Food, Fuel and the Future: Consumer Perceptions of Local Food, Food Safety and Climate Change in

the Context of Rising Prices

Rich Pirog Associate Director and Marketing and Food Systems Program Leader Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture – Iowa State University

Rebecca Rasmussen

MBA graduate student College of Business – Iowa State University

Report Contact: Rich Pirog (phone) 515 294-1854; (e-mail) rspirog@iastate.edu On the web, go to:

http://www.leopold.iastate.edu/pubs/staff/consumer2/report.html

September 2008

1

Table of Contents Executive Summary………………………………………………………. 2 Introduction……………………………………………………………….. 4 Methodology………………………………………………………………. 6 Consumer Survey Analysis………………………………………………. 6 Rising Fuel and Food Costs .…...………………………………….... 6 Food Safety........................................................................................ 13 Impacts of Food Supply Chains on Climate Change......................... 18 Perceptions of Local Food................................................................. 25 Conclusions................................................................................................. 28 Rising Fuel and Food Costs............................................................... 28 Food Safety........................................................................................ 29 Impacts of Food Supply Chains on Climate Change......................... 29 Perceptions of Local Food................................................................. 30 Appendix 1. Survey Instrument................................................................ 32 Appendix 2. Percent Responses to Survey Questions…………………. 43 Appendix 3. Respondent Demographics……………………………….. 44 Appendix 4. States within U.S. Regions………………………………... 47

Thanks to Mary Adams of the Leopold Center for edits and to Laura Miller and Isaac Roorda for web posting of this paper.

2

Executive Summary In the past year, rising fuel and food prices coupled with increased concerns about environmental impacts and safety of our food supply have prompted a number of actions by U.S. consumers regarding their food purchases. Against this backdrop of rising prices, demand for locally grown food products continues to increase. Given these developments, the Leopold Center’s Marketing and Food Systems Initiative conducted consumer market research in August 2008 to examine consumer perceptions of the complex relationships among rising food and fuel prices, food safety, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and food systems of varying scales (local, regional, national). Specific objectives of this research were to:

1. Ascertain consumer perceptions regarding their actions and aspirations to change their food purchases and use of transportation in response to higher food and fuel prices;

2. Learn about consumer perceptions of food safety, within the context of where

their food comes from and how it is grown; 3. Assess consumer understanding of the impact that various scales and production

methods of the food system have on greenhouse gas emissions;

4. Determine whether consumers are willing to pay more for a food system that has a net reduction in greenhouse gas emissions; and

5. Gauge consumer perceptions of what local food means to them in regard to

distance and location. The survey was designed by the authors and pre-tested for ease of use and completion by several food systems researchers. Survey administration and distribution was contracted to Authentic Response, a third-party company (http://www.authenticresponse.net/). The panel sample was designed to be representative of the U.S. general adult population (18 years and older). Completed surveys were collected and compiled automatically on August 16-18 2008 by Authentic Response, without gathering any personally identifiable information from the respondents or their computers. Seven hundred fifty-five usable surveys were received. Respondents to this survey were more likely to respond to rising food and fuel prices by taking fewer vacations and recreational trips, buying more food items on sale, eating out less, and purchasing fewer desserts (compared to other food categories). Overall, the respondents said that price increases caused an overall decrease in fuel use and a reevaluation of their food shopping and eating habits. A minority of respondents (17 percent) were very likely to cope with rising prices by increasing their purchases at farmers markets or by canning or freezing more fruits and vegetables.

3

The majority of these respondents (55 percent) perceived the U.S. food system to be safe (somewhat or very safe). However, a Leopold Center survey conducted in July 2007 found that 70 percent of respondents perceived the U.S. food system to be safe. There was considerable concern with a global food supply chain system – only 15 percent of respondents viewed such a system as safe, compared to 74 percent for a local system and 73 percent for a regional system. Responses to another question revealed that a food safety seal or inspection certification, more information about who has handled and produced the food, and facts on the country of origin would increase respondent confidence in the food supply. Respondents were asked a series of question about their perceptions of greenhouse gases in food supply chains, including carbon (greenhouse gas emission) labeling of food products, responsibility for their carbon footprint, and how greenhouse gas emissions and climate change compared against other environmental problems. More than 50 percent of respondents saw value in retailers putting carbon labels on their food products, with the vast majority willing to encourage the labels only if their costs did not increase. However, more than 60 percent of respondents would not pay more for a produce item that contributes 50 percent fewer greenhouse gas emissions. A critical question from both the marketing and policy standpoints is gauging the level of accountability consumers feel for the environmental impact of the foods they purchase. When asked specifically about responsibility for greenhouse gas emissions through their carbon footprint, 11 percent of respondents viewed themselves as responsible for their footprint. This contrasts with 37 percent of British respondents in a July 2007 consumer survey who believed they were responsible for their carbon footprint. Fifty percent of respondents perceived the loss of natural habitat as a more important environmental issue than climate change, with more than 40 percent viewing water pollution as more important. Given these findings, food retailers may want to better understand the various economic and environmental factors driving their customers’ purchases before they consider using food carbon labeling as a primary indicator of environmental stewardship. Larger volume food retailers and food service companies that embark on campaigns to purchase local food often struggle with the best way to define local with their customers. Respondents were given several choices to choose from that best captured their definition of locally grown. More than two-thirds of the respondents said that local food traveled 100 miles or less from the farm to point of purchase, while only a third viewed the definition as “grown in their state or region.” Respondents from larger western states were less likely to choose the option “25 miles or less” as their definition of local compared to their counterparts across the remainder of the country. Increases in food and fuel prices bring both opportunities and challenges to farmers and entrepreneurs who grow and market local foods. As the demand for these food products increases, it is critical that retailers, distributors, and farmers develop clear and authentic messages about local food products to maintain consumer confidence and trust.

4

Introduction The Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture is a research and education center with statewide programs to develop sustainable agriculture practices that are both profitable and conserve natural resources. It was established under the Iowa Groundwater Protection Act of 1987 with a three-fold mission: (1) to conduct research into the negative impacts of agricultural practices; (2) to assist in developing alternative practices; and (3) to work with Iowa State University (ISU) Extension to inform the public of Leopold Center findings. The Center’s work is organized in three initiative areas: Ecology, Marketing and Food Systems, and Policy – each aimed at enhancing the condition and viability of Iowa’s natural and social resources in varying, but integrated ways. Within the Center’s Marketing and Food Systems Initiative, there are three objectives:

• Research and test new marketing strategies and business structures that allow Iowa’s farmers to retain more of the value for food, fiber, or energy produced with high standards of stewardship that protect Iowa’s water resources.

• Support education, conduct research, and facilitate partnerships to increase investment and support of local and regional food, fiber, and energy enterprises that protect Iowa’s water resources and provide significant economic benefits to Iowa farmers and rural communities.

• Conduct research and education to address challenges that impede farmers and farmer networks from being equal partners with other players in food, fiber, or energy-based value chains.1

The initiative accomplishes these objectives through a competitive grants program (in coordination with the Ecology and Policy Initiatives), special projects and collaborations such as the Value Chain Partnerships project (www.valuechains.org), and research conducted by the Marketing and Food Systems Program Leader. Since 2001, the Marketing and Food Systems Initiative has completed ten in-house reports on food systems. Reports in 2003, 2004, and 2005 (written in collaboration with faculty and students from the ISU College of Business) focused on consumer perceptions of local, place-based, and organic foods. In 2007, growing concerns about global climate change and food safety and increased consumer demand for local food products nationwide spurred the Leopold Center to conduct a national survey investigating consumer perceptions of the safety, health, and environmental impact of various scales and origins of food supply chains.2 In 2008, rising fuel and food prices were in the headlines in the United States and around the world. The average retail price for gasoline rose 30 percent between 2007 and 2008; at the time of the release of this report the national average retail price of gasoline had 1A value chain is a network of businesses cooperating to satisfy market demands for a particular product. 2 Pirog, Richard, and Andy Larson, 2007. Consumer perceptions of the safety, health and environmental impact of various scales and geographic origin of food supply chains. Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture, Iowa State University.

5

dropped from $4.11 on July 14, 2008 to $3.65 on September 8.3 Diesel prices are projected to average $4.09 per gallon in 2008, compared with $2.88 in 2007.4 Food prices for U.S. consumers also have risen sharply in 2008. The compound annual rate for the food and beverage index of the Consumer Price Index (for May through July 2008) is 8 percent. 5 Higher commodity and energy prices are seen as two of the leading factors fueling higher food prices. 6 Additional national concerns with food safety surfaced again in 2008; the focus this time was salmonella contamination of tomatoes and various peppers.7 Given these developments, the Marketing and Food Systems Initiative decided to conduct consumer market research to examine consumer perceptions of the complex relationships among rising fuel and food prices, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, food safety, and different food system scales (local, national, global). The results could be used to inform retailer marketing decisions and future research in food systems. Specific objectives for this research were to:

1. Ascertain consumer perceptions regarding their actions and aspirations to change their food purchases and use of transportation in response to higher food and fuel prices;

2. Learn about consumer perceptions of food safety, within the context of where

their food comes from and how it is grown; 3. Assess consumer understanding of the impact that various scales and production

methods of the food system have on greenhouse gas emissions;

4. Determine whether consumers are willing to pay more for a food system that has a net reduction in greenhouse gas emissions; and

5. Gauge consumer perceptions of what local food means to them in regard to

distance and location. Several questions from the 2007 survey were repeated in 2008. Results from both years will be contrasted for those questions.

3 Short-term Energy Outlook. September 19, 2008. Energy Information Administration. Found at: www.eia.doe.gov/steo 4 Ibid. 5 Consumer Price Index, July 2008. Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S Department of Labor. Found at: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm 6 “Food Price Inflation: Causes and Impacts.” April 2008. CSR Report for Congress. Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress. Order Code RS22859. 7 USA Today June 9, 2008. “Salmonella outbreak tied to raw tomatoes strikes about 150”. Found at: http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2008-06-08-tomatoes_N.htm

6

Methodology Survey questions were designed to address the objectives and elicit consumers’ responses regarding rising fuel and food prices, food safety and product origin, greenhouse gas emissions in the food system, willingness to pay for food products with lower emissions, and perceptions of the geographic definitions of local foods. The survey was designed by the authors and pre-tested for ease of use and completion by several food systems researchers. The survey then was reviewed by the Iowa State University Office of Research Assurances, which houses the university’s Institutional Review Board for Human Subjects Research. The authors in the survey project were required to satisfactorily complete Web Training for Human Subjects Research. Survey administration and distribution was contracted to Authentic Response, a third-party company (http://www.authenticresponse.net/). Authentic Response maintains panels of potential survey respondents who have voluntarily elected to participate by way of a double opt-in process. Invitations to participate in a survey are distributed by e-mail and respondents are directed to Authentic Response’s panelist portal called My View, found at http://portal.myview.com/portal/app. The panel sample was designed to be representative of the U.S. general adult population (18 years and older). Each response was collected for a flat per-interview fee. Completed surveys were collected and compiled automatically on August 16-18 by Authentic Response, without gathering any personally identifiable information from the respondents or their computers. The responses were individually inspected for usability by Authentic Response and Leopold Center staff, and partially complete responses were discarded if there were more than two blank responses per survey. Seven hundred fifty-five usable surveys were received. A print version of the web-administered survey can be found in Appendix 1. Tables containing percent responses to each question appear in Appendix 2. Respondent demographics are presented in Appendix 3. Consumer Survey Analysis Survey questions were grouped by topic area:

• Rising fuel and food costs • Food safety • Impacts of food supply chains on climate change • Perceptions of local food

Results are reported by these topic areas. Rising fuel and food costs Figure 1 examines the perceived likelihood that respondents will make changes in their personal or family transportation choices because of higher fuel prices. Of the choices provided, the one with the highest likelihood (41 percent) was taking fewer vacations and

7

recreation trips. According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Americans drove 12.2 billion fewer miles in June 2008 than they did the previous June, marking the eighth month in a row that miles driven decreased.8 More than 20 percent of respondents indicated they would walk more. Only 11 percent said they would increase use of public transportation, while 12 percent said they would carpool more.

11%12%

21%

14%

41%

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0.45

Increase use of public transportation

Carpool more Walk more Purchase a more fuel‐efficient vehicle

Take fewer vacations or recreational trips

Percen

t of respo

nden

ts

N=748

Figure 1.  Perceived likelihood of actions taken due to rising fuel costsPercent who responded "Very Likely"

When asked how rising food prices would affect their purchases of various food categories, almost one-quarter (22 percent) indicated they would purchase “a lot less” of desserts (Figure 2). Seventeen percent said they would purchase fewer prepared foods, such as frozen pizzas, while less than 10 percent indicated they would not be purchasing as much bread (3 percent), dairy (3 percent), or fruits and vegetables (5 percent).

8 “High Gas Prices Cut Driving for 8th Month: Government.” August 13, 2008. Found at: http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN1333749120080813?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews

8

8%

3%

5%

3%

17%

22%

4%

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

Meat Dairy Fresh fruits and vegetables

Breads Frozen, prepared foods (pizza,  etc.)

Desserts Canned goods

Percen

t of respo

nden

ts

N=750

Figure 2.  Perceived purchasing patterns due to food prices risingPercent responding purchases would be "A Lot Less" 

When asked about a set of actions they would take to save money in response to higher food prices (Figure 3), nearly two-thirds of respondents indicated they were very likely to buy more items on sale. More than half were very likely to eat out less often (56 percent) and use more coupons (51 percent) to cope with higher food and fuel prices.

9

40%

37%

51%

64%

56%

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

Shop at bargain stores Purchase cheaper brands Use more coupons Buy more items on sale Eat out  less often

Percen

t of respo

nden

ts

N=748

Figure 3.  Perceived actions taken due to food and fuel prices rising  Percent responding actions as "Very Likely"

When asked about another selection of choices they would make in response to high food and fuel prices, more than 50 percent said it was highly likely they would combine shopping trips (Figure 4). Seventeen percent indicated it was highly likely they would purchase more food from farmers markets, or can or freeze fruits and vegetables. Sixteen percent suggested it was highly likely they would grow more of their own fruits and vegetables, and 10 percent said it was likely they would regularly visit farms where they could pick their own fresh produce.

10

16%17%

10%

53%

17%

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

Grow more of your own fruits and vegetables

Purchase more food from a farmers market

Regularly visit  local farms where you can pick‐your‐own 

fresh produce

Combine food shopping with other shopping trips

Can or freeze fruits and vegetables

Percen

t of respo

nden

ts

N=750

Figure 4.  Perceived actions taken due to food and fuel prices rising Percent who responded actions were "Very Likely"

Respondents were asked whether the rise in organic food prices would be equal, greater, or less than the rise in conventional food prices (Figure 5). More than one-third believed the rise in organic prices would match the increase in conventional prices, while more than 50 percent expected organic prices to rise more sharply.

11

35%

10%

55%

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

Same percentage Lower percentage Higher percentage

Percen

t of respo

nden

ts

N=752

Figure 5.  Perceived change in organic food prices versus conventional food pricesPercent responding whether increase in organic prices will be higher or lower than conventional

Food retailers may have some options to lower their costs and therefore somewhat offset the price increases that consumers must pay. In Figure 6, respondents chose from a suite of actions they perceived food retailers should take to reduce their own fuel or energy uses and reduce price increases. Nearly 40 percent of respondents “strongly agreed” that retailers should buy more locally grown products as a way of dealing with rising food and fuel prices. One-third “strongly agreed” that retailers should purchase and/or use more fuel-efficient trucks as they worked with wholesales or grower-shippers. More than one-third strongly agreed that they should use new technologies to reduce energy use within their stores.

12

Figure 6.  Actions food retailers should take to reduce fuel usage and food prices

42%39%

46%44%

39%

24%

33%37%

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0.45

0.5

Buy more locallygrown and

processed products

Push to move morefood products byrail rather than by

truck

Purchase and usemore fuel efficient

trucks

Reduce energy usewithin the store

with newtechnologies

N=752

Percen

t of respo

nden

ts

Agree

Strongly Agree

Torrential rains and flooding in the upper Midwest in May and June 2008 have affected corn and soybean yields in Iowa, Illinois, and other states. Respondents were asked whether higher prices for corn and soybeans were likely to increase food prices for various items found in food retail establishments (Figure 7). More than three-fourths of the respondents expected to see prices rise across all food category options provided.

13

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Meat Dairy Eggs Baked goods (bread, cakes, 

cookies)

Cold cereals Soft drinks (made with corn syrup)

Percen

t of respo

nden

ts

N=748

Figure 7.  Perceived change in food prices due to Summer 2008 Midwest flooding

Not At All

A Little (1 to 10 percent)

A Lot ( 10 percent or more)

Food safety When respondents were asked how safe they perceived the U.S. food system to be, 59 percent answered “somewhat safe” (42 percent) or “very safe” (17 percent), as shown in Figure 8. In the 2007 Leopold Center survey that posed the same question, 70 percent of respondents considered the U.S. food system to be “somewhat safe” or “very safe.”9 More than one-quarter of the respondents (26 percent) perceived the U.S. food system to be “somewhat unsafe” or “very unsafe” in the 2008 survey, compared with 16 percent in the 2007 survey.10 In the 2008 survey, 27 percent of females but only 12 percent of males viewed the U.S. food system as being “very safe.”

9 Pirog, Richard, and Andy Larson, 2007. Consumer perceptions of the safety, health and environmental impact of various scales and geographic origin of food supply chains. Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture, Iowa State University. 10 Ibid.

14

4%

22%

15%

42%

17%

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0.45

Very unsafe Somewhat unsafe Neutral Somewhat safe Very safe

Percen

t of respo

nden

ts

N=752

Figure 8.  Perceived safety of U.S. food system

Respondents were asked to rate the safety of different scales of food supply chains that operate within the confines of varying geographic areas, including local (occurring entirely within home county and neighboring counties), regional (occurring entirely within home state and neighboring states), national (within the United States), and global (Figure 9). Local and regional food supply chains were perceived to be “somewhat safe” or “very safe” by 74 percent of respondents. The national food supply chain was perceived to be “somewhat safe” or “very safe” by 56 percent of respondents, with only 15 percent perceiving that the global chain to be “somewhat safe” or “very safe”. In the 2007 Leopold Center consumer survey, 74 percent of respondents deemed the national food supply chain to be “somewhat safe” or very safe,” while only 15 percent had the same confidence in the global food supply chain.11

11 Ibid.

15

46%

52%

41%

12%

28%

21%

15%

3%

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

A localized supply chain that occurs entirely within your 

county and neighboring counties

A regional supply chain that occurs entirely within your state 

and neighboring states

A national supply chain that occurs entirely within the 

United States

A global supply chain that occurs across multiple countries

Percen

t of respo

nden

ts

N=749

Figure 9.  Perceived safety of food supply chains Percent who responded "Somewhat Safe" or "Very Safe"

Somewhat Safe

Very Safe

Respondents were given a set of options that could potentially increase consumer confidence in the food they purchase and were asked to rate the relative importance of each option (Figure 10). More than 50 percent of respondents perceived that some form of safety seal or inspection certification was important in increasing confidence. More than 40 percent felt it was important to know how the food was produced and who handled the food from farm to store. More than one-quarter (26 percent) believed that knowing the farmer or whoever produced and processed the food would help increase their confidence. Twenty-one percent placed importance on knowing whether the food was organic. Twenty-one percent also added other options such as knowing whether pesticides or fertilizers were applied or knowing the harvest or freshness date of the item.

16

39%

43% 43%

53%

21%

26%

21%

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

The country or state in which the food was produced

How the food was produced (what 

production method)

Complete information on who handled the food from farm to store

A food safety seal or inspection certification

Whether the food item is organic

Knowing the farmer or others who 

produced, harvested and processed the 

food

Other

Percen

t of respo

nden

ts

N=744

Figure 10.  Information perceived to increase consumer confidence in the food supply Percent who responded that the information  is "Important"

When asked whether the geographic origin of the food product should be placed on the label, 79 percent of respondents agreed, as long as the cost of the product remained the same (Figure 11). Only 15 percent of respondents indicated they would be willing to pay 5 to 10 percent more for the geographically-labeled product. The interim rule for mandatory country of origin labeling will become effective September 30, 2008.12 Food products covered include muscle cuts of beef, pork, lamb, goat, and chicken as well as ground beef, pork, lamb, goat, and chicken. Fresh and frozen fruits and vegetables, peanuts, and several types of nuts also are included.

12 USDA Agricultural Marketing Service. August 28, 2008. Mandatory Country of Origin Labeling - Interim Final Rule. Found at: www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5071922

17

79%

15%

6%

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

Agree, as long as cost stays  the same (producer or processor pays any additional  costs)

Agree, even if my costs  increase by 5‐10 percent Disagree, regardless of who pays the cost

Percen

t of respo

nden

ts

N=752

Figure 11.  Perception of whether the origin of the product should be provided on single‐ingredient food items

When asked about changes in purchases of tomatoes due to recent food safety concerns, 44 percent of respondents indicated they had made no changes in their purchasing patterns (Figure 12). Nearly one-quarter (23 percent) were buying more tomatoes from local sources, while 8 percent indicated they now were buying tomatoes only from what were considered “safe” sources. It should be noted that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) lifted its warning about potential salmonella contamination for certain types of tomatoes on July 17, 2008, nearly three weeks prior to when this study was conducted. 13

13 U.S. Food and Drug Administration. July 17, 2008. Found at www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/2008/NEW01862.html

18

9%

44%

23%

8%7%

9%

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0.45

0.5

Stopped buying fresh tomatoes

No change Buy more tomatoes  from local sources

Buy more tomatoes  that are specifically labeled to come from "safe" 

sources

Never purchase tomatoes

Wash tomatoes more thoroughly

Percen

t of respo

nden

ts

N=753

Figure 12.  Perception of changes in  tomato  purchasing  due to  tomato  food safety concerns

Impacts of food supply chains on climate change Total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions dropped slightly from 7,181.4 million metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent (MMTCO2e - a measure equal to total emissions multiplied by global warming potential) in 2005 to 7,075.6 MMTCO2e in 2006.14 This was largely a result of reductions in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. Fifty-five percent of respondents believed that human activity was largely responsible for increases in greenhouse gas emissions that lead to climate change, while 26 percent were uncertain (Figure 13).

14 Energy Information Administration. November 28, 2007. Emissions of Greenhouse Gases Report. Found at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggrpt/

19

55%

19%

26%

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

Agree Disagree Uncertain

Percen

t of respo

nden

ts

N=751

Figure 13.  Perception as to whether human activity is largely responsible for climate change

In Europe, large food sellers such as Tesco (the third largest retailer in the world) have responded to consumer concerns about climate change and have begun placing carbon labels on food and other products.15 These labels indicate the amount of carbon dioxide equivalents the food product generated from field to store, including production, processing, distribution, and packaging. Respondents were asked whether U.S. retailers should place carbon labels on food products (Figure 14). Forty-four percent indicated that they would like to see these labels, as long as the change did not increase the price of the product, while 9 percent were in favor of such a label change even if it meant a 5 to 10 percent increase in the product price. One-quarter (25 percent) of respondents did not want to see such labels, while 22 percent were uncertain.

15 The Guardian. April 16, 2008. “Tesco labels will show products’ carbon footprints.” Found at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/apr/16/carbonfootprints.tesco

20

44%

9%

25%

22%

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0.45

0.5

Percen

t of respo

nden

ts

N=752

Figure 14.  Consumer perception Should food retailers place carbon labels on food products?

Concerning greenhouse gas emissions of food production and transport systems, respondents were asked to provide rankings from highest to lowest emissions of greenhouse gas emissions for four produce supply chains with different origins and productions systems (Figure 15). Respondents ranked produce grown in a temperature-controlled greenhouse and then shipped cross-country as the supply chain with the highest emissions. The supply chain for local produce grown in temperature-controlled greenhouses was perceived to generate fewer emissions than that for produce grown in an open field and shipped cross-country. Respondents were asked this same question in the 2007 survey and provided the same relative ranking as in 2008, with local produce grown in open fields seen as having the lowest greenhouse gas emissions.

21

3.39

2.64

2.20

1.77

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

Long distance produce ‐ greenhouse Long distance produce ‐ open field Local produce ‐ greenhouse Local produce ‐ open field

Average

 ranking

Origin and production system N=625

Figure 15.  Consumer perception ‐ ranking greenhouse gas (GHGs) emissions for various produce origins and production systems (higher numbers mean more GHGs)

A life cycle assessment is a comprehensive evaluation of the environmental (and sometimes economic) effects of a product through every stage of its existence. When using life cycle assessment to compare the greenhouse gas emissions across two different food supply chains, higher emissions in food transport (long-distance travel) coupled with low emissions in food production (open field) may in some cases net lower greenhouse gases than lower emissions in food transport (locally grown) coupled with higher emissions in production (temperature-controlled greenhouse using fossil fuels).16 Although consumers may perceive locally-grown food to have lower environmental impacts than conventionally-grown and sourced products, more research is needed to compare these two systems. A recent Belgian study shows that energy uses and carbon dioxide emissions are slightly higher in local food systems compared to the mainstream, but in the same order of magnitude.17

16 Carlsson-Kanyama, Annika. 1998. “Food Consumption Patterns and their Influence on Climate Change.” Ambio 27(7):528-34. 17 Annelies Van Hauwermeiren, Hannelore Coene, Gert Engelen, and Erik Mathijs. March 2007. Energy Life Cycle Inputs in Food Systems: A Comparison of Local and Mainstream Cases. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning 9(1):31-51.

22

Respondents were asked who was responsible for the consumer’s “carbon footprints” – the relative greenhouse gas emissions from purchasing and using products such as food for everyday living (Figure 16). Nearly half (48 percent) said that manufacturers and processors were responsible, compared to only 11 percent who indicated that they were responsible. Twenty-two percent did not know who was responsible. In July 2007 the L.E.K. Consulting Group conducted a survey of more than 2,000 British consumers regarding their attitudes toward carbon footprints. More than one-third (37 percent) said they were responsible for their carbon footprint.18 This suggests a stark difference between U.S. respondents in our study and the British respondents in the 2007 study as to who is responsible for a person’s carbon footprint.

3%

11%

48%

3%

11%

22%

2%

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

Retailers/ Supermarkets

Government Manufacturers and Processors

Farmers Me Don't Know Other

Percen

t of respo

nden

ts

N=751

Figure 16.  Perception of responsibility for consumers' carbon footprints

When asked who should take the biggest future role in minimizing the carbon footprint of products, 45 percent of respondents said it should be manufacturers and processors, while 21 percent said it should be government (Figure 17). Only 10 percent of respondents indicated they should play the biggest role, with 15 percent indicating they didn’t know. In the 2007 L.E.K. study of British consumers cited earlier, 20 percent indicated they should be responsible, twice the percentage shown in our 2008 U.S. sample. 18 L.E.K. Consulting Carbon Footprint Report 2007. “Carbon Footprints and the Evolution of Brand-Consumer Relationships.” Found at: http://www.lek.com/UserFiles/File/Carbon_Footprint.pdf

23

4%

21%

45%

3%

10%

15%

2%

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0.45

0.5

Retailers/ Supermarkets

Government Manufacturers and Processors

Farmers Me Don't Know Other

Percen

t of respo

nden

ts

N=752

Figure 17.  Perception of future responsibility  for consumers' carbon footprints

When asked how much they would be willing to pay for a fresh produce item whose supply chain emitted half the greenhouse gases of a typical produce supply chain, 38 percent of respondents were willing to pay more; this includes the 2 percent of respondents who indicated they would pay 5 percent more (Figure 18). Fifty-four percent would pay the same amount. This same question was asked in the Leopold Center’s 2007 study, where 47 percent said they would pay the same amount and 47 percent were willing to pay more. It should be noted that food and fuel prices were lower in 2007, which may explain the decrease in willingness to pay more.

24

2%

5%

29%

54%

3%

1%

4%2%

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

Percen

t of respo

nden

ts

N=754

Figure 18.  Perception of willingness to pay for produce that contributes 50 percent less greenhouse gas emissions

Respondents were asked to compare other environmental impacts including acid rain, water pollution, smog, loss of natural habitat, and loss of farmland to increased greenhouse gas emissions (Figure 19). Fifty percent of respondents indicated that loss of natural habitat was more important than increased greenhouse gas emissions, with 46 percent believing that smog (air pollution) was more important. More than 40 percent indicated that water pollution (43 percent) and loss of farmland (41 percent) were more important than increased greenhouse gas emissions.

25

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Water pollution Acid rain Smog/ Air pollution Loss of natural habitat (forests, prairies) to urban 

sprawl or other development

Loss of farmland to urban sprawl or other development

Percen

t of respo

nden

ts

N=736

Figure 19.  Perception of the importance of environmental impacts relative to increased greenhouse gases (GHG)

Less Important

The Same

More Important

Perceptions of local food When queried about the frequency of local food purchases, 58 percent of respondents shared that they sometimes purchased local food; only 3 percent indicated that they never purchased local items (Figure 20). One-third of respondents said they often purchased local food, while 6 percent noted that they always purchased local food items.

26

3%

58%

33%

6%

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

Never Sometimes Often Always

Percen

t of respo

nden

ts

N=750

Figure 20.  Perception of the frequency of "local" food purchases

Although there is a clear definition of what is meant by the term “certified organic” at the national level and within state certifying agencies, no such widely accepted definition exists in the United States for local food. Respondents were given a set of choices about the definition of local food and asked to select the description that most closely matched their perception. The choices included: 25 miles or less, 100 miles or less, grown in your state, or grown within your region of the United States (Figure 21). More than one-third (38 percent) of respondents chose 25 miles or less as their definition of local, while 28 percent selected 100 miles or less. Twenty-six percent of respondents thought local meant grown within their state, while 7 percent perceived it to mean grown within their region of the United States.

27

38%

28%

26%

7%

1%

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

Grown 25 miles or less from purchase point

Grown 100 miles or less from purchase point

Grown in your state Grown in your region of the U.S.

Other

Percen

t of respo

nden

ts

N=754

Figure 21.  Perception of what is considered a "local" food purchase

Is there any difference in perceptions of local by various regions in the United States? Figure 22 shows the breakdown of responses to the options presented for local food by four regions in the United States; Northeast, Midwest, South, and West. (See Appendix 4 for the states included in each region.) The most noticeable difference by region is seen in the choice “25 miles or less,” which was selected by only 26 percent of respondents from Western states, but by 43, 42, and 39 percent, respectively, of respondents from the Midwest, Northeast, and the South. A higher percentage (31 percent) of respondents from the Western region perceived local to be “grown in their state,” compared to 23 percent in the Midwest, 26 percent in the Northeast, and 25 percent in the South.

28

43%

24%23%

9%

1%

42%

25%26%

4%3%

39%

28%

25%

8%

0%

26%

37%

31%

5%

1%

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0.45

0.5

Grown 25 miles or less from purchase point

Grown 100 miles or less from purchase point

Grown in your state Grown in your region of the U.S.

Other

Percen

t of respo

nden

ts

N=752

Figure 22.  Perception of a "local" food purchase according to U.S. region

Midwest

Northeast

South

West

Conclusions Rising food and fuel costs Respondents to this survey were more likely to respond to rising food and fuel prices by taking fewer vacation and recreational trips, buying more items on sale, eating out less often, and purchasing fewer desserts among their food choices. In general, the options selected by respondents indicated that rising food and fuel prices would reduce their overall use of fossil fuels for transportation and make them more discriminating food shoppers. A minority - 17 percent - were very likely to cope with rising prices by purchasing more local food at farmers markets as well as canning or freezing fruits and vegetables, while 16 percent were very likely to grow more of their own fruits and vegetables. The Burpee Seed Company, one of the largest producers of garden seeds in the United States, has seen vegetable seed sales increase by 30 percent in 2008. 19

19 “Gardens ease high food prices.” August 3, 2008. Robin Shulman, Washington Post. Found at: http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2008/aug/03/gardens_ease_high_food_prices/

29

More than half of the respondents (55 percent) thought prices for organic foods would rise at a greater rate than conventional foods. More than 75 percent of respondents thought food prices across all categories would increase due to higher corn and soybean prices in the flood-ravaged Midwest. That respondents connected corn and soybean crop prices and food prices signals some level of awareness that these two crops are primary ingredients or are used as feeds to produce many of the food products they buy. In 2007, more than half of the U.S. corn crop was used for livestock feed or ethanol production, while the remainder was used for starch, corn oil, sweeteners, flour, and meal that are ingredients in a wide variety of food products.20 Food safety Nearly 70 percent of respondents perceived the U.S. food system to be (somewhat or very) safe, slightly below the 74 percent found in our 2007 survey. It should be noted, however, that only 17 of all respondents in the 2008 survey view the U.S. food system as very safe. The biggest shift on this question between our 2007 and 2008 surveys is the sharp increase in respondents who perceived the U.S. food system to be somewhat or very unsafe; only 5 percent in 2007 compared with 26 percent in 2008. Incidents of e-coli contamination in spinach and salmonella in tomatoes received national attention during the period between the surveys and probably led to this decrease in confidence. When asked what would increase their confidence, more than 50 percent viewed some type of food safety seal as important, while at least 40 percent believed that information on the production method as well as who handled the food from farm to store also was important. Given that such information often is readily accessible in local and regional food supply chains, respondents may have been more likely to rate local and regional supply chains as safer compared to the national and global food chains. Confidence in global food supply chains by respondents was by far the lowest compared to local, regional and national; only 15 percent viewed these chains to be “somewhat or very safe,” compared to 12 percent in the 2007 survey. This confidence in local food supply chains by respondents does not seem to translate into frequent purchases; nearly 60 percent of respondents only purchase local foods “sometimes,” as opposed to “often” or “always.” Impacts of food supply chains on climate change The impact that the food supply chain has on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and climate change is a relatively unexplored research area in the United States. The establishment of the Food Climate Research Network in Great Britain several years ago21 has been followed by the creation of a list serve for North America on this topic in 2008. The food service management company Bon Appetit introduced a carbon point system in April 2008, so that guests to the system can calculate the impact of their food choices.22

20 USDA Feed Outlook. June 2008. Found at: www.iowacorn.org/User/Docs/us%20corn%20for%20ethanol%202006.pdf 21 Food Climate Research Network. Found at: http://www.fcrn.org.uk/ 22 Bon Apetit’ Management Company. April 2008. Found at: http://www.eatlowcarbon.org/

30

More than 50 percent of respondents (53 percent) saw value in retailers putting carbon labels on food products, but the vast majority would support such labels only if the cost of the food products did not increase. Respondents viewed localized produce supply chains as emitting fewer greenhouse gases than national supply chains producing items being shipped longer distances. Although this may seem intuitive, few studies have confirmed a lower carbon footprint for local versus national systems, assuming both systems were set up to feed the same number of people. The respondents did recognize that raising produce in greenhouses may contribute more GHGs than the same produce items raised in open fields. Only a small percentage of respondents viewed themselves as “most responsible” for their carbon footprint. This contrasts sharply with a British study conducted in 2007 where 37 percent of those replying believed they were most responsible. This difference may partially explain why there are numerous efforts by retailers, government, and consumer associations in Great Britain and the rest of Western Europe to reduce greenhouse gas presence in food supply chains. Carbon labels on food products are becoming more commonplace in Western Europe, but they remain virtually untested in U.S. retail markets. Other reasons for the respondents’ lukewarm support of carbon labels: less than 60 percent believe that humans are responsible for climate change, with more than 20 percent undecided. Fifty percent of respondents viewed loss of natural habitat as a more important environmental issue than climate change, with more than 40 percent thinking that loss of farmland and water pollution is more important. Given these findings, retailers may want to further query their customers’ interest in and understanding of food labels that provide information on various environmental impacts before using carbon labeling as the primary indicator of the environmental stewardship of the product. Perceptions of local food More than a third of respondents said they often or always purchase local food. Previous Leopold Center market research has shown that consumers appreciate local food for its taste, freshness, and quality.23 A question that often arises for larger volume retailers and food service companies is what does local mean to consumers? Local and regional food does not have a specific definition or a certification like organic food. More than two-thirds of respondents (67 percent) said that local food traveled 100 miles or less from the farm to their point of purchase. Only one-third viewed it as grown within their state or region. This is important news for retailers and food service companies who want to capture more market share by offering local food products. In a 2004 Leopold Center study of consumers and food retailers in the upper Midwest, consumers asked about their perception of locally grown and responded in a similar fashion to this study, with a strong preference for food that travels 100 miles or less. Food retailers sampled in the 2004 study were more likely to view local as grown with their state.

23 Pirog, et. al. 2004. Ecolabel Value Assessment Phase II: Consumer Perceptions of Local Foods. Ames, Iowa: Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture

31

There was a noticeable difference by region in perceptions of local, with a much lower percent of Western respondents (26 percent) choosing “25 miles or less” as the definition of local. With the exception of Hawaii, most Western states are larger in size than states in the other regions, which might partially explain the regional view that “25 miles or less” is not a workable definition of local food. Increases in food and fuel prices bring both opportunities and challenges to farmers and entrepreneurs who grow and market local foods. As the demand for these food products increases, it is critical that retailers, distributors, and farmers develop clear and authentic messages about local food products to maintain consumer confidence and trust.

32

Appendix 1. Survey Instrument

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

Appendix 2. Percent responses to survey questions. Question Number of

Respondents Total Number of Respondents

Percent of Respondents Answering Question

1 748 755 99.1% 2 750 755 99.3% 3 748 755 99.1% 4 750 755 99.3% 5 752 755 99.6% 6 752 755 99.6% 7 748 755 99.1% 8 752 755 99.6% 9 749 755 99.2% 10 744 755 98.5% 11 752 755 99.6% 12 753 755 99.7% 13 751 755 99.5% 14 752 755 99.6% 15 625 755 82.8% 16 751 755 99.5% 17 752 755 99.6% 18 754 755 99.9% 19 20 21

736 750 754

755 755 755

97.5% 99.3% 99.9%

22 751 755 99.5% 23 750 755 99.3% 24 754 755 99.9% 25 751 755 99.5% 26 747 755 98.9% 27 755 755 100.0% 28 753 755 99.7% 29 753 755 99.7% 30 749 755 99.2% 31 751 755 99.5%

44

Appendix 3. Respondent Demographics Please choose the answers that best describe yourself. Gender? Male Female Response Count 32.8%

(246) 67.2% (504)

750

What is your age? 18-31 32-43 44-63 63+ Response Count 16.7%

(125) 18.8%

(141) 43.9%

(329) 20.6%

(154) 749

What is your ethnicity? White,

non - Hispanic

Asian or Pacific Islander

Latino or Hispanic

Alaskan Native

Black or African American

Other Response Count

86.7% (653)

2.5% (19)

3.6% (27)

0.0% (0)

5.4% (41)

1.7% (13)

753

What is your level of education attained? High

School Some College

Bachelor’s Degree

Master’s Degree

Doctorate Degree

None of These

Response Count

23.2% (174)

43.9% (329)

22.3% (167)

7.7% (58)

2.4% (18)

0.5% (4)

750

Please choose the answers that best describe you and/or your household. Number of adults (18 and over)? 1 2 3 4 or

more Response

Count 21.8%

(163) 55.6%

(415) 15.7%

(117) 6.8%

(51) 746

Number of children (under 18)? 0 1 2 3 4 5 or

more Response

Count 67.6%

(510) 12.5% (94)

13.0% (98)

4.6% (35)

1.6% (12)

0.7% (5)

754

45

In what type of area do you live? Response

Percent Response Count

City with population great than 50,000 45.6% 343 Town with population between 5,000 and 50,000

34.6% 260

Village with population less than 5,000 9.3% 70 On a farm/ in a rural area 10.5% 79 Where have you purchased food in the past month? Response

Percent Response Count

Conventional grocery store chain 88.2% 664 Natural/ Organic grocery store chain 16.5% 124 Superstore/ Supercenter 64.7% 487 Food cooperative 3.7% 28 Restaurant/ Cafeteria 42.1% 317 Convenience store 25.1% 189 Farmers market 35.3% 266 Community-supported agriculture (CSA) subscription

0.7% 5

Farm stand/ On a farm 19.9% 150 Internet/ Mail-order 3.1% 23 Other (please specify) 3.5% 26 Are you the primary food shopper in your family? Response

Percent Response Count

Yes 69.5% 520 Share responsibility with others

25.8% 193

Do little or none of the shopping

4.7% 35

Select the choice that best characterizes your purchases of local foods. (Select one.) Response Percent Response Count Never 3.1% 23 Sometimes 58.5% 438 Often 32.8% 246 Always 5.6% 42

46

In what state do you reside? State Response

Percent Response Count

State Response Percent

Response Count

Alabama 0.9% 7 Montana 0.8% 6 Alaska 0.4% 3 Nebraska 0.8% 6 Arizona 2.7% 20 Nevada 0.7% 5 Arkansas 1.6% 12 New

Hampshire 0.4% 3

California 10.3% 77 New Jersey 2.8% 21 Colorado 1.7% 13 New Mexico 0.9% 7 Connecticut 0.9% 7 New York 6.4% 48 Delaware 0.7% 5 North

Carolina 3.1% 23

District of Columbia

0.1% 1 North Dakota

0.9% 7

Florida 5.7% 43 Ohio 4.3% 32 Georgia 2.3% 17 Oklahoma 1.3% 10 Hawaii 0.1% 1 Oregon 2.4% 18 Idaho 0.5% 4 Pennsylvania 5.6% 42 Illinois 4.4% 33 Rhode

Island 0.7% 5

Indiana 2.8% 21 South Carolina

1.2% 9

Iowa 0.7% 5 South Dakota

0.8% 6

Kansas 0.7% 5 Tennessee 1.7% 13 Kentucky 1.3% 10 Texas 5.1% 38 Louisiana 0.8% 6 US Virgin

Islands 0.0% 0

Maine 0.5% 4 Utah 0.5% 4 Maryland 2.0% 15 Vermont 0.3% 2 Massachusetts 1.3% 10 Virginia 1.5% 11 Michigan 3.9% 29 Washington 2.1% 16 Minnesota 2.9% 22 West

Virginia 0.4% 3

Mississippi 1.6% 12 Wisconsin 2.8% 21 Missouri 1.2% 9 Wyoming 0.5% 4

U.S. Region of Respondents Response

Percent Response Count

Northeast 18.9% 142 Midwest 26.1% 196 South 31.3% 235 West 23.7% 178

47

Appendix 4. States within U.S. Regions (as defined by Authentic Response Company) Midwest Northeast Illinois Connecticut Indiana Maine Iowa Massachusetts Kansas New Hampshire Michigan New Jersey Minnesota New York Missouri Pennsylvania Nebraska Rhode Island North Dakota Vermont Ohio South Dakota Wisconsin

South West Alabama Alaska Arkansas Arizona Delaware California Florida Colorado Georgia Hawaii Kentucky Idaho Louisiana Montana Maryland Nevada Mississippi New Mexico North Carolina Oregon Oklahoma Utah South Carolina Washington Tennessee Wyoming Texas Virginia West Virginia District of Columbia