Utilizing Dimensions of Trust to Communicate with Consumers About the Science Behind Food.

Alexa J Lamm, Kevan W Lamm, Allison R Byrd, Nicholas Gabler, Catherine E Sanders, Michael S Retallick

Abstract read

In one paragraph

Article in Foods (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

1citing papers in PubMed

–field-weighted citation impact

1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

Technological Innovation and Consumer Trust: Understanding Safety Perceptions in Next Generation Probiotic Development.Microorganisms · 2026
Article

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Alexa J LammDepartment of Agricultural Leadership, Education & Communication, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30606, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1999-8803

Kevan W LammDepartment of Agricultural Leadership, Education & Communication, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30606, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-5238-8842

Allison R ByrdDepartment of Agricultural Leadership, Education & Communication, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30606, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-1112-7483

Nicholas GablerDepartment of Animal Science, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7283-4782

Catherine E SandersDepartment of Agricultural and Human Sciences, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695, USA.

Michael S RetallickDepartment of Agricultural Education and Studies, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-9135-9515

Funding

Funded by the National Pork Board XXXXX

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Communicating the science behind food production to consumers is increasingly complex due to the proliferation of food innovations, information overload, and the presence of misinformation. Trust plays a pivotal role in consumer perceptions of food safety and acceptance of new food technologies. This study explores consumers' trust in food by segmenting audiences based on cognitive trust in science, affective trust in new foods, and dispositional trust in sources of food information. Using a survey of 1011 United States consumer respondents, cluster analysis identified five distinct trust segments: Lack Trust, Trusting, On the Fence, Trust New Food Not Science or Sources, and Trust Science not New Food. Results revealed significant demographic differences among the five segments, with age, education, political ideology, and dietary preferences influencing trust levels. Findings contribute to audience segmentation theory by demonstrating the coexistence of multiple trust dimensions and their impact on food-related decision-making. Practically, this study provides a framework for science communicators and policymakers to tailor messaging strategies that align with consumer trust profiles, ultimately fostering informed decision-making in the food system.

Indexed as

clusterconsumerfood productionnew food acceptancetrust

Identifiers

PMID40428454

DOI10.3390/foods14101674

PMCPMC12110933

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata

LicenceCC BY

Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.