Sustainable Food Laboratory

The question of how and why people remain blind to the food system beyond their plate was the subject of research in the U.S. and Europe over the past few years. Researchers looked beyond statements of opinion to patters of thought. Using techniques of cognitive anthropology and linguistics they studied how people thought about food rather than what they thought.

The answers are important for both continents. Researchers also developed "simplifying models" that experts and advocates could use. These models are designed to create conceptual shifts in thinking so that messages about food sustainability would have more traction. The research involved hundreds of people in 15 countries, and messages were quantitatively tested in the U.S. with phone interviews of 3,294 people.¹

Read a summary and excerpts from the U.S. qualitative research

Read a summary and excerpts from the European research

Or download the full reports from the right hand column of this page.

To view a chart of currently used frames and more effective frames as well as "Do's" and "Don't" of communication, look here

For further reading see the W.K.Kellogg Foundation website

The main findings are that²

• Food is personal. Most people connect food to eating and health. They resist thinking of food as having systemic and political implications.

• When people do think of food supply systems, they assume that those systems are increasingly "modern" - with the inevitable generic consequences such as more pollution, less local character etc. - or "new and improved." Messages that sound like "small is beautiful" resonate nostalgically with people's emotions, as do museums, but are viewed as irrelevant to the "real world." Consumers value variety, trust labels, and see occasional problems with food quality as "the price of progress," and "the need for more progress." Europeans may have more attachment to traditional farming systems, however, than do North Americans.

• In both the U.S. and Europe citizens are quite skeptical about suggestions that trends toward a more modern system could be reversed.

On both sides of the Atlantic the majority of people do not immediately connect food with issues of sustainable development. People can be prompted to make these connections, but prompting requires a question or message. Most people do not generally feel a need to think systemically about food. A personal frame is the easiest frame. But, once the doors of thought about systemic food system issues are opened, many people's appetites for this thinking grows rapidly. "I think we all woke up tonight," concluded one U.S. focus group participant. In Europe parents seemed to be particularly open to learning new ways to think about food.

When actively questioned, one interesting difference revealed by the research is that while U.S. citizens tend to trust the food industry more than they trust government, the reverse is true in Europe.

For those activist organizations that use "scare" messages to influence public opinion, these messages tend to reinforce inclinations on both sides of the Atlantic to stay in a personal stance and "turn off" emotional communications.

U.S. researchers emphasize that communication about systemic issues does NOT work when it starts with a focus on personal health or other essentially consumer-based messages, when it counts on people understanding complex concepts like diversity or sustainability, or when it is based on emotional appeals to evoke sympathy for family farmers.

European researchers suggest that messages avoid sentimentality, moralizing, or evoking radical change. They suggest that people respond well to messages that suggest gradual change.

On both continents researchers had success with a trial message about the importance of better controlling the powerful and undesirable trends in methods of production. In Europe research showed a strong correlation between environmental and health concerns. In the U.S., also, people are motivated by a concern that current trends in public health and the environment might have undesirable consequences for everyone. Once activated with a concern about the future, the following messages were useful to U.S. citizens:

• Legacy Frame: Communicate consequences of current food production choices for future generations and the long-term viability of the food system.
• Protection Frame: Highlight the dangers of current food production choices and the actions needed to protect the public.
• Runaway / Foundations Simplifying Model: Use the idea of a Runaway System (analogous to a runaway train or truck) to describe the food system as needing to be managed to avoid serious unintended consequences. Use the idea of destabilized Foundations (e.g. ecosystems, water systems) to convey what's at stake if management fails.
• Causal Sequences: Provide clear and concrete explanations of the causes of problems. Use key facts to support clear causal stories.
• Examples: Describe specific examples of successful management of the food and agriculture system so that people can imagine solutions to problems.