Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture

Survey shows how high prices, environment, other concerns sway consumer views

Back to Leopold Letter Fall 2008

The newest nationwide survey conducted for the Leopold Center shows how rising fuel and food costs, coupled with increased concern about environmental impacts and safety of the food supply, are changing American consumer perceptions.

The survey showed that consumers are reassessing their shopping and eating habits to cut fuel use, would consider carbon footprint food labels as long as their costs do not increase, worried more about natural habitat loss than greenhouse gas emissions, and were much more likely to view local food as having traveled 100 miles or less from the farm to point of sale than coming from their state or region.

"As the demand for local food products increases, it is critical that retailers, distributors and farmers develop clear and authentic messages about these products to maintain consumer confidence and trust,” said Leopold Center associate director Rich Pirog, who coordinated the project. It included a representative, nationwide sample of more than 750 consumers who responded to a web-based survey conducted by a third-party company in August 2008.

Results are summarized in a new Leopold Center report, "Food, Fuel and the Future: Consumer perceptions of local food, food safety and climate change in the context of rising prices," written by Pirog and Iowa State University graduate student Becky Rasmussen. Pirog directed a similar consumer survey in 2007.

Survey respondents were more likely to react to rising food and fuel prices by taking fewer vacations, buying more food items on sale, eating out less, and purchasing fewer desserts (compared to other food categories). 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.

Pirog said that while 55 percent of the respondents perceived the U.S. food system to be safe, that number had dropped from 70 percent in the Center's 2007 consumer survey. There were clear concerns 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.

“The respondents believed that a food safety seal or inspection certification, along with more information about who has handled and produced the food, along with country of origin, would increase their confidence in the food supply,” he added.

Respondents also were asked a series of questions about their perceptions of greenhouse gases in food supply chains, including labels that showed a food's carbon footprint (amount of greenhouse gas emissions), and how greenhouse gas emissions and climate change compared with other environmental problems.

More than 50 percent 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. 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.

How far can food travel and still be considered "local"? The survey offered respondents several options from which to select their definition of locally grown. More than two-thirds 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” and more likely to choose “grown within their state” as their definition of local than their counterparts across the rest of the country.

Back to Leopold Letter Fall 2008