A couple months ago, I mentioned the new data dashboards we’ve created in the Center for Food Demand Analysis and Sustainability (CFDAS) showing spending on different restaurants over time and across location.
We are continuing to update that data and now have an associated series of infographics at our main site. Below are a few screenshots.
There is a lot more at the CFDAS website, including a cool animation showing trends in food delivery sales.
The results of the latest Consumer Food Insights (CFI) from the Center for Food Demand Analysis and Sustainability (CFDAS) at Purdue are now out.
In addition to our typical tracking questions, this month we asked whether consumers were expecting (or had already received) a tax refund and, if so, how they expected to spend it. We also asked a variety of questions related to perceptions of fresh vs. frozen foods. We also took a deep dive into how our food spending and preferences varied by religious affiliations and beliefs. Below are a couple screenshots of key results. Read the whole report for much, much more.
So far, 19% report receiving a tax refund, while another 38% say they expect a refund. The majority (50%) intend to save their refund, while a third (32%) plan to pay down debt. On average, Americans expect to receive about $1,940 in tax refund this year.
Planned Uses of 2023 Tax Refunds
Here are a few results related to beliefs about frozen vs. fresh food.
Finally, here’s an area were we note non-trivial differences across people with different faiths.
A couple years ago I wrote a post about a hypothetical sustainability facts label that is analogous to exiting the nutrition facts panels. In that post, I conjectured that a sustainability facts panel might help alleviate some of the misperceptions some consumers have with regard to various labeling claims. Turns out Sofia Villas-Boas at Berkeley and Zack Neuhofer, a PhD student working with me at Purdue, were simultaneously having similar ideas. As such, we teamed up to test some of these conjectures.
The result is a new paper forthcoming in Applied Economics Perspectives and Policy. Here’s the abstract.
“Consumers often form beliefs about credence attributes unsupported by the best available evidence. In particular, prior research has revealed many consumers have overly-optimistic beliefs about the environmental and nutritional impacts of organic food. We propose and study the effects of a sustainability facts label (SFL), which displays quantitative environmental information related to global warming potential, land use, and energy use per serving size of the product. The SFL is akin to a nutrition facts label (NFL), which we also study. We surveyed a nationally representative sample of milk consumers in the United States (USA) to measure their choices and beliefs about organic vs. conventional milk under one of three different label information treatments; the NFL only, the SFL only, and both labels relative to a control without any nutrition or sustainability information. Unexpectedly, our results show that the SFL increased the likelihood of organic purchases. Facts panels altered beliefs; The participants exposed to the SFL increased their perception that organic performs better on environmental metrics, despite the fact the information contained in the label provided a nuanced picture with organic better in some dimensions and worse in others. Consistent with the information provided, consumers exposed to the NFL decreased their perception that organic had fewer calories and more protein than conventional milk. Prior beliefs about organic were found to be important determinants of choice and information acquisition.”
Kudos to Zack who did the heavy lifting on this project. As it turns out, we didn’t find much support for the original conjecture but instead found a more complex and nuanced set of reactions to “objective” sustainability labels.
I recently completed a new study for the Plant Based Product Council exploring consumer understanding and attitudes toward bio-based labels and claims.
Given the lack of harmonization and potential public confusion around terms used to describe the bioeconomy, a survey was designed to to determine consumer knowledge, beliefs, and preferences for the following 10 terms: biobased, biodegradable, bioeconomy, bioplastics, biopolymer, circular economy, compostable, organic, plant-based, and recyclable. I conducted a nationwide survey of about 1,500 U.S. residents to explore these issues (note: topline results reporting the share of respondents falling in every response category for every question asked in the survey is provided here).
Here are some of the key findings:
Self-assessed, subjective knowledge of bio-based related terms is low. About half the public has never heard the terms biopolymer, circular economy, or bioeconomy; more than half have either not heard or indicate not knowing the meaning of the terms biobased and bioplastics. By contrast, a majority of respondents said they were either somewhat or very knowledgeable of the terms: recyclable, organic, plant-based, biodegradable, and compostable.
Generally, respondents indicated ignorance in knowing whether products that were biopolymers, bioplastic, biobased, or from the circular economy or bioeconomy were or could be recyclable, compostable, or organic.
Responses to true/false and definition-matching questions reveal wide dispersion across the public in objective knowledge of bio-based and related terms. Only 0.6% of respondents answered 90% or more of the questions correctly. Forty six percent of respondents answered more questions incorrectly than correctly, and another 11% answered as many questing right as wrong. For example, only 27% of respondents correctly indicated it was false that “All biodegradable products are compostable.”
More respondents than not provided incorrect definitions for biodegradable, compostable, organic, and biobased. Respondents were particularly likely to mistake the definition of biodegradable for composable, biobased for organic, and plant-based for biobased. White, non-Hispanics, middle-aged, higher educated individuals, particularly those with graduate degrees, exhibited higher objective knowledge of biobased and related terms, on average, than non-white, young, elderly, or people whose highest education was a high school degree.
Compostable, plant-based, organic, biodegradable, and recyclable products were perceived to be high in sustainability and environmental friendliness; the opposite was true of animal-based and especially fossil-fuel based products. Recyclable and compostable products were viewed as relatively affordable whereas organic products were not. Recyclable products were perceived as relatively low in quality whereas organic was perceived as high quality.
Perceptually, respondents tend to view terms like organic and plant-based as being highly similar and related to another grouping of perceptually similar terms: biodegradable, compostable, and recyclable. Perceptually, respondents view all other terms with a “bio” prefix similarly: biobased, biopolymer, bioplastic, bioeconomy. Terms viewed as most dissimilar to the rest include circular economy, fossil-fuel based, and animal-based.
Simulated shopping choices indicate respondents are willing to pay significant premiums for take-away food in compostable, plant-based, or recyclable packaging while placing discounts on biobased and bioplastic packaging. Preferences for plant-based, compostable, and bio-based packaging are heavily influenced by the presence/absence of other label/claims, indicating consumers view these terms as having strong complementarity or substitutability relationships with other labels/claims.
Choices are significantly impacted by disclosures providing definitions of label terms. Providing definitional disclosures increased willingness-to-pay and choice likelihood for compostable packaging while having the opposite effect for biodegradable packaging, at least when these labels appeared in isolation.
Providing definitional information tends to reduce the size of the preference interactions between labels. When packaging already contains many competing claims/labels, provision of information disclosures increases the value of adding a new biobased claim in all instances. However, when adding a single label/claim in the absence of any others, definitional information reduces willingness-to-pay and choice probability for four terms (biodegradable, recyclable, plant-based, and biobased) while increasing it for two terms (bioplastic and compostable). These findings indicate definitional information tends to cause respondents to be more likely to
You can read the whole report here.
That’s the title of a new research report I co-authored with Vincenzina Caputo and Aaron Staples at Michigan State University and Glynn Tonsor at Kansas State University. The research was funded both by egg producers, represented by the United Egg Producers (EUP) and the United Egg Association, and by food retailers, represented by the Food Industry Association Foundation (FMI Foundation).
Here is some motivation for the study:
“State regulations, retailer pledges, and final consumer demand have contributed to a rising share of egg-laying hens housed in cage-free systems over the past decade. Nonetheless, conversion from conventional to cage-free housing is costly for both egg producers and final consumers. As such, there remains uncertainty about the extent to which egg producers will be willing and able to continue the transition to cage-free housing at a rate commensurate with retailers’ cage-free pledges. To explore this issue, this study investigates the challenges and opportunities associated with the transition to cage-free housing, including interviews with and a survey of egg producers, a survey of egg consumers, and economic modeling of the sector”
There is a lot in the nearly 100-page report, but a two-page summary document is here. Highlights are below.
