FooDS December 2013

The December edition of the Food Demand Survey (FooDS) is now up.

A few observations from the survey:

• Willingness-to-pay (WTP) for chicken products was down in December.  In fact, WTP for chicken breast was at the lowest level since the survey started back in May.
• WTP for steak only declined 4.3%, but was also at the lowest level seen since FooDS started.
• The only meat product to witnessed increased WTP was hamburger.
• Stated concern for all 17 food issues we track fell in December relative to November.  
• This month, consumers heard less in the news about Salmonella and E coli and more about GMOs and farm animal welfare.
• In a ranking of seven food challenges, the largest increase in December was "loosing weight".

As in the past, we added several ad hoc questions.  Given my recent visit to BPI, I was curious to learn more about consumers' perceptions of lean fine textured beef (LFTB), a product that has been called "pink slime" by some media outlets (I should note that these questions were added of my own volition, not at the request of BPI).  We asked "Which of the following do you believe is true or false about lean finely textured ground beef (otherwise known as "pink slime")?"  Here is what we found:

Most consumers correctly indicated that LFTB lowers the price of lean ground beef.  however, they also got quite a few facts wrong, and the results underscore the misconceptions people have about the product, some of which have been fostered by media outlets.  For example, more than half the participants thought LFTB led to illnesses, was used in dog food, and is unsafe to eat.  Only 25.59% thought beef is the only ingredient (so much for the effectiveness of the "beef is beef" campaign), and more than three-quarters disagreed that LFTB improved the taste of beef.  

We also asked a subsequent question, where respondents ranked the desirability of different hypothetical ground beef options that varied by price, LFTB content, fat content, and taste.  Analysis of this data suggests taste is the most important factor but that people were WTP substantive premiums to avoid LFTB.  That said, people also stated a preference for leaner ground beef.  Overall, the results imply that some the consumers' dislike of LFTB can be offset by: 1) better taste, 2) lower price, or 3) some combination of lower fat content and lower price or better taste.   

How surveys can mislead

Beef Magazine recently ran a story about changing consumer attitudes.  The story discussed the results of a nationwide survey which asked the question: "How has your attitude about the following issues changed during the past few years?"  Here is a screenshot showing the results  

So, according to the survey, 29%+35%=64% of consumers are today more concerned about antibiotics than they were a few months ago.  In fact, the figure suggests that more than half of the respondents are more concerned today about antibiotics, hormones, GMOs, animal handling, and farmer values.   

I would submit that these findings are almost entirely a result of the way the question is asked.  Are you more concerned about issue X today?  Well, of course, any reasonable, caring person is today more concerned about X.  Indeed, why would you even be asking me about X unless I should be more concerned?

More generally, drawing inferences from such questions shows the danger of taking a "snapshot" as the truth.  To illustrate, let's compare how the above snapshot looks compared to the trends that come up in the Food Demand Survey (FooDS) I've been conducting for eight months.  

In that survey, I ask over 1,000 consumers each month a question, "How concerned are you that the following pose a health hazard in the food that you eat in the next two weeks?"  where the five-point response scale ranges from "very unconcerned" to "very concerned".  

I pulled out responses to the four issues that most closely match the survey above and plotted the change over time (I created an index where the responses in each month are relative to the response back in May which was set equal to 100).  If people are generally more concerned about these issues today compared to six months ago, it isn't obvious to me from the graph below.

So, a word of caution: you can't take every survey result at face value.  These sorts of comparisons show exactly why our Food Demand Survey is valuable: it replaces a snapshot with a trend. 

Food Demand Survey - November 2013

The latest issue of the Food Demand Survey (FooDS) is up.

Interestingly, consumers reported hearing less in the news about all 16 food issues we track in November relative to October. The drop was particularly dramatic for Salmonella, which is likely a result of the the stories in the news last month related to foodborne illness from poultry.  There was an associated drop in concern for Salmonella and an almost 5% drop in the number of people reporting to have had food poisoning.  

One interesting issue relates to awareness and concern for lean fine textured ground beef.  Although consumers reported hearing less about it in the news, their stated level of concern jumped 4.62% (interestingly concern for "pink slime" only rose 2.02%).  The change may be due Cargill's announcement to label lean fine textured beef.  

Consumer willingness-to-pay for most food products was up in November, although less so for higher value cuts such as steak and pork chops.  

More food stamp debates

This interesting article in Politico discusses ongoing discussions and challenges in the debate over the size and composition of food assistance programs that are typically bundled into the farm bill.  There questions over waivers, work requirements, the size of cuts, and many more:

House Agriculture Committee Chairman Frank Lucas (R-Okla.) is being asked to defend a Republican plan to permanently repeal waivers allowing able-bodied, jobless adults to continue to get aid in periods of high unemployment. Yet back home in Oklahoma, his own state already passed a law ending its waiver effective last month—without requiring any action by Congress.

Then there are fights over work requirements:

Not waiting for Washington, Republican Gov. Scott Walker is pushing ahead with a plan to cut off food stamp benefits for able-bodied adults without dependents who fail to work at least 20 hours a week. 

Given the nature of the partisan fighting (and infighting), I thought I'd go back to the survey we conducted last month where we asked people whether they supported or opposed various changes to the food stamps programs (more details on that are here).  

In particular, I wanted to break down the results to look at the partisan divide to see which issues Republicans and Democrats were in most and least agreement.  Here is the breakdown (the figures are the % that agree with the change).

I've highlighted in red those issues with the most disagreement between Rep and Dems (typically at 25-35% difference in support) and those in green where there is most agreement (typically less than a 10% difference in in support).  The biggest disagreements, not surprisingly, have to do with size of cuts.  Almost 60% of Republicans and almost 70% of Tea Party identifiers support cutting food stamps by $39 billion; only 29% of Democrats support that move.  Large majorities of Republicans and Democrats (81% and 72%) supported separating food stamps from the farm bill.

Also out of curiosity, I was interested in the difference in the general public and those who are on or who have ever previously been on food stamps.  Here is that breakdown.

The biggest disagreements are about the length of time one can stay on food stamps and the size of the cuts.  The most agreement is on splitting the farm bill and food stamps and on eliminating certain eligibility rules.  

Public Opinion about Food Stamps

In October's release of the monthly Food Demand Survey (FooDS), I mentioned that we asked a few questions about preferences for changes in the food stamp program being batted around in ongoing debates about the farm bill.

I discuss the results in detail in a post over at farmdocdaily: http://farmdocdaily.illinois.edu/2013/10/public-opinion-about-food-stamp-program.html

Here is what I had to say there:

Uncertainties surrounding the future of farm policy remain
but these results provide some insights into which policies are likely to be
most popular in public opinion. Although
there is little support for large cuts in benefits, moderate cuts are more
palatable. Moreover, there are issues
such as adding work requirements, reducing the length of participation, and
maintaining eligibility rules that have budgetary implications and that are
popular in public opinion. While the
House decision to decouple farm programs from SNAP may ultimately cause a break
down in the urban-rural political collation that has held together the farm
bill for decades, it is a move that the vast majority of
Americans support.

As I mentioned there, it is important to recognize that public opinion does not necessarily equate with economically efficient policies, nevertheless, it is important to know what the public thinks.

Here are the main results from the survey.