About

Dr. William K. Hallman is a Distinguished Professor in the Department of Human Ecology at Rutgers University, with additional faculty roles in the Department of Nutritional Sciences and the Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy. He earned his Ph.D. in Experimental Psychology from the University of South Carolina in 1989 and joined Rutgers later that year. His scholarship focuses on issues concerning food, health, technology, and the environment, including perceptions, communications, and behavior change strategies related to food safety, foodborne illnesses, food recalls, food insecurity, food labeling, and exposure to environmental contaminants. He has extensively studied consumer perceptions and acceptance of new food technologies such as genetic modification, gene editing, nanotechnology, animal cloning, aquaculture, and cell-based meat, poultry, and seafood. Dr. Hallman has published over 250 peer-reviewed articles, book chapters, abstracts, and monographs, and has contributed to influential publications by the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine, Oxford University Press, and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. He has delivered over 600 presentations across more than 35 countries and conducts workshops worldwide to improve science communication among scientists, regulators, and policymakers. Additionally, he has served as an expert witness in court cases involving food and environmental contamination and has been involved as Principal Investigator or Co-Investigator on 45 grants supported by various public and private funding agencies. Dr. Hallman was a founder of Rutgers Against Hunger and established the New Brunswick Community Farmers Market to support food-insecure residents. He is an elected Fellow of the AAAS and the Society for Risk Analysis, and a Distinguished Research Fellow of the Annenberg Public Policy Center. His leadership roles include former Chair of the Department of Human Ecology, former Director of the Rutgers Food Policy Institute, and advisory positions to multiple federal agencies and international organizations, including the FDA, CDC, EPA, USDA, APEC, FAO, WFP, and WHO.

Research topics

• Political Science
• Food science
• Medicine
• Nursing
• Environmental health
• Business
• Nanotechnology
• Biology
• Agricultural science
• Mathematics
• Marketing
• Materials science
• Psychology
• Public relations
• Chemistry
• Biotechnology

Selected publications

• What Should We Call Seafood Made Directly From Fish Cells? An Empirical Investigation With Sushi Consumers In The United Kingdom

  SSRN Electronic Journal · 2025-01-01

  preprintOpen access1st authorCorresponding
  PublisherDOI

• Food culture and cell-culture: technical, ethical and social frontiers

  npj Science of Food · 2025-04-11 · 9 citations

  articleOpen access

  As the FAO/WHO has completed the rigorous identification of food safety hazards of cell-based food, this article identifies remaining research gaps, particularly in the economic and social sciences, that need to be filled to better meet the expectations of cell-based food production.

  PublisherOA PDFDOI

• Managing infectious aerosols to counter engineered pandemics: Current recommendations and future research

  Risk Analysis · 2025-07-07 · 2 citations

  articleOpen access

  In the increasingly likely event of an engineered-virus outbreak or pandemic of catastrophic potential, managing infectious aerosols to reduce transmission will be crucial. Now is the time to start preparing our buildings, public opinion, and regulatory environments for the infectious aerosol management interventions necessary to protect the public. But which interventions should governments and institutions invest in the most? We review the leading candidate methods for infectious aerosol management and discuss their respective advantages, disadvantages, and suitable settings. There is strong emerging evidence that two recently explored technologies, direct exposure to far-ultraviolet-C (UVC) light and triethylene glycol, are particularly efficacious and safe, but there remain open questions about the long-term safety and efficacy of these interventions. In the meantime, we recommend other interventions-especially upper-room UVC and in-room air cleaners-for settings where most occupants regularly spend more than a small fraction of their day. We conclude by listing research questions about these interventions that still need to be researched in social science, product development, medicine, engineering, economics, and ethics.

  PublisherOA PDFDOI

• U.S. consumer valuation of key product attributes in salmon, shrimp, and oysters: Insights from discrete choice experiments

  Aquaculture Economics & Management · 2025-12-12

  articleSenior author
  PublisherDOI

• Seafood Consumption Trends among U.S. Consumers: Influences of the COVID-19 Pandemic

  Foods · 2024-08-26 · 5 citations

  articleOpen accessSenior author

  The Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA) recommend twice-weekly consumption of seafood for health benefits, yet many U.S. consumers have historically fallen short of this target. The economic and societal impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic brought concern about further declines in seafood intake. This study evaluated the influence of COVID-19 on seafood intake among U.S. residents, toward understanding potential public health implications. A nationally representative cross-sectional survey of 1200 U.S. residents conducted in June 2021 evaluated the frequency and types of seafood consumed, and purchase methods used, before and during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. The results (weighted data) indicate most U.S. consumers (90%) eat seafood, yet only 19% meet the seafood DGA. The likelihood of meeting the DGA was higher among consumers who were Asian, Black, or Hispanic; older; unmarried; of higher income; familiar with the DGA; choosing seafood for health reasons; and living in Atlantic or Gulf coast states. During COVID-19, some increased seafood intake for health reasons (45%), while others reduced intake due to factors such as cost (29%), limited availability (16%), and challenges with preparation (11%). Fresh salmon (68%), frozen shrimp (59%), and cooked oysters (41%) were most frequently purchased by consumers of these foods. More consumers indicated purchasing wild salmon (62%), shrimp (44%), and oysters (51%) than farm-raised products, though many were unsure. Fewer consumers included seafood in online grocery orders (36%) than meal kit orders (61%) when using these services. Though many consumers continued to eat seafood despite decreased restaurant patronage, most did not reach the intake level needed to maximize health benefits. Educational and marketing efforts promoting the health benefits of seafood and the convenience of procurement via online purchase methods may encourage intake across demographic groups to benefit public health outcomes in the U.S.

  PublisherOA PDFDOI

• Attitudes toward artificial meat in Arab countries

  Journal of Food Science · 2024-12-01 · 10 citations

  articleOpen access

  In development for almost 20 years, artificial meat (also known as "cell-based meat," "cell-cultured meat," "cultured meat," "cultivated meat," "in vitro meat" and "lab-grown meat") is the most striking example of cellular agriculture. This research aims to study Arab consumers' attitudes toward artificial meat, which is a topic of great interest to scientists and the media. An online survey was conducted with 1025 participants revealed that 17% consider artificial meat to be promising and acceptable. Over 40% would be willing to try this novel product, whereas 36% expressed reluctance and 22.7% were unsure. Among non-hesitant respondents, about 60% of all participants would be willing to eat artificial meat on a regular basis, particularly in restaurants (16.2%), at home (27.6%), and/or in ready-made meals (33.9%). Nevertheless, the majority of participants (55%) indicated a willingness to pay (WTP) less or much less (or even nothing at all) for artificial meat in comparison to conventional meat. A notable 27% of participants expressed a WTP the same price for artificial meat as for conventional meat. Conversely, only 14% of them indicated a WTP more for artificial meat. Income, gender, and age were the most important predictors of consumer acceptance. Young and middle-aged men and those with the highest monthly income are most likely to accept artificial meat. These are the consumers most likely to be targeted by those marketing artificial meat in Arabic-speaking countries. PRACTICAL APPLICATION: The demographic groups most likely to accept artificial or cell-based meat in Arab countries are young and middle-aged men and those with the highest monthly incomes. These are the consumers most likely to be targeted by those attempting to market artificial meat in Arabic-speaking countries. Consequently, the results of our study are directly relevant to understanding the potential approaches (and challenges) to selling artificial meat in this context.

  PublisherOA PDFDOI

• Front-of-Package Protein Labels on Cereal Create Health Halos

  Foods · 2024-04-09 · 9 citations

  articleOpen accessSenior authorCorresponding

  Front-of-package protein labels are frequently added to breakfast cereals, aimed at increasing purchases by consumers who believe they would benefit from eating more protein. However, the overall nutritional compositions of such products are often not significantly better than similar products without protein labels, and may contain more sugar, sodium, and calories to improve taste. We conducted an online survey with 1022 US adults to examine consumer perceptions of two cereals (Special K Original and Special K Protein). Participants perceived Special K Protein as healthier and more nutritious, though less tasty, than Special K Original. Special K Protein was perceived as providing greater health benefits, such as being more likely to help them build muscle, stay healthy, and live longer. Many participants perceived no differences in the amounts of certain nutrients between the cereals, such as sugar (54.5%), sodium (59.2%), and calories (49.1%). Yet, when serving sizes are equalized to one cup, Special K Protein has more sugar, sodium, and calories than Special K Original. Though most participants reported viewing the Facts Up Front label, only 21.3% correctly chose Special K Original as having the larger serving size. This pattern of results suggests the presence of a health halo surrounding the protein-labeled product.

  PublisherOA PDFDOI

• Systems Thinking for Public Health: A Case Study Using U.S. Public Education

  NAM Perspectives · 2023-11-07 · 5 citations

  articleOpen access

  The initial response to the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States largely focused on addressing the immediate health consequences from the emergent pathogen. This initial focus often ignored the related impacts from the pandemic and from mitigation measures, including how existing social determinants of health compounded physical, social, and economic impacts on individuals who have historically been marginalized. The consequences of decisions around closing and reopening primary and secondary (K—12 in the United States) public schools exemplify the complex impacts of pandemic mitigation measures. Ongoing COVID-19 mitigation and recovery efforts have gradually begun addressing indirect consequences, but these efforts were slow to be identified and adopted through much of the acute phase of the pandemic, mirroring the decades-long neglect of contributors to the overall health and well-being of populations that have been made to be vulnerable.\n\nA systems approach for decision making and problem solving holistically considers the effects of complex interacting factors. Taking a systems approach at the start of the next health emergency could encourage response strategies that consider various competing public health needs throughout different sectors of society, account for existing disparities, and preempt undesirable consequences before and during response implementation. There is a need to understand how a systems approach can be better integrated into decision making to improve future responses to public health emergencies. A wide range of stakeholders should contribute expertise to these models, and these partnerships should be formed in advance of a public health emergency.

  PublisherOA PDFDOI

• Cell-Based, Cell-Cultured, Cell-Cultivated, Cultured, or Cultivated. What is the best name for meat, poultry, and seafood made directly from the cells of animals?

  Research Square · 2023-05-02 · 2 citations

  preprintOpen access1st authorCorresponding

  Abstract The terms “Cultured,” “Cultivated,” “Cell-Cultured,” “Cell-Cultivated,” “Cell-Based” and a control were tested using five criteria to determine the best common or usual name for meat, poultry, and seafood products made directly from the cells of animals. A nationally representative sample of 4385 American consumers (18+) participated in an online experiment. The names were shown on labels of packages of frozen Beef Filets, Beef Burgers, Chicken Breasts, Chicken Burgers, Atlantic Salmon Fillets, and Salmon Burgers. The terms were assessed on two key regulatory and three consumer acceptance criteria. “Cultured” and “Cultivated” failed to adequately differentiate the novel products from conventional “Wild-Caught and Farm-Raised” salmon products. “Cultivated” also failed to differentiate the novel Beef Filet product from “Grass-Fed” Beef Filets. “Cultured” and “Cultivated” also performed more poorly than the control (with no common or usual name tested) in signaling that the Chicken Burgers were “Neither Free-Range nor Raised Indoors.” “Cell-Cultured,” “Cell-Cultivated,” and “Cell-Based” each signaled to consumers that the products were different from their conventional counterparts, and signaled allergenicity, meeting the two key regulatory criteria. These three names were not significantly different on most of the measures of consumer perceptions. However, the overall pattern of results suggests that the term “Cell-Cultured” may have slightly better consumer acceptance across the novel beef, chicken, and salmon products. Overall, the participants were as interested in tasting and purchasing “Cell-Cultured” products, ordering them in a restaurant, and as likely to serve them to guests as they were the conventional products used as controls.

  PublisherOA PDFDOI

• Principles and Practices of Effective Food Safety Risk Communication – Introducing the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Food Safety Risk Communication Framework

  European Journal of Nutrition & Food Safety · 2023-07-01 · 2 citations

  articleOpen access

  This paper describes the principles and practices of effective food safety risk communication developed under the “Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Food Safety Risk Communication Framework and Associated Guidelines”. The framework recommends that effective food safety risk communication needs to be centered on the clear goal of protecting consumer health by ensuring transparency and timeliness, and communication on food safety matters should be conducted in a two-way process. It emphasizes the need to provide the public with credible information based on science and evidence and highlights that food safety is a shared responsibility among all stakeholders, including industry, government agencies, media organizations and consumers. It further highlights that food safety risk communication needs to be conducted in a consistent, systematic, inclusive, consultative, and preventative manner. The framework also indicates that effective food safety risk communication needs to pay attention to the backgrounds, experiences, and needs of concerned audiences. It stresses the importance of continuous improvement of the communication system to ensure food safety risk communication to be effective. Focusing on effective communications in response to food safety incidents, emergency or crisis situations, as well as everyday food safety communications, these principles and practical guidelines will help food safety regulators, food industry, food safety educators and other stakeholders improve their communications with target audiences.

  PublisherOA PDFDOI

Frequent coauthors

• Cara L. Cuite

  Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey

  70 shared

• Benjamin M. Onyango

  47 shared

• Howard M. Kipen

  Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey

  38 shared

• Brian J. Schilling

  Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey

  30 shared

• Carol Byrd‐Bredbenner

  29 shared

• Adesoji O. Adelaja

  Michigan State University

  29 shared

• Anne C. Bellows

  Syracuse University

  27 shared

• Ferdaus Hossain

  Weill Cornell Medicine

  21 shared

Education

• PhD, Experimental Psychology

  University of South Carolina

  1989

• Bachelor of Science, Psychology

  Juniata College

  1983

Awards & honors

• Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Sc…
• Fellow of the Society for Risk Analysis
• Distinguished Research Fellow of the Annenberg Public Policy…