Public Trust in the U.S. Food System

When Good Communication Isn’t Good Enough

Steve SappDepartment of Sociology

Iowa State University

Public Reactions to Agricultural Technologies

The development and implementation of new agricultural technologies sometimes engenders uncertainty, anxiety, fear, concern, and even organized resistance among the public.

Public reactions to agricultural technologies, therefore, affect the way that farmers and other actors within the food system are able to go about their business.

Thus, public responses to agricultural technologies affect the structure of agriculture.

Public Reactions to Agricultural Technologies

Simply put, persons directly involved in agriculture are not the only ones involved in determining what its structure will look like.

Nor are they the only ones who will determine which technologies are developed and used or the manner in which they will be regulated.

Persons directly involved in agriculture, within a democratic society (or world system), represent a minority of those persons who determine what will be the structure of agriculture.

Public Reactions to Agricultural Technologies

In this presentation, I want to address just one feature of this complex issue: communication about new technologies with the public.

That is, we want to know how to work with the public regarding new agricultural technologies for the purpose of improving the structure of agriculture.

To do this, we need to know the key determinants of public reactions to new agricultural technologies.

Risk Assessment and the Public

Logically, one would address the issue of public reactions to agricultural technologies by asking, “How does one convince the public to accept a new technology?”

This might sound like the right place to begin, but it is not, for several important reasons.

Risk Assessment and the Public

First, asking the question in that way assumes that the technology is safe and effective.

Most of the time, scientists get it right. But they get it wrong enough times that the public is justified in being skeptical.

Second, sometimes business firms and government agencies make mistakes in the application and regulation of new technologies.

Risk Assessment and the Public

Third, sometimes scientists, industry representatives, and government agencies intentionally lie, cheat, and steal.

Thus, even though the U.S. food system works very well most of the time, it fails just enough that one should not automatically assume that a new technology is safe and effective.

Risk Assessment and the Public

Also, sometimes actors within the food system have strong disagreements about the efficacy of a new technology.

Is this the right direction? What are the alternatives? Who stands to benefit and lose from

implementing this technology?

Risk Assessment and the Public

Therefore, when sociologists ask, “How does one convince the public to accept a new technology?”, they already are assuming a great deal:

That the technology is safe and effective. That the technology will be adequately

regulated. That the technology is the best choice among

alternatives.

The Issue: Risk Communication

Thus, the presumption that the question is a valid one is fraught with limitations.

We make this presumption here to allow us to address just one facet of a complex decision-making process regarding the development and implementation of new technologies. We ask, “How does one gain the trust of others?”

This, essentially, is the task of risk communication: To convince others either to “look out” or “stop worrying.”

Risk Communication: Approaches

To convince others to stop worrying, scientists might choose to provide no communication. That is, they might take the perspective that nothing needs to be said because they and risk managers are the ones who are well educated and know what they are doing.

To some extent, this is a very good argument!

Unfortunately, scientists and risk managers err sufficiently that, within democratic societies, the public demands to become involved in the decision-making process.

Risk Communication: Approaches

When scientists attempt to explain the facts, however, they face other problems because explanations involve subjective evaluations.

Scientists and representatives of groups concerned about the technology then argue about whose interpretation is the most correct.

These arguments come to the attention of the media, who understandably report them.

Risk Communication: The Media

When the media report on a controversy, it becomes amplified. We notice a “hoopla” effect.

Proponents of the technology then blame the media for arousing unnecessary anxiety about the technology.

Assuming the media are responsible in their actions, this critique is unjustified.

It is more correct to note that negative information carries disproportionate weight, for many good reasons.

Risk Communication: Trust

Some scholars argue that this amplification of risk and reporting of negative information destroys trust, which is fragile.

Others argue that this downturn in trust is temporary and can be overcome with risk communication techniques aimed at restoring trust.

To make a long story short: Convincing others to “stop worrying” equates to gaining their trust because trust explains most of the variance in adoption of new technologies.

Risk Communication: Trust

Informing scientists and business organizations about how to gain trust, therefore, is the key to teaching them how to inform the public about new technologies.

So, we ask the question, “What influences public trust in institutions?”

If we know what drives trust, then we can inform scientists and business organizations about how to convince the public to stop worrying (again, under the presumption that the technology mainly is a good one).

Risk Communication: Trust

Explaining public trust and training scientists and business leaders to communicate adequately with the public is easy!

We simply develop a theoretical model with the variables shown on the next slide. Then, we estimate the model, determine which variables are most effective at explaining trust, define these variables for scientists and business leaders, and convince them to listen to our advice.

Risk Communication: Trust

Here are just some of the variables we will need to explain public trust in societal institutions:

perceived risks stigmacomplexity alienationage perceived benefitsfamiliarity relative advantagevalue similarity sexanomie compatibilitysource credibility trialabilityobservability raceincome prior exposuremedia attention education…..

Risk Communication: Recreancy

Of course, a simpler model would be preferable!

We seek a model that:1. explains much of the variance in trust2. with just a few variables3. that are easily defined to others 4. and are actionable.

Risk Communication: Recreancy

The solution might lie in the recreancy theorem, which asserts that public trust in societal institutions reflects assessments of the competence and fiduciary responsibilities of institutional actors.

Where Competence refers to perceptions of expertise and skill, an Fiduciary Responsibility refers to perceptions that the source will behave with in the “right” way (ethically).

Fiduciary Responsibility can also be called Confidence.

Risk Communication: Recreancy

Our theoretical model can be diagrammed like this:

Where Compliance refers to willingness to heed the recommendations of others. This variable is used to evaluate the external validity of the measure of trust, as an indicator of commitment to a source of information.

Competence

ConfidenceTrust Compliance

Risk Communication: Recreancy

Note that, for the most part, scientists, business leaders, and proponents of new technologies prefer risk communication strategies that focus upon establishing competence.

Proponents want the public to believe that proponents know what they are doing, that the scientific findings are accurate and unbiased.

We will therefore be interested in discovering the relative effects of competence and confidence in explaining trust.

Recreancy: Empirical Analysis

Examination of trust in the U.S. food system. Nationwide survey of primary food preparers at

home. Final sample of 2,008 adults living in 50 states. Measurements on competence, confidence,

trust, compliance, and some social-demographic controls (i.e., age, sex, education).

Five areas of the U.S. food system: food safety, nutrition, worker care, environmental protection, animal welfare.

7-9 pertinent actors within each area (e.g., producers, processors, grocers, regulators, restaurants, advocacy groups).

Recreancy: Empirical Analysis

This research design yields 41 tests of our theoretical model. These are the results:

Std. EstimatesPath Avg. Low High

Trust Compliance .676 .520 .792Competence Trust .216 .154 .311Confidence Trust .668 .579 .768

R-Square Avg. Low High

Trust .745 .590 .837Compliance .495 .299 .713

Recreancy: Empirical Analysis

The results indicate that the model:1. explains much of the variance in trust2. with just a few variables3. that are easily defined to others.

Also, the results indicate overwhelmingly that confidence, not competence, is the key driver of public trust in societal institutions responsible for the U.S. food system!

Recreancy: Prospects

The question remains, “Do representatives of the U.S. food system understand the implications of these results and consider them to be actionable?

The interest shown in the results, which were presented at the Food Summit, held in Indianapolis in October, 2007, indicates that the model does have potential to affect the risk communication strategies of organizations and companies involved in the U.S. food system.

Recreancy: Prospects

Presenting messages aimed at instilling confidence in the source have been an important part of advertising and other promotional activities for many years.

Behaviors that reflect corporate social responsibility might also be very effective at gaining confidence

But these approaches are relatively new to proponents of the complex and sometimes controversial technologies used in the U.S. food system.

Soc 415: The Sociology of Technology

In Sociology 415 we learn how to bring about social change.

We learn how to gain adoption of complex and controversial new technologies.

We learn the diffusion of innovations approach to behavior change. This model, developed by rural sociologists at Iowa State University, serves as the foundation for every social change program used in the world today.

Public Trust in the U.S. Food System

When Good Communication Isn’t Good Enough

Thank You!