New consumer research from The Center for Food Integrity (CFI), in partnership with FMI – The Food Industry Association, challenges conventional wisdom about what’s considered credible and “true” in today’s food system. Most revealing: authenticity often outweighs science in shaping consumer trust.

The research, “Truth Defined: Mapping Consumer Beliefs in Food & Agriculture,” identifies five distinct consumer segments, each with unique definitions of what’s true for them when it comes to food and how it’s produced. The findings provide the food and agriculture industries with a strategic roadmap to identify the most influential consumer segments and engage with credibility, forging stronger connections, inspiring informed conversations and building trust.

“We live in a polarized world where consumers, who are inundated with misinformation and disinformation and flooded with competing narratives, no longer rely on science or facts to define what’s true,” said Charlie Arnot, CFI CEO. “And they are much less likely to rely on credentialed experts. In fact, the 2024 Edelman Trust Barometer found that our peers or ‘someone like me’ are now as trusted as a scientist. That’s a consistent theme we saw in our research.”

This CFI/FMI study reveals that people interpret truth in food and agriculture based on a variety of factors including values, motivations, personal experiences and the sources they trust most. The research defines where consumers sit across the truth spectrum.   

“Each group approaches food and agriculture with different definitions of truth and that creates significant challenges,” said David Fikes, executive director of the FMI Foundation at FMI and chairman of the CFI board of directors. “The ability to understand each segment’s ‘truth’ is how we overcome polarization and start to find common ground and shared understanding.”

The belief-based research was conducted using digital ethnography, where the online behaviors of 4,000 U.S. consumers were studied over a two-year period across a wide variety of channels. Initial study results were validated by analyzing an additional 4,000 consumers.

Beyond in-depth demographics and definitions of truth, the research identified for each segment: values, beliefs and how they act on them, unspoken motivations, factors that trigger adoption or rejection of products, content needs, preferred brands, channel habits, what they watch and read, influencers they follow and meanings they associate with food and agriculture.

The five consumer segments that surfaced are: (Population and share of voice percentages illustrate the difference between actual segment size and the measure of the conversation the segment owns compared to the others.)    

- Progressive Disruptor: 5% of the population and 12% share of voice
They see truth as liberation, fueling a fair and sustainable food system.

- Authenticity Seeker:  14% of the population and 18% share of voice
They view truth as unfiltered, real and firsthand.

- Rationalist: 19% of the population and 15% share of voice
Truth is grounded in research, reason and science.

- Comfort Seeker: 43% of the population and 27% share of voice
They see truth as reassurance – simple, safe and familiar.

- Strategist: 19% of the population and 28% share of voice
They see truth as leverage and as a tool to secure an advantage.