A

FooDSFOOD DEMAND SURVEY

Volume 3, Issue 9: January 14, 2016

Food Demand Survey | Oklahoma State University | info.survey@okstate.eduJayson Lusk | Regents Professor & Willard Sparks Endowed Chair | 405-744-7465

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 last month, willingness-to-pay (WTP) fell slightly for all food products except pork chops. Among meat products, WTP for deli ham witnessed the largest decrease at -5.65%. WTP for steak, chicken breast, hamburger and deli ham are all higher relative to this time last year, whereas WTP for pork chops and chicken wing are lower compared to this time last year. Note: the sampling error on WTP is about +/- 7%.

MEAT DEMAND

Expenditures on food eaten at home increased 2.91% from December to January and expenditures on food purchased away from home decreased 0.08% relative to last month. Consumers expect lower meat prices than they did a month ago, and they report expecting to buy less chicken, beef, and pork compared to last month. Plans for eating out fell relative to last month.

FOOD EXPENDITURES

Willingness-to-Pay

Steak Chicken Breast

Hamburger Pork Chop Deli Ham Chicken Wing

Beans & Rice

Pasta

Last Year:January 2015

$7.28 $5.09 $4.14 $4.04 $2.41 $2.55 $2.33 $3.25

Last Month:December 2015

$7.63 $5.52 $4.51 $3.85 $2.83 $2.45 $2.66 $3.80

January 2016 $7.43 $5.34 $4.36 $3.94 $2.67 $2.43 $2.50 $3.59

% change(Dec. - Jan.)

-2.62% -3.26% -3.33% 2.34% -5.65% -0.82% -6.02% -5.53%

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

January 2015 $92.76 $49.41 -0.75% -2.06%

December 2015 $94.72 $49.95 0.93% -1.05%

January 2016 $97.48 $49.91 -0.63% -1.56%

% change(Dec. - Jan.)

2.91% -0.08% -------- --------

Food Demand Survey | Oklahoma State University | info.survey@okstate.eduJayson Lusk | Regents Professor & Willard Sparks Endowed Chair | 405-744-7465

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.

Consumer Expectations FooDS Page 2

E. coli, GMO, and Salmonella were the most visible issues in the news over the past two weeks. Awareness of all items decreased compared to last month. The largest percent decrease in awareness from December to January was for E. coli and bird flu. E. coli, Salmonella, and farm animal welfare were ranked as the top three concerns during January The largest percent increase in concern was for farm animal welfare and lean finely textured ground beef. The largest percent decrease in concern was for E. coli.

AWARENESS & CONCERN TRACKING

Awareness of Food Issues

Food Demand Survey | Oklahoma State University | info.survey@okstate.eduJayson Lusk | Regents Professor & Willard Sparks Endowed Chair | 405-744-7465

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.

Concern for Food Issues FooDS Page 3

Taste, safety, and price remained consumers’ most important values when purchasing food this month. Consumer values remained similar to those in past months, with a decrease in perceived values of appearance and an increase in perceived values of animal welfare, origin and fairness. Similar to previous months, consumers reported that their main challenge was finding affordable foods that fit within their budget. Finding time to cook at home and finding food children will eat remained the least pressing challenges. The challenge of finding foods children will eat increased by over 8% from one month ago. 4.3% of participants reported having food poisoning, a 40.61% decrease from one month ago.

GENERAL FOOD VALUES

Consumer Challenges Consumer Values

Food Demand Survey | Oklahoma State University | info.survey@okstate.eduJayson Lusk | Regents Professor & Willard Sparks Endowed Chair | 405-744-7465

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 Page 4

Three new ad hoc questions were added to the survey this month.The three questions inquired about consumers’ perceptions of taste, health, and safety of different food products. The first question asked: “How tasty or untasty do you consider the following products, where -5 is very untasty and +5 is very tasty?” Participants were asked the same questions twice more, only the words “tasty or untasty” were replaced with “healthy or unhealthy” and “safe or unsafe”.

Chicken breast was, on average, perceived as most healthy and as the most tasty. While beans and rice were perceived as the safest option, they were also the least tasty of the eight choices. Participants stated deli ham was one of the least healthy, least tasty, and least safe products. Pork chop and chicken wing fell in the middle for each of the three categories. Figures on the following page plot the average perception of taste against average perceived health and average perceived safety. There is a slight positive correlation between perceived taste and health (correlation coefficient of 0.15), a slight negative correlation between perceived taste and safety (correlation coefficient of -0.14), and a strong positive correlation between perceived health and safety (correlation coefficient of 0.83).

AD HOC QUESTIONS

Perception of Taste, Health, and Safety

Food Demand Survey | Oklahoma State University | info.survey@okstate.eduJayson Lusk | Regents Professor & Willard Sparks Endowed Chair | 405-744-7465

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 Page 5AD HOC QUESTIONS

Perceived Taste versus Safety

Perceived Health versus Taste