Increased focus towards food safety and quality is reshaping food purchasing decisions around the world. Although some food attributes are visible, many of the attributes that consumers seek and are willing to pay a price premium for are not. Consequently, consumers rely on trusted cues and information to help them verify the food quality and credence attributes they seek. In this study, we synthesise the findings from previous research to generate a framework illustrating the key trust influencing factors that are beyond visual and brand-related cues. Our framework identifies that consumer trust in food and the food system is established through the assurances related to individual food products and the actors of the food system. Specifically, product assurance builds consumer trust through food packaging labels communicating food attribute claims, certifications, country or region of origin, and food traceability information. In addition, producers, processors, and retailers provide consumers with food safety and quality assurances, while government agencies, third-party institutions, advocacy groups, and the mass media may modify how labelling information and food operators are perceived by consumers. We hope our framework will guide future research efforts to test these trust factors in various consumer and market settings.

A fundamental assumption in invasion biology is that most invasive species exhibit enhanced performance in their introduced range relative to their home ranges. This idea has given rise to numerous hypotheses explaining “invasion success” by virtue of altered ecological and evolutionary pressures. There are surprisingly few data, however, testing the underlying assumption that the performance of introduced populations, including organism size, reproductive output, and abundance, is enhanced in their introduced compared to their native range. Here, we combined data from published studies to test this hypothesis for 26 plant and 27 animal species that are considered to be invasive. On average, individuals of these 53 species were indeed larger, more fecund, and more abundant in their introduced ranges. The overall mean, however, belied significant variability among species, as roughly half of the investigated species (N = 27) performed similarly when compared to conspecific populations in their native range. Thus, although some invasive species are performing better in their new ranges, the pattern is not universal, and just as many are performing largely the same across ranges.