Transcript Characterizing Local and Organic Food Consumers Jeff S. Sharp, Molly Bean Smith and Shoshanah Inwood Presentation at OEFFA March 5, 2005 Johnstown, OH.

Characterizing Local and
Organic Food Consumers
Jeff S. Sharp, Molly Bean Smith and Shoshanah Inwood
Presentation at OEFFA
March 5, 2005
Johnstown, OH
Contact Information

Jeff Sharp,







Associate Professor Rural Sociology
311 Ag. Admin.
2120 Fyffe Road,
Columbus, OH 43202
E-mail: [email protected]
Telephone: 614-292-9410
Website: Ohiosurvey.osu.edu
Outline of Presentation


Introduction: Local and Organic Foods
Profiles of Ohio local and organic food
consumers




Data from 2004 OH Survey of Food, Agricultural,
and Environmental Issues
Existing profiles of alternative food consumers
Typology of Ohio Consumers
Future Food System Research Activities
Consumer demand

Changes in consumer demand have been
impacting various types of commodities


Health, diet, and safety are important
considerations
Some products benefit, some don’t from
changing demand

Organic attribute has been one beneficiary--USDA
reports that the organic and specialty crops market
is growing by 20 percent each year
Growing interest in local



USDA identified 1,755 Farmer’s Markets in its
1994 directory by 2004 there were 3,706
Farmer’s Markets
Growth of Community supported agriculture,
over 1,000 operating in the U.S. from 0 in the
1980s
Growing interest among chefs to utilize locally
produced foodstuffs
Mission: To promote the use of local foods in Central Ohio
restaurants; increase awareness of local food production;
grow partnerships between farmers and chefs; and promote
regional sustainable agriculture.
To Join or to Request More Information Please Contact:
PO Box 261062, Columbus, OH 43226
Voice: 614- 439-3132 E-mail: [email protected]
Organic Industrialization & Local

Growth in organic market has led to some
“industrialization” of organic production



Large scale production, large-scale processing
Cascadian Farms, store brand organic, etc.
“Industrialization” challenges the traditional
link between organic and local production

Emerging question: How do local producers,
particularly organic producers, adapt to market
with lower cost industrial organic products?
Goal of Research

Our research endeavor is organized to
distinguish the factors associated with local
versus organic food consumption



Sociological interest in the role of class and access
Practical interest in providing information to food
system stakeholders about consumer interest in
these food items
This research is Part I of a three step sequence
of analysis
About the OH Survey of FAE Issues


Biennial Mail Survey of Rural & Urban
Ohioans
Funded from variety of sources



College of FAES, OSU Extension, OARDC,
variety of faculty and program collaborators
Household sample purchased from private
vendor
Response rate ~56+ percent
About the 2004 Sample


Sample is stratified to ensure representation
from rural and urban areas of Ohio
Characteristics of 2004 parallel characteristics
of Ohio population as reported in 2000 Census

Key differences—sample slightly more educated,
reported slightly higher home values, and included
a modestly smaller proportion of African American
respondents
Some General, Food related
findings from 2004 Survey
Ohioans Concern about Food,
Agriculture & Environmental Issues
(1=Not concerned; 7=Very Concerned)
Issue
Rising Obesity among Americans
Pollution of rivers, streams or groundwater
Loss of family farms
Loss of farmland due to urban growth
Genetic modification of animals
Mad cow disease
Genetic modification of plants
Large-scale poultry and livestock development
Global Warming
Mean
5.8
5.8
5.6
5.5
5.3
4.7
4.6
4.5
4.4
Food Safety Attitudes
Q. Food is not as safe as it was 10
years ago



29% Strongly Disagreed or Disagreed
24% Undecided
47% Strongly Agreed or Agreed
Q. Concerns about food safety are
exaggerated



47% Strongly Disagreed or Disagreed
25% Undecided
28% Strongly Agreed or Agreed
Support for local and
organic foods
Frequency of purchasing local and
organic foods
Frequently
Occasionally
Seldom
Never
Local
32%
57%
10%
1%
Organic
7%
33%
42%
18%
Frequency of purchasing local and
organic foods by region
(% indicating frequently)
NW
SW
C
SE
NE
Local
39%
27%
31%
45%
31%
Organic*
9%
8%
8%
9%
5%
*No significant difference by region
Willingness to pay for local
and organic foods
NWTPM
Local
41%
WTP 10%
More
50%
Organic
61%
32%
WTP 25%
More
8%
WTP 50%
More
1%
6%
1%
Typology of Consumers
Typology Background

Potential benefits of typologies:




Better understanding of what drives certain
consumption patterns
Assist growers and retailers in understanding and
developing their market
May help to increase the consumption or
purchasing of particular foods
Assist in development of the local foodscape
Typology Example (Hartman Group)




True Naturals (7 percent)—express deeply held
environmental concerns and follow through on
concerns; regularly consume organic products
New Green Mainstream (23 percent)—care about
environment, but generally only change when
convenient
Affluent Healers (12 percent)—motivated by
personal health more than environment
Young Recyclers (10 percent)—into more solid
waste type issues, not focused on food matters
Typology Example (cont.)


Overwhelmed (22 percent)—primarily motivated
by economics
Unconcerned (25 percent)—generally not
concerned with environment; do not recognize
problems with food
Typology of Local vs. Organic
Consumers


Many of the factors associated with support for
organic have been substantiated in the
literature, such as environmental concern and
health concern
Few studies have looked at factors associated
with local as a food attribute distinct from
organic
Basis for Typology

Four cell
typology focusing
on willingness to
pay (WTP) more
for local and/or
organic
Not WTP
more for
local
WTP more
for local
Not WTP
more for
organic
WTP more
for organic
36 percent
6 percent
25 percent
33 percent
Labeling Consumer Types




Disinclined = Those unwilling to pay more for
either local or organic (36% of sample)
Organically Inclined = Those willing to pay
more for organic only (6%)
Locally Inclined = Those willing to pay more
for local only (25%)
“Super” Inclined = Those willing to pay more
for both local and organic (33%)
Organically Inclined (6 percent)




Strong belief that organic foods are healthier
than conventionally grown foods
Often look for health information and most
likely to indicate the use of food to maintain
good health
Express the greatest concern for food safety
Most likely to have stopped purchasing a
product due to a food safety concern

Express greater concern about mad cow disease
Organically Inclined (cont.)




70 percent reside in a city or suburb also most
educated, on average
15 percent are or have been members of a food
co-op; relatively frequent use of natural food
grocers
Less likely to come from a farm background
and know far few farmers, on average, than
other sets of consumers
Least trusting of farmers to protect the
environment
Locally Inclined (25 percent)




Large proportion of Southeast Ohioans
Frequent farmer’s market and roadside stand
consumers
Know a relatively large number of farmers on
average, most likely to have grown up on a
farm or in the country (30 percent)
Strongest support for agriculture and greatest
trust of Ohio farmers
Locally Inclined (cont.)

Highly value food purchases that will keep a
farmer in business



Relatively high rating of “Grown in Ohio” label
Loss of farmland is a serious concern
Least positive view of organics


Do not think organics are healthier
Very low rating of organic label as a factor in
decision making
Super Inclined (33 percent)

Consistent with organically inclined




Strong belief that organically grown is healthier
Many have stopped buying products for food
safety reasons
Often look for health information
More frequently shop at natural food grocer/co-op
Super Inclined (cont.)

Consistent with locally inclined




Know quite a few farmers, on average
Trust Ohio farmers and have positive attitudes
about agriculture’s importance to the state
Loss of farmland is a concern
Highly rate grown in Ohio attribute and purchases
that will keep a farmer in business
Super Inclined (cont.)



Members of this group are more likely than
others to belong to some type of environmental
organization and recycle
Most likely to maintain a vegetable garden
More common in NE, Central, and SW Ohio
Disinclined (36 percent)


Second to taste (and related quality attributes),
price is the most important consideration for
these folks in their food purchases
Least likely to belong/contribute to an
environmental organization
Disinclined (cont.)



Least interested in knowing how food is grown
and low concern with food safety
Least likely to look for health information
when buying food products
Even though interest is relatively low,
generally are less interested in “local”
attributes than “organic”
Implications



Important to note, super-inclined do not require local
and organic attribute in same product
While “industrialization” of organic production is
occurring, there is still a sizable market out there that
values the local attribute and which may be inclined
to pay for that attribute
There is also a sizable market out there that supports
local, but is not excited by the organic attribute
Implications

Need to further examine the super inclined and
the local subsets

Determine whether there are additional
distinguishing characteristics among those with an
interest in local beyond simply whether it has the
organic attribute or not.
Next steps in the research



Continued Refinement of the Local and
Organic Consumer Typology
2005 – Survey of motivated food consumers
(members of a food co-op and environmental
organization)
2005 – Series of Focus Groups gauging
interest in local/organic foods with different
socio-economic groups