Blog

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.  

Food Demand Survey (FooDS) - March 2015

The March 2015 edition of the Food Demand Survey (FooDS) is now out.

The release of the federal dietary guidelines did not seem to have a measurable effect on meat demand as consumer willingness-to-pay (WTP) for all meat products (except steak) increased from February to March.  WTP for pork chop increased by almost 12% and chicken breast by 8%. WTP for all meat products are higher relative to this time last year.  Food spending at home was up this month, but spending away from home was down from a record high last month. 

Three new ad hoc questions were added this month, two of which are discussed here.  

The first question was motivated by a research seminar that Marc Bellemare from University of Minnesota presented here at OSU last month.  His research suggested that an increase in the number of farmers markets in a particular location was associated with an increase in foodborne illnesses in that location.  I was curious whether consumers thought farmers market food was more or less safe than grocery store food (it was also a question Marc was keen to ask).  So, respondents were asked,  “Compared to food from a supermarket, do you believe food from a farmers’ market is more likely or less likely to cause food borne illnesses resulting from bacterial or viral contamination?”


There was no clear consensus. About 28% or respondents thought food from a farmers’ market was more likely to cause illness than from a supermarket, about 45% thought “food from a farmers’ market is neither more or less likely to cause food borne illnesses than food from a supermarket” and 27% thought farmers’ market food was more safe than supermarket food. 

The second question stated: “The Federal Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee recently released preliminary dietary guidelines for Americans. Which of the following do you think is true?” Eleven items were presented, and respondents indicated true, false, or I don’ t know. Approximately 41% of participants believe that the committee’s dietary advice is not trustworthy and 65% thought the advice would change in 10 years. About half the respondents thought the guidelines should consider effects on the environment, 21% disagreed, and 32% unsure. About half the respondents correctly knew the committee recommended less meat consumption. Almost two thirds thought the committee cautioned against dietary cholesterol.

A third question was also asked that I'll discuss in a separate post.  

Are more efficient farms also better for the environment?

The answer appears to be "yes" according to this paper in the journal Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy.

Their motivation:

“The productive efficiency literature has paid very little attention to environmental performance issues. Growing social and political concerns for the environmental impacts of agriculture make it necessary to study environmental and technical performance using robust methodologies that enable scientists to derive reliable indicators. ”

They found . . .

“Empirical findings suggest that our sample farms, on average, reach technical efficiency scores of 93%, and thus that they can reduce input use by 7% while leaving output levels unaltered. Environmental efficiency scores differ depending on the methodology used and indicate ample scope for improving environmental performance and reducing pesticide use and pollution.”

The punchline:

“environmentally efficient farms tend to be more allocative and technically efficient. Better agri-environmental performance is associated with good agricultural practices, supporting the notion that an efficient use of chemical inputs improves both environmental and technical performance. As opposed to previous studies that found an adverse effect of environmental regulations on productivity (Färe et al. 2001), the high correlation between TE and EE for our sample farms implies complementarity between economic and environmental sustainability.”

What advice would you give your younger self?

My 92 year old grandmother (Wanda Jordan) made the Lubbock, TX news yesterday as a part of a story on International Woman's Day, where ladies were asked what advice they'd give their younger self.

My grandmother recalls a tough upbringing on the farm with 12 siblings, and advises to "do the best you can with what you have."  From a lady that's often had very little, she's done exactly that.  Thanks Mama Jack!