Farmers Tuning In To Consumer Desires, Still Have Work To Do
TAMPA, Fla., January 20, 2003 – Farmers and ranchers are becoming more aware of what consumers expect from their food supply system, but must keep working to meet those expectations. That's the bottom line from a new study of U.S. farmer and consumer attitudes, released today at the annual meeting of the American Farm Bureau Federation.
AFBF commissioned the study in partnership with the Philip Morris family of companies, one of the nation's largest purchasers of agricultural products. RoperASW conducted the 100-plus question survey in August and September 2002. Researchers asked 1,000 consumers to share their opinions of modern farming practices and how well farmers are meeting food supply needs. At the same time, they asked 700 farmers and ranchers to assess consumer expectations and to predict their future farming practices.
The study is a follow up to a 1999 research project sponsored by AFBF and Philip Morris, which revealed significant gaps between farmers' and consumers' views on important food and agricultural issues. At the time, it was one of the most comprehensive farmer-consumer studies ever undertaken.
"The new research shows that farmers are much more in tune with consumers than they were three years ago," said Bob Stallman, AFBF president. "Yet, farmers need to better understand some of consumers' gravest concerns, and realize that consumers may be willing to act on those concerns."
Food safety still important
Farmers did the best job of closing the "gap" between themselves and consumers in the area of food safety. In 1999, only 41 percent of farmers and ranchers said that consumers worry "some" or "a great deal" that the food they buy might not be safe to eat. In fact, 58 percent of consumers reported that level of concern. Three years later, 58 percent of farmers predicted that consumers worry "some" or "a great deal" about food safety, more in line with consumer responses (55 percent).
Support for farmers, farm subsidies
The study revealed continued consumer support for agriculture. Surprisingly, more than 80 percent of consumers surveyed think that farming should be protected from economic ups and downs; more than 80 percent of farmers agreed.
Asked specifically about farm subsidies, 44 percent of consumers said that farmers should receive financial support, although more than a third weren't sure.
Preserving resources for the future
In a new series of questions, researchers asked consumers and farmers about the relationship between farming and the environment - revealing new gaps in attitudes. More than half of consumers said that it is important for food to be produced in ways that maintain environmental resources and productivity for the future. But less than half were satisfied that their food was being produced in that manner. Farmers underestimated consumers' expectations - only 44 percent of them said that this was an important consumer concern.
Water quality emerged as a key issue for farmers and consumers. When asked which farming practices were most important from an environmental standpoint, both gave the highest ratings to "protecting groundwater from contaminants" and "protecting surface water from runoff and contaminants."
Consumers (65 percent) and farmers (55 percent) also agreed that farm subsidies should be based on environmentally sound farming practices, as opposed to production levels, as they have been paid in the past.
Who is responsible?
The survey showed that many different groups are expected to take responsibility for maintaining environmental resources and productivity for the future - farmers and ranchers; federal, state and local governments; companies that produce pesticides or fertilizers; biotechnology companies and brand name food companies. Of those, consumers (74 percent) and farmers (77 percent) said that farmers and ranchers have the greatest responsibility for environmentally sound agriculture - and also are most influential in making it happen.
Will consumers take action?
Consumers not only reported strong opinions about farming methods. The research also revealed a potential for them to act on those beliefs. When asked whether they would be willing to switch to a food company whose suppliers use farming practices that preserve environmental resources for the future, 42 percent said they would be "very likely" to switch and 44 percent said "somewhat likely."
In addition, 85 percent of consumers also said that they personally would be willing to pay more for food produced with these methods. Asked to predict what others would do, two-thirds still responded that people would be likely to pay more.
"This indicates a 'latent readiness' to act," said Bob Pares, RoperASW senior vice president. "Consumers have attitudes that could lead to action if some kind of triggering event takes place."
In spite of this potential acceptance of higher food costs in exchange for environmental gains, 85 percent of consumers said they would prefer to have taxes cover the additional cost of those gains, rather than paying more at the supermarket.
Most future plans in line with expectations
Most - but not all - future farming practices are in line with consumer expectations, the study showed. About half of farmers expressed intentions to increase use of these environmentally friendly practices:
· Use more renewable fuels, such as ethanol and bio-diesel. · Protect groundwater and surface water from contaminants. · Manage soil for long-term productivity.
Gaps remain
Significant gaps remain in other areas of food production. Differences remain between consumer and farmer attitudes about:
· Pesticides to improve product appearance (40 percent of consumers said they are "never" acceptable, while 70 percent of farmers said they are "always" or "sometimes" acceptable).
· Hormones to increase growth or production (50 percent of consumers said "never" acceptable; 65 percent of farmers said "always" or "sometimes" acceptable).
· Antibiotics to promote growth (48 percent of consumers said "never" acceptable; 67 percent of farmers said "always" or "sometimes" acceptable). Consumers were more likely to accept the use of antibiotics for treating animal diseases.
Consumers making up their minds
The research indicated that farmers still may be able to educate consumers -- but the window of opportunity is starting to close.
"Compared with 1999, fewer consumers answered 'don't know' to questions relating to food and farming," said Pares. "The question is - where are they getting their information? Consumers may be open to farmers' point of view, but the educational job will be much harder once they've made up their minds."
Time to communicate
As in 1999, the new study showed that agriculture must do a better job of communicating. Farmers and consumers still agree on this topic - 63 percent of farmers and 73 of consumers said that the agricultural industry is doing either a "fair" or "poor" job of explaining the benefits and drawbacks of food production techniques to the American public.
"This research shows that there is a continuing need to address issues that affect food production," said Katherine Trent, director of agricultural relations for the Philip Morris family of companies. "Suppliers throughout the food chain must work together to resolve these issues and meet the demands of the American consumer."
The 2002 "Food and Farming" research is part of a continuing partnership between AFBF and the Philip Morris Shared SolutionsTM Agricultural Inititative, which brings Philip Morris together with the nation's farmers and ranchers to address important agricultural issues. AFBF is the nation's largest general farm organization with affiliated organizations in the 50 states and Puerto Rico.
To receive a full research report, contact Karen Potratz, Morgan&Myers, 606 E. Wisconsin Ave., Milwaukee, WI 53202, 800-647-7294 or e-mail foodresearch@morganmyers.com.
| Contacts: |
Don Lipton (202) 484-3624 donl@fb.org |
Mace Thornton 847-685-8755 macet@fb.org |
