food from animals treated with the story, providing a level of scientific educational and/or work antibiotics or consuming food with depth to avoid the appearance experience) GM ingredients? of “holding back,” and avoiding • Federal Government Scientist oversimplification »» For Moms, Millennials and (Self-explanatory) • Accurate Presention of Risks: Foodies • A Peer (A person who shares your present known risks since known • Which type of information makes interest about food) risks trump unknown risks by consumers feel most comfortable

accurately communicating safety eating food from animals treated facts with antibiotics or consuming

2014 CONSUMER TRUST RESEARCH | THE CENTER FOR FOOD INTEGRITY food with GM ingredients for all • Which type of information within consumers and for each segment? each scenario drives/predicts the »» Fundamental Message messenger trust for all consumers Elements (unifying message, and for each segment? openness/transparency, • Which type of information within accurate presentation of risks, each scenario moves the needle in trusted sources ) messenger trust for all consumers »» Outrage Factors and for each segment? • Which type of information drives/ • To what extent does level of trust predicts the overall comfort for all in Mom Scientist, Government consumers and for each segment? Scientist, and Peer affect responses »» Fundamental Message to believability, comfort and trust in Elements (unifying message, each scenario? openness/transparency, »» For Moms, Millennials and accurate presentation of risks, Foodies trusted sources ) »» Outrage Factors Other Analyses • To what extent does having heard Trust about the topic prior to completing • Which voice promotes the highest the survey impact all of the issues level of trust across the scenarios? above? »» For Moms, Millennials and • To what extent does the use of Foodies different sources of information on • Which voice promotes the highest food system issues affect responses level of competence across the to believability, comfort and trust in scenarios? each scenario? »» For Moms, Millennials and »» For Moms, Millennials and Foodies Foodies • Which voice promotes the highest • To what extent do prior concerns level of confidence across the about food safety and access scenarios? to accurate information affect »» For Moms, Millennials and responses to believability, comfort, Foodies and trust in each scenario? »» For Moms, Millennials and • Which voice has the highest level of Foodies credibility across the scenarios? »» For Moms, Millennials and Foodies

13 MAIN FINDINGS

TRUSTED MESSENGERS • Mom Scientist’s trust scores were CFI CONSUMER TRUST In an effort to measure the impact of highest in two scenarios, while MODEL information on the perception of the Government Scientist scores rose messenger, respondents were asked in all three scenarios and was highest to rate the messenger on several in one. Peer scored lowest in all three. attributes both before and after Among Moms, Millennials and Foodies: CONFIDENCE TRUST reading the scenario. (SHARED VALUES) • All three groups gave Mom Scientist After rating the believability of the the highest scores in two scenarios message and rating the degree to which and gave Government Scientist the the message promotes comfort with highest scores in the third. the topic, survey participants rated the Messenger on a 0 to 10 agree/disagree On the issue of GM ingredients COMPETENCE SOCIAL scale as a source of information about in food: Mom Scientist and LICENSE antibiotic resistance and GM ingredients Government Scientist are viewed as in food using these statements: the best sources of information. • This person is competent as a • In both scenarios, Mom Scientist INFLUENTIAL source of information. trust scores were highest, OTHERS • I have confidence in this person as Government Scientist trust scores FREEDOM a source of information. were second and Peer was lowest. TO • I would trust this person as a OPERATE source of information. Among Moms, Millennials and Foodies: • This person is a credible source of • In both scenarios, Moms gave information. Mom Scientist the highest scores. (skills and ability) and Confidence Government Scientist was second (shared values and ethics) impact An overall Messenger Composite Value and Peer was lowest. trust, but Confidence is typically at Score was created by combining the • Millennials gave Mom Scientist least twice as important. In predicting scores on all statements. the highest score in one scenario. Confidence, Believability is more often As noted earlier, while antibiotic Government Scientist scored a stronger predictor of Messenger resistance and GM foods were the highest in the other. Confidence than Promotes Comfort. topics chosen to serve as the vehicle • Foodies gave Government Scientist Believability Drivers for testing the impact of the messages, the highest score in both scenarios. The types of Fundamental Message the intent of the research is to identify Mom Scientist was second in one Elements that drive Believability in elements in the message and trust in and Peer was second in the other. the 20 models tested include Unifying the messenger—not to identify specific Message (significant in 11 models), messages for these two issues. WHAT PROMOTES MESSENGER Openness/Transparency (significant TRUST? On the issue of antibiotic resistance: in 17 models), Accurate Presentation Mom Scientist and Government Confidence is Key of Risks (significant in 18 models) and Scientist are viewed as the best In predicting trust in the Messenger, Leverage Trusted Sources (significant sources of information. models show that both Competence in five models).

2014 CONSUMER TRUST RESEARCH | THE CENTER FOR FOOD INTEGRITY The types of Outrage Factors driving controversial and complex, which is Believability vary by Messenger and Message Believability include Control the case with antibiotic resistance. the elements predicting message (significant in 17 models), Process Most message elements predicting Believability were different for each (significant in 12 models), Fairness, Believability on antibiotic resistance Messenger. The models are still valid, Familiarity and Voluntariness (all were common across all three but additional issue-specific testing significant in one model). Messengers, including Fundamental will help further define which elements Message Elements and Outrage Factors. are more impactful by Messenger for Impacts on Believability more controversial issues. Elements impacting Believability With a more controversial and complex are more consistent across all three issue like GM ingredients in food, Messengers when the issue is less the messages necessary to promote

TRUSTED INFORMATION SOURCES TOP SOURCES RANKED #1 Here’s where Moms, Millennials and Foodies go for food system information.

MOMS MILLENIALS FOODIES

Websites (21%) Websites (22%) Websites (25%) Family - Not online (12%) Friends - Not online (16%) Friends - Not online (15%) Google (12%) Google (15%) Google (12%) Local TV Station (12%) Family - Not online (13%) Family - Not online (10%) Friends - Not online (11%) Friends - Online (8%) Food-Specific TV Program/ Networks (9%) • Websites are the top-ranked source of information • Food-Specific TV Program/Networks are important for food system issues for all three segments (Mom, sources of information about food system issues for Millennials and Foodies) Foodies (less so for Moms and Millennials) • Moms’ second-highest ranked source is Family (not Like Moms, Millennials and Foodies, the top food online), while the second-highest ranked sources for system source for the general population is Websites. Millennials and Foodies is Friends (not online) Websites are followed by Local TV Stations, Friends (not • Moms rely on Local TV Stations, while Millennials rely on online), Family (not online) and Google. Friend (online) as additional sources of information about food system issues

15 WHAT IT ALL MEANS

information. The shift in trust scores WE CAN CRACK THE CODE for Peer voice clearly indicates that The social decision-making process is complex and multi- technical information from a credible source is still an important element dimensional. Cracking the consumer code to provide in building trust and introducing technical and scientific information in a manner that supports complex, controversial topics. informed decision making is not easy, but it can be done. The barriers detailed in this report can be overcome with the right How we introduce technical strategy and a commitment to sustained engagement. and scientific information is key to supporting informed FOOD SHAPES IDENTITIES After reading the information, Mom decision making. Food issues are important to Moms, Scientist was still the most trusted, Millennials and Foodies. They help but her scores often decreased as define who they are as people and her halo was tarnished by sharing shape their cultural identities. Foodies, information that may have conflicted in particular, express a higher level with existing beliefs. of concern about all topics than any The trust scores for Government other segment. Because these issues Scientist increased as the unifying are meaningful and relevant to each message helped communicate a of these groups, we can find ways to commitment to shared values, which connect if we follow the approach was then supported by technical outlined in the 2014 research. expertise and a credential.

The social decision-making Scores for Peer generally decreased process is complex and because respondents were looking multi-dimensional. for more than shared interests on technically complex issues; they were looking for expertise. CONNECTING THROUGH SHARED VALUES IS THE FIRST STEP How we introduce technical and The change in messenger trust before scientific information is key to and after respondents read the supporting informed decision making. scenarios provides specific insight into The shift in trust scores clearly shaping an effective strategy. Prior to indicates that starting with shared reading the information, respondents values is the first step. generally rated Mom Scientist most trusted, followed by Peer, with Once you establish the values-based Government Scientist being the connection, you are then given least trusted. permission to introduce technical

2014 CONSUMER TRUST RESEARCH | THE CENTER FOR FOOD INTEGRITY HOW TO APPLY WHAT WE LEARNED

Authentic transparency and continued AVOIDING THE GALILEO EFFECT engagement using the models In the 17th century, Galileo used science and his powers of developed through this research will encourage objective evaluation of observation to declare that the sun, and not the earth, was information that supports informed the center of the universe. For his contribution to science and decision making. society, he was declared a heretic and spent the rest of his life The CFI 2014 Consumer Trust under house arrest. Research includes more than can be shared in any single report. We have While no one is likely to be arrested for as credible? Listen to the concerns additional insight, segmentation sharing scientific facts today, we know and understand their values before and detail available. If you or your that simply having science on your side developing your strategy. organization would like more is clearly not enough to encourage and information or would like to schedule Meet them where they are. support informed decision making. a presentation, please contact us by Today’s monitoring technology Being right is not enough to assure email at [email protected] 3 allows you to identify the your information is considered in the or by phone at 816-880-5360. digital and physical communities social decision-making process. where conversations about food and The 2014 CFI research provides a agriculture are taking place. Select those model that can help in creating and communities that are important to you sharing information. Here’s how to and develop engagement strategies. Be apply the findings. a good neighbor when you “move in” to the community and remember that how Believability is a key driver you choose to engage will determine in creating information how your new neighbors respond. 1 that is trusted. Evaluate the information you want to share Develop a values-based against the Fundamental Message engagement strategy that Elements and Outrage Factors in the 4 starts with listening and research models (see pages 10–13) and embracing skepticism. Engage with modify where necessary to align your the groups you’ve identified and focus information with the models. (Let us on building relationships before know if CFI can help.) sharing information. Understand and appreciate the group expectations and Identify the groups you cultural norms as they will influence would like to engage. Who how to best share information. 2 are the Early Adopters—or opinion leaders—within those groups? Commit to engaging What are their values and concerns? over time. Building trust Who are the likely sources they view 5 is a process, not an event.

17 CONSUMER CONCERNS and ATTITUDES

RIGHT DIRECTION OR WRONG TRACK?

RIGHT DIRECTION 42% 36% 48% 40% 36% 41% 49%

31% 24% 29% UNSURE 27% 23% 26% 16%

WRONG 31% 33% 29% 36% 35% 33% 35% TRACK

100%

ALL WOMEN MEN EARLY MOMS MILLENIALS FOODIES ADOPTERS

The 2014 results show positive believe the food system is headed in For the first time, we asked the same trends when it comes to attitudes the right direction. That’s up from 39 question of Moms, Millennials and about the food system. When asked if percent last year. Foodies. Nearly half of the Foodies the food system was headed in the right believe the food system is headed in the In 2013, 43 percent of Early Adopters direction, 42 percent of respondents right direction, followed by Millennials believed the food system was headed said yes. That’s up 8 percent from 2013. and then Moms. Understanding the down the wrong track. That dropped perspectives of each segment can Only 33 percent of women believe to 36 percent in the 2014 survey, with help inform an effective strategy for the food system is on the wrong track 40 percent indicating it’s headed in the increasing trust. compared with 42 percent from last right direction. year. Nearly half of men, 48 percent,

OVERALL CONSUMER CONCERNS personal financial situation and having concern for Moms and the affordability Each year we ask consumers to rate enough food to feed people in and of healthy food the top concern for their level of concern about 18 different outside the U.S. Millennials and Foodies. This level of issues on a scale of 0 to 10. The issues concern creates a heightened interest Food-related concerns rank toward the include such broad topics as the rising in the issue and an opportunity for top of the list of overall concerns, with cost of healthcare, U.S. unemployment, meaningful engagement by those in the rising cost of food being the top the affordability of healthy food, the food system.

2014 CONSUMER TRUST RESEARCH | THE CENTER FOR FOOD INTEGRITY MOST CONCERNING LIFE ISSUES

66% 69% 70% 72% 72%

Rising Energy Keeping U.S. Economy Rising Cost Rising Costs Healthy Food of Food Healthcare Affordable Costs

The numbers reflect the percentage of those who gave the issues a “top box” rating, or an 8-10 rating on a 0-10 scale where 0-3 is a low level of concern, 4–7 is a moderate level of concern and 8–10 is a high level of concern.

ADDITIONAL FOOD SYSTEM CONCERNS

Imported Food Safety (63%) Women were more concerned Food Safety (62%) about most issues than men

Enough to Feed U.S. (55%)

Early Adopters were more Humane Treatment (49%)

of Farm Animals concerned about all issues than later adopters Environmental Sustainability (49%)

in Farming Lowest concern was for Access to Accurate Information (49%) having enough food to feed to Make Healthy Food Choices people outside the U.S.

19 CONSUMERS LESS CONCERNED ABOUT ALL TOP ISSUES IN 2014

CHANGE IN TOP CONCERNS CHANGE IN FOOD SYSTEM CONCERNS 2013 vs. 2014 2013 vs. 2014

No Increase in Top Concerns No Increase in Top Concerns

U.S. Economy (8.28, no change) Environmental Sustainability Rising Cost of Food (8.27, no change) in Farming (7.08, no change)

Safety of Imported Food (7.86, -3%)

Rising Healthcare (8.27, -3%) Costs Food Safety (7.81, -1%)

Rising Energy Costs (8.02, -4%) Enough to Feed U.S. (7.35, -1%)

Humane Treatment (7.08, -2%)

of Farm Animals

The numbers in parentheses reflect the mean score for the issue on a scale of 0–10.

TOP CONCERNS ABOUT ISSUES BY SEGMENT

MOMS MILLENIALS FOODIES

Rising Cost of Food (8.71) Keeping Healthy (8.18) Keeping Healthy (9.27)

Food Affordable Food Affordable Keeping Healthy (8.65) Rising Cost of Food (8.13) Food Safety (9.18) Food Affordable Rising Healthcare (8.51) Rising Healthcare (8.09) Rising Cost of Food (9.10)

Costs Costs Rising Healthcare (9.08) Rising Energy Costs (8.35) U.S. Economy (8.01) Costs

Rising Energy Costs (9.08) Food Safety (8.29)

U.S. Economy (9.02) U.S. Economy (8.28)

Foodies Expressed a Higher Level of Concern on All Issues

2014 CONSUMER TRUST RESEARCH | THE CENTER FOR FOOD INTEGRITY

It’s worth noting that Foodies rated “The U.S. has a responsibility to “I am more concerned about global their level of concern significantly provide food for the rest of the warming than I was one year ago.” higher on all issues compared to other world.” segments. These are individuals More than strongly agree. Less than . 1 in 3 who have a high level of concern 1 in 4 strongly agree and interest in these issues and are 20% 43% 36% 32% 46% 22% therefore more likely to be interested 0–3 4–7 8–10 0–3 4–7 8–10 and engaged in the public discussion. 6.30 MEAN: 5.40 MEAN: 5.98 CONSUMER ATTITUDES OVER TIME 4.86 5.10 CFI’s research benchmarks consumer 3.80 2008 2011 2014 attitudes on food system issues over As shown in the seven-year trend line 2011 2012 2013 2014 the years. Survey participants this above, after four years of decline the year rated their level of agreement While more still strongly disagree last three years have seen a steady with 31 statements on a 0–10 scale than strongly agree, we are beginning increase in concern over global with 0–3 reflecting low level of to see some movement in the belief warming/climate change. agreement, 4–7 moderate and 8–10 that the U.S. has a responsibility to strong level of agreement. Here are feed the world. “ I trust today’s food system.” 22 issues showing trend lines of note and a new statement that reflects “ I have access to all of the information Only 28% strongly agree. the amount of work still needed in I want about where my food comes building consumer trust. (Additional from, how it is produced and its 17% 55% 28% attitudinal results are available. Please safety.” 0–3 4–7 8–10 contact CFI if you are interested in learning more.) MEAN: 5.84 Nearly 1 in 3 strongly agree. “I am as confident in the safety of the CFI posed this statement for the first food I eat as I was a year ago.” 16% 54% 31% time in 2014. With the majority of 0–3 4–7 8–10 consumers in the unsure or ambivalent More than strongly agree. range, more work clearly needs to be 1 in 3 6.10 MEAN: 5.99 done to build consumer trust. 12% 52% 36% 0–3 4–7 8–10 4.50 “Food prices are a greater concern to 2007 2010 2014 me now than they were a year ago.” 6.40 MEAN: 6.36 The strong seven-year trend, shown More than 50% strongly agree. above, indicates more consumers 5.00 now believe they have access to the 6% 41% 53% 2007 2011 2014 information they want about food. 0–3 4–7 8–10 All attitudinal measurements related Nearly one-third strongly agree with 7.90 to food safety improved this year. The this statement. This is consistent with MEAN: seven-year trend, shown above, is the change we’ve seen in preferred 7.36 encouraging with more than one-third sources of information. In early years, 6.90 of consumers strongly agreeing with local TV was the primary preferred 2008 2011 2014 the statement. source. It is now websites, which give Concern on this issue has eased since consumers more direct access and it was first introduced to survey control over the information they seek. participants in 2008.

21

“With the increase in food prices, we “Commercial farms are likely to put “Today’s food supply is safer than it tend to eat out less often than one their interests ahead of my interests.” was when I was growing up.” year ago.” Half strongly agree. More than 1 in 4 Nearly 90% moderately or strongly agree. strongly agree. 6% 45% 50% 21% 52% 27% 0–3 7 4– 8–10 12% 44% 43% 0–3 4–7 8–10 7.50 0–3 4–7 8–10 6.00 MEAN: MEAN: 7.00 7.19 5.63 MEAN: 6.50 6.66 4.00 2008 2011 2014 2007 2011 2014 6.40 2007 2011 2014 “Big is bad” in the minds of many 27 percent of the respondents strongly consumers and the response to these agree with this statement, a 5 percent Agreement with this statement has two statements bears that out. The data increase from last year. remained relatively steady over the shows many people think smaller farms seven years of the study. are more likely to share their interests. “Government food safety agencies The full study also shows the trend to be are doing a good job ensuring the “U.S. food is amongst the most consistent between small and large food safety of the food we eat.” affordable in the world today.” companies as well as local companies and national companies. Nearly 1 in 3 strongly agree. 1 in 3 strongly agree. 18% 53% 29% 13% 54% 33% “I am confident in the safety of the 0–3 4–7 8–10 0–3 4–7 8–10 food I eat.” 6.50 MEAN: 6.50 MEAN: 6.16 Only 10% have low level of 5.85 disagreement. 4.50 5.10 10% 54% 37% 2008 2011 2014 2007 2011 2014 0–3 4–7 8–10 Strong agreement with this statement We know this statement to be true, yet 6.50 MEAN: rose three percent from last year. consumers in previous years were 6.47 unconvinced. While a mean score of 6 “I trust food produced in the U.S. is relatively low, the trend line shows 5.50 more than I trust food produced consumers increasingly in agreement. All measurements on food safety outside the U.S.” concerns, including the following two “ Family farms are likely to put their Only 6% strongly disagree. interests ahead of my interests.” statements and another on the previous page, show improvement. The mean 6% 43% 51% score here, which dipped below 6 two 0–3 7 4– 8–10 Nearly 1 in 3 strongly agree. years ago, is now the highest it been in the seven years of the study. 7.40 17% 53% 30% MEAN: 7.25 0–3 4–7 8–10 6.70 6.00 MEAN: 5.98 2007 2011 2014

5.50 The level of agreement with this statement was virtually unchanged 2007 2010 2014 from a year ago.

2014 CONSUMER TRUST RESEARCH | THE CENTER FOR FOOD INTEGRITY

“I make a special effort to buy items “U.S. meat is derived from humanely “I am more concerned about healthy produced in the United States.” treated animals.” eating than I was a year ago.”

More than 90% moderately or 1 in 4 strongly agree. More than 90% moderately or strongly disagree. strongly agree. 20% 56% 24% 9% 50% 41% 0–3 4–7 8–10 8% 47% 45% 0–3 4–7 8–10 0–3 7 4– 8–10 6.30 MEAN: 6.80 MEAN: 7.10 5.54 MEAN: 6.72 6.90 4.50 6.00 2007 2011 2014 6.70 2008 2011 2014 2013 2014 The number of people strongly agreeing The level of agreement is unchanged with this statement held steady but In only the second year of measuring from last year. three-quarters of the respondents are in support for this statement, the data the moderate to low agreement category, was basically unchanged. “Food grown organically is more showing people are largely unsure about healthful than conventionally grown food animals being treated humanely. “I feel confident about the food food.” choices I make for my family.” “I would support a law in my state More than 1 in 3 strongly agree. to ensure the humane treatment of Only 3% have low level of agreement. farm animals.” 3% 11% 47% 41% 53% 30% 0–3 4–7 8–10 More than half strongly agree. 0–3 7 4– 8–10 6.80 MEAN: 7% 41% 53% 6.57 7.50 MEAN: 0–3 7 4– 8–10 7.15 6.00 7.50 MEAN: 6.70 2007 2011 2014 7.32 2013 2014 The mean score on this statement has risen steadily since 2010 and is at its 6.50 Strong agreement with this statement highest point in the seven years of this 2008 2011 2014 rose four percent. study. After dropping below 50 percent in 2011 and 2012, strong agreement with “I am concerned about the “If farm animals are treated decently this statement is at a seven-year high. affordability of healthy food.” and humanely, I have no problem consuming meat, milk and eggs.” “It is more important for the U.S. to More than half strongly agree. teach developing nations how to 6% 40% 55% More than half strongly agree. feed themselves than to export food to them.” 0–3 7 4– 8–10 5% 41% 55% 7.80 0–37 4– 8–10 More than 90% moderately or MEAN: strongly agree. 7.46 7.90 MEAN: 7.20 7.46 6% 43% 52% 2013 2014 0–3 7 4– 8–10 6.50 This statement had the highest level of 2007 2011 2014 7.40 MEAN: agreement in 2014. It’s the top concern 7.30 It is encouraging that the level of for Millennials, Foodies and Early Adopters. agreement with this statement is on a 6.60 three-year rise. In 2012, only around 2011 2012 2013 2014 half the respondents strongly agreed While falling slightly from a year ago, compared to 55 percent this year. there’s still strong support for this statement.

23

ADVISORY PANEL and RESEARCH SPONSORS

2104 CONSUMER TRUST RESEARCH SPONSORS ADVISORY PANEL CFI’s annual consumer trust research is funded by sponsors through the Foundation for Food Integrity, a Nicholas Fereday non-profit foundation created to conduct research and Vice President/Global Senior Analyst provide educational outreach about today’s food system. Rabobank International, Food and Agribusiness Research Group National Sponsors American Farm Bureau Federation Steve Hermansksy, PhD Vice President, Science and Regulatory Affairs Dairy Management Inc. ConAgra Foods Rabobank America United Soybean Board Traci Irani, PhD Director State Sponsors University of Florida Center for Public Issues Education, California Poultry Federation Institute for Food and Agricultural Sciences Indiana Corn Marketing Council Michigan Soybean Promotion Committee Dana Pitts, MPH Associate Director for Communications Division of Foodborne, Waterborne and Environmental Diseases, Centers for Disease Control

B. Hudson Riehle, MBA Senior Vice President, Research and Knowledge National Restaurant Association Additional insight, segmentation and detail are available. If you or your organization would like more information or would like to schedule a presentation, please contact us via email at [email protected] or by phone at 816-880-5360. 2900 NE Brooktree Lane Suite 200 Gladstone, Missouri 64119 816-880-0204 foodintegrity.org [email protected] facebook.com/foodintegrity twitter.com/foodintegrity