Food Demand Survey (FooDS) - August 2016

The August 2016 edition of the Food Demand Survey (FooDS) is now out.

A few if the items from the regular tracking portion of the survey:

• After a spike up last month, willingness-to-pay (WTP) for steak fell 12%.  WTP for other meat products remained relatively steady compared to last month.
• Awareness in the news of all items we track (but one) increased in August compared to July, and the largest percent increases in concern were cloning and hormones.
• Consumers anticipate lower prices for beef and indicate they plan to eat more beef and chicken this month compared to last.
• Consumer are spending slightly more at home and less away from home on food this month compared to last.

Three new ad hoc questions were added this month.

I was recently made aware of some programs being pursued by food and agricultural organizations to add labels to food advertising, for lack of a better phrase, social causes.  So, I was curious what consumers thought of these sorts of programs.

First, participants were asked: “Imagine seeing a label on a food product that pledges a portion of the proceeds from the sale of the food go to a particular social cause or group.  Which of the following social causes or groups would be most appealing to you?  Participants were asked to rank each of the outcomes on a scale of 5 to 1 where 5=most appealing and 1=least appealing. 

On average, participants ranked a label pledging a “portion of the proceeds go to a local food bank to help the hungry” as the most appealing.  Participants ranked a label pledging a “portion of the proceeds go to a campaign to promote healthy eating and exercise” as the least appealing.   The following figure shows the percent of respondents who ranked each issues as most appealing: More than half the participants ranked "Portion of the proceeds go to a local food bank to help the hungry" as most appealing.  

Second, participants were asked “Which of the following characteristics would be most important to you when shopping for eggs? Please allocate 100 points to the following characteristics in terms of the importance in deciding whether and which egg option to buy (total points must sum to 100).”

Six different characteristics were shown in random order. 

On average, “Price: low vs. high price” was most important when shopping for eggs, with 26 out of 100 points allocated to this issue on average across participants. The brand of eggs was rated as least important with less than half the points allocated to brand than price.  Size was, on average rated slightly more important than cage vs. cage free, whereas color was slightly less important than this issue.  

These statistics can provide a crude estimate of willingness-to-pap (WTP).  Presuming respondents perceive that the gap between low vs. high prices is a $1/dozen difference, then for every dollar change, mean rating falls by 26 points.  By contrast, going from small to large eggs increases the mean rating by about 20 points.  It follows that people would give up 20/26=$0.77/dozen to have large instead of small eggs.  Using similar logic, WTP for cage free vs. cage is $0.67/dozen, brown vs. white is $0.48/dozen, proceeds to preferred social cause vs. none is $0.46/dozen, and least to most preferred brand is $0.46/dozen. 

Presuming respondents perceive that the gap between low vs. high prices is a $2/dozen difference, then for every dollar change, mean rating falls by 26/2 = 13 points. And, in this scenario, WTP for large vs. small eggs is 20/13 = $1.55/dozen.  WTP for the other attributes also double under these assumptions.

Lastly, I added the question, "Are you a member of the AmeriCorps program?"  This question was added in response to a suggestion I received at the end of my AAEA presidential address.  As I discussed a few days ago, one of the points of discussion in my talk related to predicting vegetarian status.  I mentioned how vegetarians/vegans tend to be young, female, liberal, and paradoxically somewhat high income and on food stamps.  After my talk a young women approached me and asked whether I knew if my participants were a part of the AmeriCorps program.  I said "no" - why?  She remarked that the characteristics I just described fit the people she knew who were AmeriCorp members.  I honestly don't know much about the program, but according to my questioner many of the members are young, recent college grads who tend to be liberal and who are often from relatively well-off families but who are encouraged by people in the program to sign up for SNAP (aka "food stamps").  

What did I find in this most recent survey?  Overall, 7.65% of the respondents said they were members of AmeriCorps.  And, overall, 5.6% of respondents said they were vegetarian or vegan.  So, how did my young questioner's hypothesis hold up?  Amazingly well!  Of the people who said they were a member of AmeriCorps, a whopping 40% said they were vegetarian or vegan!  By contrast, only 2.7% of non-AmeriCorps members said they were vegetarian or vegan.  Stated differently, of all the vegetarian/vegans in our sample, over 55% of them were a member of AmeriCorps.  

Which other government programs are us fat?

A few days ago, I took on the claim that farm subsidies are making us fat (the answer is most likely "no").  However, there are other government programs that potentially affect food prices - what about those programs?  Have they contributed to the rise in obesity?

A new paper in by Julian Alston, Joanna MacEwan, and Abigail Okrent in Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy asks whether funding for agricultural research and development (R&D) can explain the rise in obesity.  The chain of logic goes like this: there is extensive evidence that funding for agricultural research increases productivity; higher productivity means getting more food using fewer resources; more food means lower food prices; more food at lower prices means more food intake; more food intake leads to obesity.  Ergo, government funding for agricultural research leads to obesity.  

So what did the authors find?  They found that agricultural R&D spending probably did have a modest effect on obesity rates, but that R&D also resulted in enormous benefits to consumers and producers.  The authors write:

“Our analysis of historical counterfactuals suggests that it would have been very expensive to have foregone past R&D-induced productivity growth, even if in doing so we were able to reduce obesity and related healthcare expenditures.”

And, if we had undone the R&D efforts that led to the food price changes since the 1980s:

“This would be a costly reversion; it would cost consumers $65.01 billion, of which only $4.72 billion would be offset by savings in public healthcare costs, to reduce average U.S. adult body weight by 4.85 lbs. This translates to a cost of $55.6 per pound after the savings in public healthcare costs are taken into account.”

In summary:

“The implication is that agricultural R&D policy is unlikely to be an effective policy instrument for reducing obesity, both because the effects are small and because it takes a very long time, measured in decades, for changes in research spending to have their main effects on commodity prices. Moreover, as our results and others have shown, the opportunity costs of reducing agricultural research spending in the hope of eventually reducing the social costs of obesity would be very high because agricultural research yields a very large social payoff.”

Having now discussed the effects of farm subsidies and agricultural research, what about programs like the government-sanctioned check-off programs?  That was the topic of a session at the most recent AAEA meetings in Boston.  Parke Wilde from Tufts and Harry Kaiser from Cornell debated the role of check-off programs and their role in affecting public health and nutrition.  I was unfortunately unable to attend the session, but Parke offered a preview of it on his blog.  I hope to see some research on this topic in the near future.  

10 Year Anniversary of Omnivore's Dilemma

Blake Hurst, a farmer from Missouri, takes stock of the changes in cultural views toward food in the 10 years since the publication of Michael Pollan's highly influential, Omnivore's Dilemma. 

Here's one bit that typifies some of the clash between the views of the food movement and those of a conventional farmer.

“Anybody who has followed the food movement over the last decade knows that corn is the serpent in the garden, the root of all evil, the original sin of industrialized agriculture. The writers and intellectuals who have changed the way we think about food and farming have seen the corn plant colonize, as they put it, an additional 25,000 square miles, an area almost the size of West Virginia. That’s got to hurt, if you like to eat artisanal kale in overpriced restaurants in Berkeley.

As a practical matter, agriculture has remained much the same because we farmers do what we do for good reasons. We use chemical fertilizers because people have to eat, and we can’t produce enough food without the help of commercial nitrogen fertilizer. We use chemical compounds to control weeds and insects because it’s the only way to do that without handing a hoe to millions of Americans every summer. We change corn into human food through animals (we eat the animals that eat the corn) and in food-processing factories that use corn products, because when it comes to changing changing sunshine to calories, corn is the most efficient plant known to man”

Hurst wraps up as follows:

“When it first hit the best-seller list in 2006, Pollan’s book was perfect for the times, laying out a series of challenges for the nation’s leading industry. He has changed how we think about food, increased scrutiny of those who provide that food, and spawned a growing and well-compensated cadre of chefs, documentary makers, food entrepreneurs, and other self-proclaimed food experts who are always ready with a quote or a Twitter hit about the dangers of modern food production. He hasn’t done much to change the way I farm, but he’s certainly changed the way farmers communicate with eaters.

Others will have to decide whether we’re better off for all of these changes. For farmers like me, the food movement has made life a little harder; it’s made me more conscious of how the decisions I make appear to others. I spend more time talking to people who are curious but uninformed about my industry. We now all talk like Pollan, but, a decade on, we still like a good hamburger or a perfectly prepared steak.”

There are a number of good points in the article.  Read the whole thing here.

Some Criticism

I've noticed a couple items in the news that take a critical look at two big funders of my activities: land grant universities and granting agencies.  While I don't necessarily endorse these views, some critical self reflection is often useful.  

First is an article by Michael Martin and Janie Simms Hipp arguing that land grant universities have strayed from what the authors see as the universities' original mission:

“closing the educational gap between the haves and the have-nots, which in turn would lead to greater income equality, economic development, and social justice.”

In particular, the authors want the larger, more prominent 1862 Land Grants to work more closely with the other land grants: the 1994 Tribal Land Grant Colleges,  the 1890 Historically Black Colleges and Universities, and Hispanic Serving Institutions.  The offer four suggestions, the last of which is to "unify in seeking renewed public funding for public higher education from Congress and state legislatures."

This last suggestion is related to a separate criticism offered by Tyler Cowen and Alex Tabarrok in a piece for the Journal of Economic Perspectives.  They are skeptical of the typical arguments made to increase and sustain funding for economics research. Their critiques are broad, but they focus much of their attention on the National Science Foundation (NSF) grant funds for economics research.  

A few snippets:

“In considering the case for grant-based funding of economics research by the National Science Foundation, we find that a number of pertinent questions are rarely asked, let alone clearly answered. Instead, economists often put forward relatively weak arguments that they would likely dismiss if applied to government subsidies not reserved for economists. ”

and

“Economics should think much harder about the marginal benefits of National Science Foundation grants for economics, and for other subjects, in the context of the many other ways in which society funds research, along with how such money should be spent and what the relevant alternatives might be. There is a good case for a significant change in NSF priorities towards replication and reproducibility of research, data access, and teaching. ”

See also this comment by John Cochrane.  I particularly liked this statement:

“Without data we would not exist. That strikes me as the single most underfunded public good in the economics sphere.”

Consumer Research and Big Data

Its been a great week in Boston at the Agricultural and Applied Economics Association (AAEA) annual meeting.  It's always good to see old friends, meet new ones, and learn about a wide array of topics.  

This year, I had the privileged of taking over as president and giving the AAEA presidential address.  I chose to talk about new and emerging data sets that are being used in consumer research.  I presented several short studies using data from the Food Demand Survey (FooDS) to illustrate how we might garner new insights about consumer heterogeneity and demand using new datasets.  A working draft of the paper is here. [Note: I've updated the paper (new draft here) in response to some comments, and some of the elasticity figures have change because I found a small error in my code)   I welcome any comments.   

A few key lessons.  First, there are big differences across consumers in their demands for food at home and away from home, but larger datasets that have a lot of cross-sectional and temporal variability reveals that the "representative consumer" hypothesis is probably false.  Here's a plot showing the distribution of the income elasticitities of demand for food at home and away from how (i.e., how much additional food at home or away from home a household buys as their income increases). For some households, food at home is a "normal" good (they buy more when they make more), but for other households, food is an "inferior" good (they buy less when they make more).  Food away from home is a normal good for more households than is food at home.

One of the main ways economists have studied consumer heterogeneity is by doing surveys.  However, almost all these surveys are conducted at a single point in time.  Thus, they present a "snap shot" of consumer preferences.  Using my survey data, however, I showed (using a so-called choice experiment repeated monthly) that these typical survey approaches might miss a lot of variability over time.   

Finally, one of the problems with many consumer research data sets is that they are not large enough to allow us to learn much about small segments of the population.  If one wants to learn about people with Celiac disease, for example, then a survey of a random sample of 1,000 people will only turn up roughly 20 people with the disease - hardly enough to say anything meaningful.  

In FooDS, we've been asking whether people are vegetarians or vegans for over three years now.  This group only represents about 5% of the population, so one needs a large data set to describe the characteristics of this group.  I used a machine learning method (a classification tree) to predict whether a person self-identified as vegetarian or vegan.  Here's what turned up.  Vegetarians tend to be very liberal, on SNAP (aka "food stamps"), with relatively high incomes, and children under 12 in the house.  

These are just a few examples of the growing number of questions economists can now start to answer as we get our hands on larger, richer datasets.