Blog

Food Demand Survey - May 2015

The results of the May 2015 edition of the Food Demand Survey (FooDS) are now in.

Results reveal mixed changes in willingness-to-pay for disaggregate meat products.  However, stated purchase intentions for beef, pork, and chicken were all higher than last month as were expectations of price increases, suggesting an uptick in demand for meat.

As was the case in April, this month we again noticed an uptick in awareness of news about bird flu and an increase in concern about the issue.  That's two months in a row of notable increases in this issue.

We added several new ad hoc questions to the survey this month.  

The first set of questions were in response to the spreading avian influenza (bird flu) problem.  I've had several media inquiries (probably in response to this post) about the potential economic impacts of the outbreak.  One questions is whether domestic consumer demand for poultry and eggs will dampen in response to the outbreak.  My understanding is that avian influenza does not pose a human health or food safety risk, but of course that doesn't mean consumers believe the same.  As the regular tracking questions mentioned above suggest, consumers are becoming aware of the issue.  To delve into it a bit more, we added two agree/disagree questions. 

About 23% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that they plan to eat less turkey and eggs because of the outbreak of avian influenza, and another 32% say they're concerned about the turkey and eggs they eat.  That's far from a majority, but it might be a large enough to affect demand.  Whether these beliefs will ultimately manifest themselves in the supermarket remains to be seen.  

A second set of questions were added to delve a bit deeper into the issue of labeling of GMO foods.  Yes, this an issue that has been much studied, and yes, consumer's answers to the question can't entirely be taken at face value (as my questions on preferences for DNA labeling have shown).  But, there seems to be some activity related to a GMO federal labeling initiative re-introduced by US Congressman Mike Pompeo from Kansas and others (see this for some discussion and background).  The bill has food industry support and it would move authority for GMO labeling to the FDA (and away from the states) and would only require labels if the FDA determines a health or safety risk.   

The first question asked: “Which of the following best describes your position on labeling of genetically engineered food?” Over half of the respondents answered, “Food companies should be required to label genetically engineered food in all circumstances”.  The other 46% of respondents expressed a more nuanced view.  About one fifth thought labeling should only be required if there is a health or safety risk and another 18% did not have a strong position. The remaining 6.5% of respondents stated “In general, food companies should not be required to label genetically engineered food but voluntary labels are permitted”.

Secondly, participants were asked: “How should the issue of mandatory labeling of genetically engineered food be decided?”  They could choose from one of six options.  


The majority, 61%, of the respondents stated “by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)”.  Just over 10% of repspondents stated “I don’t know” and only 5% of respondents stated “by ballot initiatives in each state”.

Finally, the third question asked: “To what extent do you agree or disagree with each of the following statements?”  Participants were asked to rate each statement on a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 = strongly disagree, 3=neither agree nor disagree, and 5 = strongly agree.


Respondents rated the statement “In general, I support mandatory labeling or genetically engineered foods” the highest out of the nine statements with a score of 3.86.  The statement “Seeing a label indicating the presence of genetically engineered ingredients on a food product would increase the likelihood I’d buy the product” rated the the lowest of the nine statements with a score of 2.84. 

Thanks to David Ropeik who suggested a couple of the questions below related to effect of labels on perceptions on choice. 

Chipotle and GMOs

Last week I mentioned Chipotle's decision to go semi-non-GMO when discussing consumer sovereignty vs. scientific integrity.  

I've been astounded at the voluminous, and nearly unanimous, backlash against Chipotle's decision in the media.   The criticism has ranged from discussions on:

  • The inconsistency of Chipotle's position.  They're getting rid of GMOs in some foods but not others (particularly soda and in all likelihood the feed used for the animals).
  • The hypocrisy of claiming to look out for customer's health while selling 1,600 calorie burritos.
  • Ignoring evidence on relative risk of herbicides.  One of Chipotle's stated reasons for moving away from soybean oil toward sunflower oil is that that most soybeans use biotech varieties that are resistant to the herbicide glyphosate, which Chipotle implies is problematic.  However, as many commentators have pointed out the herbicides used on sunflowers are likely more toxic and are equally connected (if not more now that glyphosate is off patent) to "big agribusiness".
  • And, generally stoking fear when the scientific evidence suggest there is none.  That is, they've been roundly criticized for being anti-science. 

Amazingly, I haven't seen one story in a major media outlet that has applauded Chipotle's move. Mary Mangan, aka @mem_somerville, has compiled a list of stories that have appeared on the issue.  Negative stories or editorials have been run in the New York Magazine, Wall Street Journal, Slate, Chicago Tribune, LA Times, Washington Post, and many others.  

I'm not sure what these developments imply for the politics surrounding GMO labeling (an issue which appears to be gaining a bit more traction in the US House of Representatives), but I'm almost certain this wasn't the outcome Chipotle was expecting.  You might be able to pick up a bit of market share in the short run by stoking fear and paranoia, but when science isn't on your side, it's bound to catch up with you in the long run.  

Food Demand Survey (FooDS) - February 2015

The newest release of the Feed Demand Survey (FooDS) is now out.

Compared to last month, we found 8% to 15% jumps in willingness-to-pay (WTP) for both beef products (steak and hamburger) and for deli ham.  There was also a sizable increase (9%) in spending on food away from home relative to last month.  

Following up on all the controversy surrounding last month's question on DNA labeling, we delved into the issue again, but this time in a slightly different way.  First, we asked the question in isolation (on a single page by itself), rather than in a list with other food policy issues (Ben Lillie had argued in a blog post following our last result our result was at least partially due tot he fact that the DNA label issue appeared in a list with other issues).  Secondly, the question was reworded so that it was clear that the label was meant to indicate the presence absence of DNA.  The precise wording was, "Do you support or oppose mandatory labels on foods that would indicate the presence or absence of DNA?"  The choice options were support or oppose (the order of which was randomized across respondents). We found essentially the same result as before, 83.5% of respondents supported DNA labeling (note: sample size is 1,001, sampling error is +/-3%, sample weighted to match the population demographics).   

I also looked at the demographic breakdown of those who answered support vs. oppose.  For those who supported, 43%  had a college degree, 49% were female, 46% were Democrats, and 20% were Republications; for those who opposed, 58% had a college degree, 45% were female, 38% were Democrats, and 28% were Republicans. Education and political party affiliation appear to be partial drivers of support for DNA labeling.

Then, on a following page, we asked a number of true/false questions to gauge people's knowledge about DNA, genetics, etc.

Most respondents, 64.6%, correctly knew it was false that "ordinary tomatoes do not contain genes while genetically modified tomatoes do."  However, a remarkably high number of respondents, 52%, said it was false that "all vegetables contain DNA", and only 58.6% that it was true that "yeast for brewing beer contains living organisms." 

More on GMO wheat

A couple weeks ago, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch ran a story on GMO wheat that's been picked up by several other news outlets.

This is a controversial topic, even among some farm groups, and it is one I've touched on several times in the past (e.g., see here or here).

In the most recent article, I'm identified as a "a supporter of GMO wheat."  I can understand why the reporter would write that, but I think it is better to say that I'm a supporter of reasonable regulation and producer choice.  

It wouldn't bother me if a seed company or University put out a GMO wheat variety that didn't pass the market test (that no one wanted to buy).  But, what is troubling is the position that wheat producers cannot have access to a perfectly safe technology while canola, soy, and corn producers can.  Yes, there are some complicated trade issues involved, and there are fears about market power, but I see little reason these issues can't be sorted out in the marketplace, as it has with these other commodities.

By "reasonable regulation", what I mean is that we've created this strange climate around GMOs that both make the regulatory costs of introducing a new variety quite high and raise the hackles of some of our trading partners.  But, I'm not sure it's a very reasonable climate.  For example, I'll note that some of my excellent colleagues at Oklahoma State have released a new wheat variety that is herbicide resistant but that is not, technically, a GMO.  However, as would be the case with a GMO, producers are not allowed to save and replant the seed because the variety is protected by a patent.  In short, the wheat breeders have delivered almost everything one would expect in a GMO, except it isn't technically a GMO.  

What that tells me is that it's often silly to focus on the tool (i.e., whether a certain genetic technique was used) rather than the outcome.  But, as the example also shows, when artificial barriers to innovation and trade are introduced, entrepreneurs will find a way around it if the demand is there.  

P.S. On the topic of wheat genetics, note the recent article forthcoming in the American Journal of Agricultural Economics by Jessie Tack, Andy Barkley, and Lanier Nalley.  They show that yield potentials have been increasing steadily over time, but the gap between potential yield and actual farm yield has also been increasing over time.  They attribute the gap to on-farm management/production decisions.