Volume 5, Issue 7: November 20, 2017 FOOD DEMAND SURVEYagecon.okstate.edu/files/November 2017.pdfLast Year: November 2016 Last Month: October 2017 Nov-17 % Change (October 2017 - November

A

FooDSFOOD DEMAND SURVEY

Volume 5, Issue 7: November 20, 2017

Food Demand Survey | Oklahoma State University | [email protected] Norwood | Professor | 405-744-9820

Susan Murray | Research Specialist | 405-744-4857This project is supported by a Willard Sparks Endowment, the Oklahoma Agricultural Experiment Station, and the

Agricultural and Food Research Initiative Competitive Program of the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture.

FooDS tracks consumer preferences and sentiments on the safety, quality, and price of food at home and away from home with particular focus on meat demand. FooDS is a monthly on-line survey with a sample size of at least 1,000 individuals, weighted to match the US population in terms of age, gender, education and region of residence. See the online technical document for more details.

About the Survey

Compared to one month ago, willingness-to-pay (WTP) decreased for all food products. WTP for deli ham saw the largest percent decrease among meat products compared to one month ago. WTP for all products, except rice and beans, reached its lowest point since the beginning of FooDS in May 2013.

MEAT DEMAND

Expenditures on food eaten at home decreased 1.42% from October to November and expenditures on food purchased away from home decreased 5.84%. Consumers expect a slight decrease in beef and pork prices and a slight increase in chicken prices compared to one month ago. Consumers plan to buy less chicken, beef, and pork compared to last month. Plans to eat out decreased compared to last month.

FOOD EXPENDITURES

Willingness-to-Pay

Steak Chicken Breast

Hamburger Pork Chop Deli Ham Chicken Wing

Beans & Rice

Pasta

Last Year:November 2016

$6.77 $5.07 $4.21 $3.81 $2.10 $2.07 $1.49 $2.18

Last Month:October 2017

$6.43 $4.55 $4.10 $3.33 $2.06 $1.97 $1.77 $2.84

November 2017 $5.71 $4.35 $3.83 $2.92 $1.57 $1.68 $1.37 $1.57

% change(Oct. - Nov.)

-11.20% -4.35% -6.59% -12.31% -23.79% -14.72% -22.60% -44.72%

Current weekly at home

Current weekly away from home

Anticipated change in at home in next 2 weeks

Anticipated change away from home in next 2 weeks

November 2016 $93.94 $54.25 0.28% -1.00%

October 2017 $92.42 $51.01 -0.21% -1.14%

November 2017 $91.12 $48.03 0.61% -1.40%% change

(Oct. - Nov.)-1.42% -5.84% -------- --------

http://agecon.okstate.edu/files/Survey%20Info%20(pdf4556).pdf




Consumer Expectations FooDS Page 2

0.37

0.10

0.02

-0.25

0.17

0.08

0.11

0.33

0.01 -0.12

-0.33

0.22

0.09 0.10

0.27

-0.09 -0.19

-0.41

0.20

0.10

0.05

-0.5

-0.4

-0.3

-0.2

-0.1

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

I plan to buy morechicken

I plan to buy morebeef

I plan to buy morepork

I plan to eat out more I expect higher beefprices

I expect higher chickenprices

I expect higher porkpricesMe

an (%)

(Diffe

rence

in Agre

e and

Disag

ree)

Nov-16 Oct-17 Nov-17

GMOs, E. coli, and Salmonella were the most visible issues in the news over the past two weeks. Awareness for all items increased relative to last month, except for battery cages. The largest percent increase in awareness from October to November was for lean finely textured ground beef followed by cancer and meat consumption. Salmonella, E. coli, and farm animal welfare ranked as the top three food safety concerns in November. The largest percent increase in concern from October to November was for cancer and meat consumption followed by Salmonella. The largest percent decrease in concern from October to November was for farm animal welfare followed by BSE.

AWARENESS & CONCERN TRACKING

Awareness of Food Issues

3.133.36

3.53 3.50

1.68

3.06

5.01

2.99

4.83

3.17

1.12

2.76

5.60

2.69 1.92

-2.15

2.34

1.36

-3%

-2%

-1%

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

1

2

3

% Chan

ge

Mean

(%)(Ra

nking:

1 = No

thing; 5

= A Gr

eat De

al)

Last Year: November 2016 Last Month: October 2017 Nov-17 % Change (October 2017 - November 2017)




Concern for Food Issues FooDS Page 3

1.63

0.17

-2.20

-0.84

-1.50

1.75

-1.06%

0.03

-1.27-1.11

1.51

0.43

-0.54

0.15

-1.02

0.76

-1.54

0.96

-3%

-2%

-2%

-1%

-1%

0%

1%

1%

2%

2%

1

2

3

4

% Chan

ge

Mean

(%)(Ra

nking:

1 = Ve

ry Unco

ncerne

d; 5 = V

ery Co

ncerne

d)Last Year: November 2016 Last Month: October 2017 Nov-17 % Change (October 2017 - November 2017)

Taste, safety, and price remained consumers’ most important values when purchasing food this month. Consumers’ food values remained similar to those in past months. Similar to last month, consumers reported that their main challenge was finding affordable foods that fit within their budget. Avoiding pesticides, hormones, and antibiotics was the challenge experiencing the largest percent increase, while finding convenient alternatives experienced the largest percent decrease. In November, about 4% of participants reported having food poisoning, a 37% decrease from last month. About 4% of respondents reported being vegetarian or vegan.

GENERAL FOOD VALUES

Consumer Challenges

-0.57

1.88

2.90

1.54

-7.21

0.29

2.61

-8%

-6%

-4%

-2%

0%

2%

4%

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Finding affordablefoods that fit with-in

my budget

Avoiding certainnutrients oringredients

Avoiding pesticides,added hormones and

antibiotics

Finding time to cookat home

Finding convenientalternatives

Losing weight Finding foods mychildren will eat

% C

han

ge

Mea

n (

%)

(Ran

kin

g: 1

= L

east

; 7 =

Mo

st)

October November % Change

Consumer Values

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Mea

n (

%)

October November




FooDS Page 4

Several ad hoc questions were added to the survey this month relating to consumer’s WTP for pork and beef products and sustainability.

The FooDS Survey uses choice experiments to measure the value of different foods. These are experiments where individuals face a hypothetical choice of different foods at different prices and are asked which food item they would choose. There are other ways of measuring value. One is to ask individuals how strongly they agree or disagree with a statement that they would purchase a food item at a certain price. This rating would be on a scale of 1-10, 1-100, or the like. Would the value of the food items be remarkably different using the rating scale compared to the choice experiment?

To test this, we asked individuals whether they would purchase pork chops and beef steak at various prices, allowing them to indicate their agreement on a scale of 1-100. Consumer willingness-to-pay for the two meats using the two different methods are

· Pork chop using choice experiments: $2.92 per lb

· Pork chop using rating scale: $3.23 per lb

· Beef steak using choice experiments: $5.71 per lb

· Beef steak using rating scale: $5.55 per lb

The rating scale estimated a higher value for pork chops but a lower value for beef steak. Relative to the choice experiment values, the rating scale estimated a pork chop value that was 11% higher, and a beef steak value that was 3% lower.

Rating scales have an advantage over choice experiments in that they provide more precise information at the individual level on the person’s values, however, they are less popular than choice experiments. One reason is that individuals often tend to select the lowest or highest possible rating, which makes statistical analysis more difficult. We wondered if a change in how the question is worded could induce people to not choose the extreme values as often. To test this, half of the individuals were given the standard rating question where the two extremes said 0 = strongly disagree and 100 = strongly agree. The other half were given rating scales that instead said: 0 = very, very, very strongly disagree and 100 = very, very, very strongly agree. The thinking was that the ‘very, very, very’ would dissuade people from giving a rating of 0 or 100.

Alas, this was not the case, as seen below. In some cases individuals actually choose an extreme rating more frequently when ‘very, very, very’ was used.

AD HOC QUESTIONS

Responses to: “Please indicate how likely you would be to purchase or not purchase the following itesm.”




FooDS Page 5

Next, respondents were asked: “Please indicate the importance of each factor below in determining food sustainability. Participants were asked to rank each statement on a scale where 0 = Not at all important and 10 = Extremely important. It can be difficult to define sustainability. There are many factors that can be included in defining sustainability. Each participant was shown a random set of eight statements out of sixteen possible statements regarding sustainability. Ensuring the current and future generations have access to safe, plentiful, and affordable healthy foods was considered the most important factors of food sustainability. Producing traceable food, ensuring food is produced in the U.S., and minimizing the impact of food production on global warming was seen as the least important. All of the other factors, shown below in the middle with similar ratings are not statistically distinguishable from one another. This means that ethical and fair treatment of workers is considered just as important as prudent use of natural resources.Perhaps the major take-away from the chart is that global warming is considered the least important part of food sustainability.

AD HOC QUESTIONS

Responses to: “Please indicate the importance of each factor in determing food sustainability.”




FooDS Page 6

Next, respondents were asked: “One could produce a ground beef patty from one animal exclusively. Or, one could take ground beef from multiple cows, mix them all together, and form a ground beef patty containing many cows’ meat. Suppose you purchase a hamburger at a fast food restaurant. How many different cows’ meat do you believe is in that one beef patty?” Those who answered “more than one cow” were asked: “How many different cows’ meat do you believe is in that one beef patty?” Roughly one-third of Americans believe the patty consists of meat from only one animal, but this is not the case. It is not uncommon for a single ground beef patty to contain the meat of over 1,000 different animals. Only ten percent of Americans correctly answered that a single patty will likely come from more than 100 different animals.

AD HOC QUESTIONS

3%More than 10,000 cows

2%1,001-10,000 cows5%

101-1,000 cows

17%11-100 cows

18%6-10 cows 26%

2-5 cows

29%one cow

How many different animals’ meat do you believe are in one ground beef patty?




FooDS Page 7

WTP for all food products, except for rice and beans, was the lowest this month since the beginning of FooDS in May 2013.The table below shows the minimum WTP value for each product from May 2013 through April 2017 compared to WTP in November 2017. It is not clear why most WTP numbers were so low. It could just be a random event. Or it might signify that the provider of the internet sample is using a different recruiting strategy, and thus is recruiting a different type of individual. It is also possible that demand for meat overall, along with pasta, is unusually low this month, though if it is it is unclear why this would be the case.

AD HOC QUESTIONS

Minimum Willingness-to-Pay Compared to November 2017

Documents

Volume 5, Issue 7: November 20, 2017 FOOD DEMAND SURVEYagecon.okstate.edu/files/November 2017.pdfLast Year: November 2016 Last Month: October 2017 Nov-17 % Change (October 2017 - November