The Case for Local Foods

1. The Case for Local Foods Mid-Ohio Valley: Ag. Opportunities Conference Jeff S. Sharp, Ohio State University March 17, 2007

2. Ohio SurveyCore Project of the SRI

3. Outline of Presentation • This is a dense presentation, informed by a lot of data • Highlight 4 noteworthy themes from the 2006 Ohio Survey of Food, Agriculture & Environmental Issues • Discuss characteristics of 5 consumer types, characterized by their interest in organic or local • Also consider a motivated food consumer group as well • Concluding observations

4. 2006 Survey • Mail survey returned from 1,729 Ohioans • Response rate of 55% • Respondents compare favorably to known characteristics of Ohio population • A higher proportion of respondents were homeowners than is true of Ohio’s general population • Just over 3 percent of respondents resided on a farm

5. Four Insights from the 2006 Statewide Survey

6. #1: Must Prepare for Generational Transitions:Knowledge, participation & support of ag. consistently higher among older Ohioans

7. Self-reported level of knowledge about how or where food is grown

8. Percent “Very Knowledgeable” by region

9. Percent “Not at all knowledgeable” by Age

10. #2: Agriculture Generally Enjoys Widespread Support among Ohioans

11. Views of Farming • Overall, farming positively contributes to the quality of life in Ohio • 2006: 88 percent agree or strongly agree • 2004: 90 percent • 2002: 92 percent

12. Ag & Economy • Ohio’s Economy will suffer if the state continues to lose farmers • 2006: 84 percent agree or strongly agree • 2004: 85 percent • 2002: 80 percent

13. Views of Farmers • I trust Ohio farmers to protect the environment • 2006: 63 percent agree or strongly agree • 2004: 67 percent • 2002: 60 percent

14. Animal Welfare • In general, increased regulation of the treatment of animals in farming is needed • 2006: 51 percent agree or strongly agree • 2004: 47 percent • 2002: 48 percent

15. #3: Farmer-Nonfarmer Relationships Matter:Visiting with a farmer associated with increased support & reduced concerns(63% of Ohioans report having no conversations with farm household members)

16. #4: Building Bridges to Nonfarmers—Participation in Farm & Rural “Recreation” Strongly Associated with Knowledge & Attitudes:Must be prepared for the consequence, though

17. Participation in Rural/Farm Related Activities

18. Typology Analysis from the 2004 Statewide Survey & 2005 Motivated Consumer Study

19. Research Context • Organic “industrialization” challenges some basic tenets of sustainable agriculture's vision • Decoupling of the link between organic and local • Research question • Who are the consumers that value the local and/or organic attributes?

21. Ohioans Interest in Local and Organic Foods

22. Frequency of purchasing local and organic foods

23. % frequently purchasing local and organic foods by region

24. Why Consider Typologies • Understanding motivations behind consumption • Assist growers and retailers in understanding and developing their market • See Hartman Group for ongoing market research & Consumer Profiles

25. Ohio Types, based on interest in Local & Organic • Disinclined (19.2%)—rate both local and organic as not important factors when making food purchases • Moderately inclined (35.7%)—rate organic and local as somewhat important considerations

26. Ohio types (cont.) • Locally inclined (20.2%)—rate local as important, but not organic • Organically inclined (5.6%)—rate organic as important, but not local • Dual inclined (19.3%)—rate organic and local both as very important factors

27. Frequency of purchasing local and organic foods by type(% indicating frequently)

28. Willingness to Pay More(% indicating WTP 10% or more)

29. Disinclined (19 percent) • Food safety: • Lowest level of concern about food safety • Health • Little agreement that organic foods are healthier than conventional • Demographics • Slightly higher proportion in Central and Southeast Ohio • Large proportion of suburbanites

30. Moderately Inclined (36 percent) • Food safety: • Modest level of concern about food safety • Health • Modest agreement that organic foods are healthier than conventional • Attitudes about Farming/Farmers • Modest to low social linkages to farmers

31. Organically Inclined (6 percent) • Food safety: • High concern about food safety • Health • Strong belief that organic foods are healthier than conventional • Demographics • Youngest, highest income, most educated • Largest proportion w/ children under 5 in the home

32. Organically Inclined (cont.) • Attitudes about Farming/Farmers • Low level of trust of farmers to protect the environment • Relatively low rating of grown in Ohio attribute and modest rating of keeping a farmer in business • Fewest social ties to farmers

33. Locally Inclined (20 percent) • Food safety: • Modest concern about food safety • Health • Little agreement that organic foods are healthier than conventional

34. Locally Inclined (cont.) • Attitudes about Farming/Farmers • Strongest social linkages to farmers • High level of trust of farmers to protect the environment • High rating of grown in Ohio attribute and keep a farmer in business

35. Locally Inclined (cont.) • Shopping Behaviors • 24% frequently shop at Farmer’s Market • Low frequency--member of food co-op or purchasing from a natural food grocer • Demographics • Slightly younger than state average, slightly higher income than state average • Slightly higher proportion of Northwest Ohioans

36. Dual Inclined (19 percent) • Food safety: • Highest level of concern about food safety • Health • Strong agreement that organic foods are healthier than conventional • 82 percent indicate being health conscious

37. Dual Inclined (cont.) • Attitudes about Farming/Farmers • Highest level of trust of farmers to protect the environment • Highest concern about the treatment of animals in farming • Very high rating of grown in Ohio attribute and of keeping a farmer in business

38. Dual Inclined (cont.) • Shopping Behaviors • 34% frequently shop at Farmer’s Market • Relatively high frequency--member of food co-op or purchasing from a natural food grocer • Demographics • Much older on average, less educated, lower income • More common city or small town resident; also relatively higher frequency in southeast • Much more likely to be women

39. Data from a Known Group of Alternative Food System Consumers

40. Motivated Consumers • Mail survey of household of a relatively long-lived neighborhood food co-op located in Central Ohio • Sample was all household co-op members allowing address to be used for mailing purposes • 304 responses (74% response rate) • Conducted Winter/Spring 2005

41. Motivated Consumers • Food safety: • High level of concern about food safety (~Dual) • Health • Near unanimous agreement that organic foods are healthier than conventional • Nearly all indicate being health conscious

42. Motivated Consumers (cont.) • Shopping Behaviors • 33% frequently shop at Farmer’s Market (~Dual) • All members of food co-op • Demographics • Much younger, relative to average statewide respondent • Very highly educated (81% BA or more), Average income levels • Very liberal (all others types moderates) • 70% women

43. Availability and Price Factors(% indicating very important factor)

44. 3 Concluding Observations

45. #1: We find 2 broad classes of local food system supporters Local only—strong interest in supporting farmers & Ohio farming Local (& organic)—Health, environment, broader spectrum of food & farming attributes

46. #2: Price & Convenience remain important to both local & dual inclined Challenge of developing the local foods distribution infrastructure

47. #3: Generational Transitions—challenge to both the local & dual sets Local—growing social distance from farming Dual—will younger be interested in cooking with whole foods?

48. Questions? Contact Information: Jeff S. Sharp sharp.123@osu.edu 614-292-9410 http//.ohiosurvey.osu.edu