This report discusses findings and strategic recommendations emerging from a research project intended to help the Union of Concerned Scientists further its goal of shifting U.S. animal agriculture from a system that relies on Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) to a more sustainable approach that uses more scientifically defensible methods.

The findings and recommendations in the report are the result of four distinct research approaches: focus groups (24 subjects), on-line questionnaires (137 subjects), telephone “TalkBack” interviews (51 subjects) and “TalkBack chains” (27 subjects). Subjects included a diverse set of 239 individuals from all around the U.S.

This research suggests that there are two main patterns in thinking that can create problems for communicators on the issues.

1. The Trade Off. U.S. adults are aware of problems in food production, but their thinking is guided by a dynamic that asserts itself in different ways. The “ideal system” of animal agriculture involves small, traditional farms that produce tastier, healthier food, better for the environment. However, some believe it cannot produce plentiful and affordable food. The “real system” involves factory farms, which produces food that does not taste as good, or is not as good for the environment, but the system provides enough food.
2. Consumer/Little Picture Thinking. Those in the U.S. think about the issues in terms of their own experience as consumers, price, and healthfulness and they find it difficult to focus on the larger production practices, etc.

Communications can easily trigger “consumer thinking.” The “traps” that communicators must avoid include:

• “Nostalgia Trap”: Seeming to call for a return to the good old days
• “Enviro Trap”: Seeming to place the environment ahead of practical needs – can happen when environmental issues lead the discussion
• “Vegan Trap”: Seeming to imply that meat/dairy is unnecessary, bad, or cruel, per se
• “Anti-business Trap”: Seeming to imply that (big) businesses should not be trusted to do the right thing
• “PETA Trap”: Seeming to place undue emphasis on the animals’ experience – happens when cruelty issues are given any weight
• Mentions of Food Price – leads to Consumer thinking
• Emphasis on Healthy Food – leads to Consumer thinking when used as leading point

Based on this research, it is recommended that a practical case should be made based on a positive alternative to the present approach. The new message should be that “there is a better system available for producing our food supply, that avoids the serious and unnecessary problems created by the current/dominant approach. The [non-CAFO] approach is better for several commonsense reasons: … It would be irresponsible and foolish not to move to the new system.”
Other specific recommendations:

• Practices as the organizing idea. Rather the focus on specific problems created by CAFOs, discussions should be organized around practices including how they differ and why it matters.
• Creating an opening, the Goldilocks Principle. Communicators must find a way of opening listeners up to new perspectives by providing a clear, effective, and memorable message.
• Filling in the picture: “Smart Pasture Operations.” Offer a clear, concrete and coherent picture of the alternative to CAFOs. “Smart Pasture Operation” is an effective label for operations that are less crowded, less massive, and pasture-based.
• Value and tone. People tend to resist information that undermines their confidence in food. Conversational tones should be pragmatic and measured.
• Using the Term “CAFO.” Research shows that using “CAFO” is more effective than “factory farm” (perceived as less dirty, healthier, more humane than a CAFO) or “animal factory” (understood as a breeding place).