Charlie Arnot | Food Safety News https://www.foodsafetynews.com/author/carnot/ Breaking news for everyone's consumption Thu, 08 Apr 2021 17:21:17 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.3.1&lxb_maple_bar_source=lxb_maple_bar_source https://www.foodsafetynews.com/files/2018/05/cropped-siteicon-32x32.png Charlie Arnot | Food Safety News https://www.foodsafetynews.com/author/carnot/ 32 32 Before crisis strikes: Earn consumer trust through transparency https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2017/09/before-crisis-strikes-earn-consumer-trust-through-transparency/ https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2017/09/before-crisis-strikes-earn-consumer-trust-through-transparency/#respond Thu, 14 Sep 2017 04:00:13 +0000 https://www.foodsafetynews.com/?p=143809 No one is immune from a food safety crisis and its ripple effects on consumers, stakeholders and hard-earned reputations. Maybe you’re fortunate and it’s been smooth sailing so far. But be prepared. A crisis – whether big or small – is in your future and earning trust is critical to successfully managing the fallout. The... Continue Reading

]]>
No one is immune from a food safety crisis and its ripple effects on consumers, stakeholders and hard-earned reputations. Maybe you’re fortunate and it’s been smooth sailing so far. But be prepared. A crisis – whether big or small – is in your future and earning trust is critical to successfully managing the fallout.

The key is to establish trust long before a crisis strikes so the public, customers, suppliers, investors and regulators know you as reputable and ethical, and a company that will make the right decisions when things go wrong.

Trust allows you to more effectively weather the storm and rebuild, and research from The Center for Food Integrity (CFI) shows that transparency earns that trust.

Transparency is no longer optional, it’s a basic consumer expectation, according to our research. The biggest takeaway is that transparency can help overcome the “Big is Bad” bias.

It’s no secret that consumers don’t trust ‘Big Food,” in part, because they feel large companies will put profit ahead of their best interest every time. And when it comes to a food safety crisis, the bigger the company the bigger the public impact.

This “Big is Bad” attitude is echoed in recent CFI interviews that asked consumers, “Do you trust food companies?” and “Do you think food companies are transparent?” Among the comments:

“I’m not sure the bigger food companies are going over the top to make sure people know everything that’s happened in the growth of the product they’re selling or in the processing of the product.”

“I trust food companies to do what it takes to deliver quarterly profits. I don’t trust them to make food that’s good for us.”

“I think it’s all profit driven. I’ve been reading labels for years and there’s always bad stuff hidden in it.”

Can you convert the skeptics? CFI research shows that the following three steps will go a long way toward solidifying your reputation as a company that’s worthy of their trust.

Show and Tell
What matters most to consumers is seeing a company’s practices – demonstrating through videos, blogs, presentations, advertising and promotion how food is produced, what’s in it, who’s producing it and how it impacts their health.

In our recent interviews, when asked how food companies can be more transparent, several respondents mentioned videos that show how their food got to their plate. The impact is reflected in the following response:

“You have to earn someone’s trust and if a food company wants me to trust them, they have to show me what they’re doing and how they’re doing it.”

Consumers simply want to know that you share their values when it comes to topics like safe food, quality animal care and environmental stewardship. Practices are an illustration of a company’s values in action – and values build trust. In fact, the CFI peer-reviewed and published trust model shows that communicating shared values is three-to-five times more important to earning trust than simply sharing facts or demonstrating expertise.

Engage
Consumers want the ability to engage, be heard and acknowledged, and get their questions answered promptly and in easy-to-understand language. More companies are doing a better job of providing consumers access to experts and answers, and it’s paying off.

The public feels more empowered than ever, according to survey results. Forty-percent strongly agree with the statement:

“I have access to all of the information I want about where my food comes from, how it’s produced and its safety.”

That’s up from 28 percent in the previous year and up substantially from 2007 when the statement was first posed. While there’s still work to do, the food industry clearly is headed in the right direction.

Demonstrate third-party verification
If it applies, feature third-party verification or audit information in your outreach. This demonstrates that you’re actually following through with your practices. Consumers feel a higher level of comfort knowing that a credible, objective third-party confirms your practices – especially when it comes to the issues of food safety and animal well being.

Surprisingly, the research revealed that consumers hold food companies – not farmers – most responsible for transparency when it comes to animal well-being and the environment.

Even though our food system has never been safer, expectations regarding safe food and the need for credible, accessible information are growing.

Consumers not only expect transparency, they deserve it. And the trust that’s earned as a result of an ongoing commitment to transparency will provide food companies the foundation for continued success in times of calm – and crisis.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)

]]>
https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2017/09/before-crisis-strikes-earn-consumer-trust-through-transparency/feed/ 0
Food Safety: Lightning Rod for Consumer Outrage https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2013/12/food-safety-a-lightning-rod-for-consumer-outrage/ https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2013/12/food-safety-a-lightning-rod-for-consumer-outrage/#comments Tue, 17 Dec 2013 18:49:18 +0000 https://www.foodsafetynews.com/?p=81688 Diana: “We have had more than 24 of your expired pouches, and my son has had diarrhea for a week!!!!!!! Honestly, giving me a voucher to buy more pouches is not adequate compensation for my son’s pain and suffering!” Rebeccah: “My daughter is still experiencing diarrhea. I hate not knowing what could be going on... Continue Reading

]]>
Diana: “We have had more than 24 of your expired pouches, and my son has had diarrhea for a week!!!!!!! Honestly, giving me a voucher to buy more pouches is not adequate compensation for my son’s pain and suffering!” Rebeccah: “My daughter is still experiencing diarrhea. I hate not knowing what could be going on in her tiny body. This whole situation is making me sick!” Heather: “Are you going to give me a ‘voucher’ for my pediatrician bills?” Megan: “Shame on you. Most parents spend the extra on organics because they are trying to feed their baby the best quality foods available. Frankly, I do not want a voucher for your food. My trust in you has been broken.” — Babies were getting sick and parents were outraged – blasting Plum Organics on Facebook after the company, which hangs its hat on providing safe, ultra-healthy food for babies, issued a voluntary November recall of defective food pouches that may spoil. We see this kind of outrage erupt for certain food system issues, but not others. So what causes an issue to go from one of mild concern to one where consumers want a product banned and someone to go to jail? And what can companies do to minimize the fallout? The Plum Organics situation is the perfect storm, according to new research from The Center for Food Integrity (CFI). For consumer outrage to occur, there must be both a high level of concern and a high level of perceived impact that the situation will affect “my family and me.” In this case, Plum Organics met the two-pronged standard. I can have a high level of concern, but if I don’t believe that the issue is likely to impact me or my family, my concern is externalized and the likelihood that I’m going to have outrage about that issue is not very high. It’s one of the reasons that third-world hunger issues don’t garner much attention from U.S. consumers. The concern may be there, but the level of impact isn’t. The Lean Finely Textured Beef, or “Pink Slime,” issue wasn’t much of one until parents discovered the product in their kids’ school lunches – then the slime hit the fan. In the 2013 survey, we gave consumers a wide range of issues – from GM foods and humane treatment of farm animals to processed foods and obesity – and asked them to rate them on a 0-10 scale regarding level of concern and level of perceived impact on themselves or their families. Food safety was one of only three issues that rose to the top as having both high impact and high concern. The other issues were food affordability and affordability of healthy food. The right conditions exist for social outrage to erupt at any time with each of these issues. We measured food safety specifically to help determine how food companies can effectively manage such crises and maintain trust, asking consumers to read either a food safety Bad Actor or Good Actor fictional news release and provide ratings on factors that cause both outrage and peace of mind. What we learned is that the public impact of two situations might be identical, but the outcome to the company or organization involved can be dramatically different based on how the company engages and responds. In the Bad Actor scenario, three people died as a result of a food safety issue. In the Good Actor scenario, seven people perished. The company in the Bad Actor scenario was defensive, shirked responsibility, was intentionally misleading, had a poor track record and lacked empathy. In the Good Actor scenario, the company acted immediately and committed to providing continuous updates, demonstrated transparency, accepted full responsibility, showed empathy and concern, and had an excellent track record of performance. The highest contributor to peace of mind in the Good Actor scenario was willingness to accept responsibility. The highest impact on consumer trust included having an historical record of good performance followed by demonstrating transparency, being sensitive to public interest, being candid and not misleading. The highest contributors to outrage in the Bad Actor scenario were intentional wrongdoing or causing harm, callous disregard for public interest, and being intentionally misleading. The highest impact on consumer trust included intentional wrongdoing or causing harm, callous disregard for public interest, and being intentionally misleading. Even though more people died in the Good Actor scenario, respondents trusted and were more likely to repurchase from the company in this scenario because the company engaged, accepted responsibility, and had a good food safety history. It’s pretty easy to glean from these two situations how companies such as Plum Organics can effectively manage a food safety issue to rebuild trust. It starts with being the Good Actor. Do you have a good track record and are you transparent in a crisis? Will you accept full responsibility and take quick action? Are you demonstrating authentic empathy and a willingness to correct wrongs? We can’t stop crises from coming and we can’t prevent consumer outrage – but we can effectively manage and quickly recover with the right response. The CFI Consumer Trust in the Food System 2013 report is available at www.FoodIntegrity.org/research.

]]>
https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2013/12/food-safety-a-lightning-rod-for-consumer-outrage/feed/ 4