Why don't people vote like they shop?

There have been several recent cases where there is an apparent disconnect between the way people vote on food issues and how they shop for food.  Examples include votes on GMO labeling or bans (which are more popular with voters than non-GMO products are with shoppers) and animal welfare issues (voters in several states have banned cages/crates employed in the vast majority of purchased retail products).  The issue is of importance to agricultural producers, who must adopt costly new practices that consumers haven't been fully willing pay a premium for in the marketplace.  

There has been a lot of academic speculations about the causes of this vote-buy gap, but we still aren't sure why it exists.  I'm now working on a research project with Bailey Norwood here at OSU, Kate Brooks at University of Nebraska, and Glynn Tonsor at K-State to delve a bit deeper into the issue.  

In the most recent Food Demand Survey (FooDS), I thought I'd ask every day people why they think the vote-buy gap exists.  Here's the question I asked:

“In 2008, 63% of voters in California voted to ban the use of small cages for egg-laying hens. However, at the time around 90 to 95% of the eggs Californians purchased came from small cages and only 5 to 10% were cage free. So, a majority of voters voted to ban a product that a majority of shoppers routinely bought. Why do you think there is such a gap between how people voted and how they shopped for different types of eggs?”

The question was open-ended and respondents could type anything they wanted in an empty box. 

I went through the answers and tried to categorize them into competing explanations for the gap.  Not all answers were mutually exclusive, so I put some of them in more than one category.  

Here were the common responses (note that 46% of responses responded with some form of "I don't know" or did not provide a cogent response).

The information hypothesis (mentioned by 27% of all respondents and 59% who provided an answer).  The gap is caused by a lack of information: people did not know they were buying cage eggs in the grocery store, and they wouldn't have bought them if they knew more.  Example responses include things like "Because they did not realize what they were purchasing" and "shoppers didn't know that eggs were coming from small caged hens" and "Most people don't understand where their food comes from."

The price hypothesis (mentioned by 14% of all respondents and 29% who provided an answer).  The gap is a result of the high price of cage free eggs in the grocery store: prices are more salient in the store than when voting.  Example responses include "price is everything, people buy what is available at  a cheap price" and "Because people do not have money to pay for more expensive eggs."

The consumer vs. citizen hypothesis (mentioned by 8% of all respondents and 17% who provided an answer).  People have two selves: the citizen who wants to do the "right thing" in the voting booth and the consumer who pays more attention to themselves and prices when shopping.  Example responses include, "sometimes people say what they think is politically correct but don't act in the same manner" and "People voted with their hearts/ethics" and "I don't think they considered how they bought the products.  They voted as they did because they know it is the right thing to do."

The availability hypothesis (mentioned by 5% of all respondents and 11% who provided an answer).  More consumers don't buy cage free eggs because they aren't available (or aren't convenient) in the stores in which they shop.  Example responses include, "cage free are less available and cost more" and "There wasn't many choices available for eggs in the supermarket.  You purchase what you can see" and "Consumers want cruelty free eggs but are frustrated that they aren't available at convenient stores where they already shop."

The apathy hypothesis (mentioned by 4% of all respondents and 9% who provided an answer).  Consumers don't care (or don't think) about animal welfare when shopping, but they might vote for an animal welfare policy when confronted. Examples include, "i don't think they cared much" and "I don't think about it when buying my eggs. I'm sure most people don't think about it."

Selection hypothesis (mentioned by 2% of all respondents and 1% who provided an answer).  A sample of voters is not the same as the sample of shoppers.  The types of people who vote have a stronger preference for  cage free eggs than the population of people who shop.  An example includes, "I think in general people who are passionate about an issue such as animal welfare are more likely to vote and participate in "get out the vote" campaigns to encourage voting. So in elections when many people choose not to vote (or are unable to for economic reasons), it is easier for groups who feel strongly about an issue to pass such bans." 

Induced innovation hypothesis (mentioned by 2% of all responses, and 1% who provided an answer).  People don't buy cage free eggs now because they're too expensive, but voting for the policy will force producers and retailers to price them lower at a point consumers are willing to pay.  An example response includes, "Some cannot afford the higher price eggs, but if all producers were forced to have better living arrangements the prices would then drop."

A number of hypotheses that I often hear mentioned among academics were rarely if ever mentioned by the respondents.  For example, the free riding/public good hypothesis (that even though my individual purchase doesn't much affect animal welfare my vote might matter because more animals are affected) or the commitment hypothesis (I really want to buy cage free eggs but I keep backsliding; a ban can force me to behave as I really want to).  

There were a number of mentions of food safety and health.  It wasn't clear to me precisely how these translated into a vote-buy gap, but I thought it was worth mentioning nonetheless.  

TSE Economist weighs in on nutrient taxes

In the most recent issue of the Toulouse School of Economics (TSE) Magazine (pg 8) features some work by Vincent Requillart and Celine Bonnet on ability of nutrient taxes (like soda taxes) to fight obesity. 

Soda and sugar taxes don't always have the anticipated effect:

“The fact that we take into account the way the industry and retailers react via their pricing decisions. Most research assumes that the tax is passed on to the consumer. There’s no reason that should be the case! Firms are not passive, they develop strategies. They can raise prices more than is strictly necessary to cover the tax or, on the contrary, reduce their profit margins so as to maintain their sales.”

The point out that the effects of a sugared-soda tax are small, and that the actual policy passed in France (taxing all sweetened drinks - even those with artificial sweeteners) would not be expected to reduce weight.

“Taxing all drinks, be they sugar-sweetened or light, is counter to health recommendations. In practical terms, the tax implemented does not reach its goal of reducing sugar consumption. It acts primarily as an instrument to increase the State’s budget revenue.”

They seem to favor voluntary arrangements between food companies and the government to reduce sugar and salt content.  Even still, in places like the UK, where such an approach has been taken, the effect appears to be virtually nil.

“Having said that, despite all the measures implemented, obesity has not been eliminated. ”

One of the challenges is the complexity of it all

“ In the case of food, defining what is good and what is bad when dealing with a large number of nutrients, is complex.What’s more, eating habits change very slowly.”

For a more in depth and academic treatment of the topic, you might check out some of the published work by these authors.

What happens when we ban the slaughter of horses?

One of my former Ph.D. students, Mallory Vestal, sought to answer that question in a paper that we just published in the Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics.  Mallory is a horse-lover, a former graduate assistant coach of the Oklahoma State University Equestrian team, and is now an assistant professor at West Texas A&M University. Here's the abstract of the paper:

“As a result of several judicial rulings, processing of horses for human consumption came to a halt in 2007. This article determines the change in horse prices resulting from elimination of horse-processing facilities. As expected, lower-valued horses were more affected by the ban than higher-valued horses. The analysis suggests the slaughter ban reduced horse prices, on average, by about 13% and resulted in a loss in producer surplus to sellers of approximately 14% at the sale we analyzed. We also show horse prices are affected by a myriad of factors including breed, gender, age, coat color, and sale catalog description.”

Because "lower value" horses were those most likely to (eventually) head to the slaughter house, we anticipated that their prices would be most affected by the slaughter ban, and that's indeed what we found.  Here's the impact of the ban on horses priced in the upper 20$, 40% . . and 80% of the price distribution.  

There were a number of interesting side-results, like these . . .

“The indicator variables related to the horse catalog descriptions were significantly
associated with horse prices. Consistent with Levitt and Dubner (2005), an ambiguous description such as “nice” was shown to negatively impact prices by −5% to −10% across all models. A more objective descriptive variable such as “finished” was significant in several of the quantiles examined and in the OLS model. Including the word “finished” in the horse’s description was associated with increased prices from 26% to 68%. This result is intuitive as it indicates the horse has specialized training and will be ready to show in the specified discipline. Another descriptive and informative variable, “100% sound,” positively impacted prices from 8% to 11%, whereas “athletic” and “quiet/gentle” negatively impacted higher-quantile prices by −10% and −8% respectively.”

Want to know my own view on eating horse meat?  I hinted at it in this editorial.

New Dietary Guidelines

The federal committee that makes dietary guidelines and recommendations has just released their newest report.  As expected, they've incorporated "sustainability" objectives and have recommended a move away from meat eating.  I've previously commented on the the problem with a single committee making both nutritional and sustainability recommendations, and I had a piece in the Wall Street Journal on environmental impacts of meat production.   Now we can take a look at what's actually been proposed.

Here's one tidbit from a Washington Post summary on the issue.

““We’re not saying that people need to become vegans,” said Miriam Nelson, a professor at Tufts University and one of the committee’s members. “But we are saying that people need to eat less meat.”

The panel’s findings, which were released to the public in the form on a 572 page report this afternoon, specifically recommend that Americans be kinder to the environment by eating more plant-based foods and fewer animal-based foods. The panel is confident that the country can align both health goals and environmental aims, but warns that the U.S. diet, as currently constructed, could improve.”

Other conservative news sources point to some pretty heavy handed portions of the report.  The Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC):  

“called for diet and weight management interventions by “trained interventionists” in healthcare settings, community locations, and worksites.”

"Interventionists" is the right word here, but rarely are interventionists so forthcoming in their intentions.They also want to tax foods, limit speech, and monitor TV use.   

“DGAC also called for policy interventions to “reduce unhealthy options,” limit access to high calorie foods in public buildings, “limit the exposure” of advertisements for junk food, a soda tax, and taxing high sugar and salt items and dessert.

“Align nutritional and agricultural policies with Dietary Guidelines recommendations and make broad policy changes to transform the food system so as to promote population health, including the use of economic and taxing policies to encourage the production and consumption of healthy foods and to reduce unhealthy foods,” its report read.

“For example, earmark tax revenues from sugar-sweetened beverages, snack foods and desserts high in calories, added sugars, or sodium, and other less healthy foods for nutrition education initiatives and obesity prevention programs.”

The amount of sedentary time Americans spend in front of computers and TV sets is also a concern to the federal panel.”

If you think this is a one-off isolated example, you haven't been paying attention.

Farm Policy on EconTalk

Great discussion about history and politics surrounding farm policy between Dan Sumner at UC Davis and Russ Roberts on EconTalk.  

I enjoyed this story that Sumner conveyed about midway through

“ And I have to tell you, Russ, my favorite story in all this. Back when I was a kid I was a young professor at North Carolina State. I ran a conference: I brought in luminaries of the agricultural economics world. And I invited some local agricultural commodity people. A man named Northly[?] came—he was the Executive Vice President of the North Carolina Peanut Association. Wonderful guy. He stood up as this conference was ending, and he said, ‘Let me tell you about the peanut program. There’s only two people in America who understand how the peanut program works. It’s my job to keep it that way.’ And I took that statement, one, to be true; and two, the fact that he was willing to say it out loud, to us, was a reflection of how irrelevant he thought we were. Now, I don’t think he was quite right that we were that irrelevant”