F oo DS FOOD DEMAND SURVEY Volume 4, Issue 10: February 15, 2017 Food Demand Survey | Oklahoma State University | [email protected]Jayson Lusk | Regents Professor & Willard Sparks Endowed Chair | 405-744-7465 Susan Murray | Research Specialist | 405-744-4857 This project is supported by a Willard Sparks Endowment, the Oklahoma Agricultural Experiment Station, and the Agricultural and Food Research Initiative Competitive Program of the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture. FooDS tracks consumer preferences and senments on the safety, quality, and price of food at home and away from home with parcular focus on meat demand. FooDS is a monthly on-line survey with a sample size of at least 1,000 individuals, weighted to match the US populaon in terms of age, gender, educaon and region of residence. See the online technical document for more details. About the Survey Compared to one month ago, willingness-to-pay (WTP) decreased for all food products. WTP for chicken wings and the two non-meat products experienced the largest percentage decline compared to one month ago. WTPs for both beef and pork products are lower than one year ago, but the opposite was the case for both chicken products. MEAT DEMAND Expenditures on food eaten at home increased 2.84% from January to February and expenditures on food purchased away from home increased 2.78% from January to February. Consumers expect lower beef, chicken and pork prices compared to one month ago. Consumers plan to buy less chicken and pork compared to last month, but purchasing plans for beef remain similar to January. FOOD EXPENDITURES Willingness-to- Pay Steak Chicken Breast Hamburger Pork Chop Deli Ham Chicken Wing Beans & Rice Pasta Last Year: February 2016 $7.92 $5.05 $4.54 $3.81 $2.78 $2.23 $2.31 $2.97 Last Month: January 2017 $7.55 $5.32 $4.55 $3.79 $2.48 $2.56 $2.59 $3.54 February 2017 $7.02 $5.23 $4.30 $3.72 $2.36 $2.26 $2.03 $2.93 % change (Jan. - Feb.) -7.02% -1.69% -5.49% -1.85% -4.84% -11.72% -21.62% -17.23% Current weekly at home Current weekly away from home Ancipated change in at home in next 2 weeks Ancipated change away from home in next 2 weeks February 2016 $94.57 $53.90 -0.08% -1.32% January 2017 $94.16 $53.26 -0.39% -1.47% February 2017 $96.83 $54.74 -0.09% -0.86% % change (Jan. - Feb.) 2.84% 2.78% -------- --------
Transcript
A
FooDSFOOD DEMAND SURVEY
Volume 4, Issue 10: February 15, 2017
Food Demand Survey | Oklahoma State University | [email protected] Lusk | Regents Professor & Willard Sparks Endowed Chair | 405-744-7465
Susan Murray | Research Specialist | 405-744-4857This project is supported by a Willard Sparks Endowment, the Oklahoma Agricultural Experiment Station, and the
Agricultural and Food Research Initiative Competitive Program of the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture.
FooDS tracks consumer preferences and sentiments on the safety, quality, and price of food at home and away from home with particular focus on meat demand. FooDS is a monthly on-line survey with a sample size of at least 1,000 individuals, weighted to match the US population in terms of age, gender, education and region of residence. See the online technical document for more details.
About the Survey
Compared to one month ago, willingness-to-pay (WTP) decreased for all food products. WTP for chicken wings and the two non-meat products experienced the largest percentage decline compared to one month ago. WTPs for both beef and pork products are lower than one year ago, but the opposite was the case for both chicken products.
MEAT DEMAND
Expenditures on food eaten at home increased 2.84% from January to February and expenditures on food purchased away from home increased 2.78% from January to February. Consumers expect lower beef, chicken and pork prices compared to one month ago. Consumers plan to buy less chicken and pork compared to last month, but purchasing plans for beef remain similar to January.
FOOD EXPENDITURES
Willingness-to-Pay
Steak Chicken Breast
Hamburger Pork Chop Deli Ham Chicken Wing
Beans & Rice
Pasta
Last Year:February 2016
$7.92 $5.05 $4.54 $3.81 $2.78 $2.23 $2.31 $2.97
Last Month:January 2017
$7.55 $5.32 $4.55 $3.79 $2.48 $2.56 $2.59 $3.54
February 2017 $7.02 $5.23 $4.30 $3.72 $2.36 $2.26 $2.03 $2.93
Food Demand Survey | Oklahoma State University | [email protected] Lusk | Regents Professor & Willard Sparks Endowed Chair | 405-744-7465
Susan Murray | Research Specialist | 405-744-4857This project is supported by a Willard Sparks Endowment, the Oklahoma Agricultural Experiment Station, and the
Agricultural and Food Research Initiative Competitive Program of the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture.
Consumer Expectations FooDS Page 2
GMOs, Salmonella, and E. coli were the most visible issues in the news over the past two weeks. Awareness decreased for all issues this month. The largest percent decrease in awareness from January to February was for swine flu followed by bird flu. Salmonella, E. coli, and farm animal welfare were ranked as the top three food safety concerns in February. The largest percent increase in concern over last month was for cloning. The largest percent decrease in concern was for battery cages followed by BSE.
AWARENESS & CONCERN TRACKING
Awareness of Food Issues
Food Demand Survey | Oklahoma State University | [email protected] Lusk | Regents Professor & Willard Sparks Endowed Chair | 405-744-7465
Susan Murray | Research Specialist | 405-744-4857This project is supported by a Willard Sparks Endowment, the Oklahoma Agricultural Experiment Station, and the
Agricultural and Food Research Initiative Competitive Program of the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture.
Concern for Food Issues FooDS Page 3
Taste, safety, and price remained consumers’ most important values when purchasing food this month. Consumers’ food values remained similar to those in past months. This month, consumers reported that their main challenge was finding affordable foods that fit within their budget. Finding convenient alternatives was the challenge experiencing the largest percentage increase, while finding foods my children will eat experienced the largest percent decrease. In February, 7.9% of participants reported having food poisoning, a 14.3% decrease from one month ago. About 5.2% of respondents reported being vegetarian or vegan.
GENERAL FOOD VALUES
Consumer Challenges Consumer Values
Food Demand Survey | Oklahoma State University | [email protected] Lusk | Regents Professor & Willard Sparks Endowed Chair | 405-744-7465
Susan Murray | Research Specialist | 405-744-4857This project is supported by a Willard Sparks Endowment, the Oklahoma Agricultural Experiment Station, and the
Agricultural and Food Research Initiative Competitive Program of the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture.
FooDS Page 4
Several new ad hoc questions were added this month to investigate how consumers respond to information about the herbicide glyphosate. We asked respondent’s willingness-to-pay for organic vs. non-organic apples and granola bars before and after receiving information about glyphosate. Respondents were randomly allocated to one of five treatments. Respondents in the first four treatments were provided an article to read from one of four sources: Natural Health, Food Babe, National Review, or Science Magazine. In the fifth treatment, respondents picked which of the four sources of information they wanted to read (they were given the name of the source and the title of the article). We will report the full results associated with the effects of information on willingness-to-pay separately, however, I will note that the “negative” information about glyphosate from Natural Health and Food Babe had a much bigger effect than the “positive” information from National Review and Science Magazine. We asked all respondents, “How trustworthy or untrustworthy do you consider each of the following news sources for information regarding food?” They responded on a scale from -5=very untrustworty to +5=very trustworthy. Science Magazine was the most trusted with a mean response of 1.8. Next was National Review at 1.33 followed by Natural Health at 1.28. Far behind (and statistically significantly lower) was the Food Babe at 0.55. Nonetheless, in the treatment where individuals could chose which information they wanted to read, 25.4% chose to read the article from the Food Babe. The only source chosen more often was Science Magazine (picked by 40.5% of respondents). Natural Health was picked by 19% and National Review by 15.1%.
