Characterizing Local and Organic Food Consumers

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

2. Contact Information • Jeff Sharp, • Associate Professor Rural Sociology • 311 Ag. Admin. • 2120 Fyffe Road, • Columbus, OH 43202 • E-mail: sharp.123@osu.edu • Telephone: 614-292-9410 • Website: Ohiosurvey.osu.edu

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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. The Central Ohio Chef-Grower Network To Join or to Request More Information Please Contact: PO Box 261062, Columbus, OH 43226 Voice: 614- 439-3132 E-mail: farm2chef2003@yahoo.com

7. 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?

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. Some General, Food related findings from 2004 Survey

12. Ohioans Concern about Food, Agriculture & Environmental Issues (1=Not concerned; 7=Very Concerned)

13. Food Safety Attitudes

14. Q. Food is not as safe as it was 10 years ago • 29% Strongly Disagreed or Disagreed • 24% Undecided • 47% Strongly Agreed or Agreed

15. Q. Concerns about food safety are exaggerated • 47% Strongly Disagreed or Disagreed • 25% Undecided • 28% Strongly Agreed or Agreed

16. Support for local and organic foods

17. Frequency of purchasing local and organic foods

18. Frequency of purchasing local and organic foods by region (% indicating frequently) *No significant difference by region

19. Willingness to pay for local and organic foods

20. Typology of Consumers

21. 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

22. 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

23. Typology Example (cont.) • Overwhelmed (22 percent)—primarily motivated by economics • Unconcerned (25 percent)—generally not concerned with environment; do not recognize problems with food

24. 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

25. Basis for Typology • Four cell typology focusing on willingness to pay (WTP) more for local and/or organic

26. 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%)

27. 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

28. 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

29. 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

30. 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

31. 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

32. 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

33. 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

34. 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

35. 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”

36. 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

37. 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.

38. 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