Public Trust in the
U.S. Food System
When Good Communication Isn’t Good Enough
Steve Sapp
Department of Sociology
Iowa State University
Introduction

The U.S. food system provides millions of
persons with a large quantity of safe,
wholesome, and relatively inexpensive food.

Most U.S. consumers are geographically and
conceptually far removed from this system.

Now that Americans no longer live on the farm
they wonder what’s going on down on it. And
they worry that the news is not good.
Introduction

The public understandably is:

Ignorant: They (we all) cannot help but be,
given the complexity of our technologies.
 Untrusting: They (we all) should be.
Democracies require engaged citizens.
 Skeptical: They (we all) have to be for
survival. And because science, government
regulations, and industry practices cannot
always be trusted, skepticism is justified.
Introduction

Being ignorant, untrusting, and skeptical
does not mean that consumers (we all) are
irrational, unreasonable, or hysterical.
These traits simply are a natural outcome
of living in a technologically advanced and
democratically governed society.

In a democratic society, this ignorant,
untrusting, and skeptical public to some
extent decides how the food system will be
structured and managed.
Introduction

Hence, the U.S. food system is a public
system.

Therefore, consumer trust will significantly
affect the structure and functioning of this
system.

Established institutions seek to retain trust.
 Alternatives seek to gain and retain trust.
Introduction

What are the key determinants of public trust in
the U.S. food system?

What actions can institutional actors take to gain
and retain public trust?

Within the social sciences, these questions fall
within the domain of “risk communication.”

Risk communication has two related goals:
 “Look out!”
 “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
complexity
age
familiarity
value similarity
anomie
source credibility
observability
income
media attention
stigma
alienation
perceived benefits
relative advantage
sex and gender
compatibility
trialability
race and ethnicity
prior exposure
education…..
Risk Communication: Theory


Of course, a simpler model would be preferable!
We seek a model that:
1. explains much of the variance in trust
2. with just a few variables
3. that are easily defined to others
4. and appeal to them as 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 Responsibility of
institutional actors.

Where Competence refers to perceptions of
expertise and skill, and 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:
Competence
Trust
Compliance
Confidence

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.
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 social-demographic (i.e.,
age, sex, education, income) and other controls.
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:
Path
Std. Estimates
Avg.
Low
High
Trust  Compliance
Competence  Trust
Confidence  Trust
.676
.216
.668
.520
.154
.579
.792
.311
.768
R-Square
Avg.
Low
High
Trust
Compliance
.745
.495
.590
.299
.837
.713
Recreancy: Empirical Analysis


The results indicate that the model:
1. explains much of the variance in trust
2. with just a few variables
3. 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

Presenting messages aimed at instilling
confidence in the source have been an
important part of advertising and other
promotional activities for many years.

But this approach is relatively new to proponents
of the complex and sometimes controversial
technologies used in the U.S. food system.

Future research needs to further explore the
meanings of competence and confidence and
actions effective at building them to gain trust.
Public Trust in the
U.S. Food System
When Good Communication Isn’t Good Enough
Thank You!