The Purdue University, Center for Food Demand Analysis and Sustainability recently published the first in a series of monthly Consumer Foods Insights.  The Center, headed by Dr. Jason L. Lusk published the first issue co-authored by Sam Polzin. The series of reports will consider relevant aspects of consumer motivation to purchase food. The results from the first survey will be compared with subsequent data in order to evaluate changes in consumer behavior over time.

The report incorporated the Sustainable Food Purchasing Index ranging from 0 to 100.  The Index comprises six components relating to healthy diets derived from sustainable food systems.  Respondents to the survey indicated ‘taste’ as the most important motivator with a score of 80, followed by cost at 74 and food security attaining a score of 73.  It was noteworthy that social and environmental factors yielded a score of 55 each contributing to an overall Sustainable Food Purchase Index of 67.

Respondents favored taste with 25 percent of the total score of 100 points followed closely by both affordability and nutrition at 22 each.  It was noteworthy that attributes currently promoted in the social media including environmental impact and social responsibility scored at 9 percent each in the motivation to purchase food.  The social responsibility category involved concerns over farms, processors, animals and workers.  This finding is at variance with the three-decade initiative to convert conventional cages to alternative systems and the more recent motivation to consider sustainability and environmental degradation with respect to food products.  The fact that price scored second in rank in all probability reflects current concern over inflation and the need for families to purchase their food requirements within challenged budgets.  Again this finding coupled with the low score on the social responsibility category mitigates in favor of lower cost for all food items including eggs.

In evaluating respondents’ selection of foods it was determined that 64 percent either “never really” or “sometimes” chose cage-free eggs over conventional eggs.  A total of 72 percent of respondents did select organic foods over generic foods indicating anxiety over presumed antibiotic and pesticide contamination and perceived concerns over GM ingredients. 

The findings of the survey suggest continuing demand for low-cost conventional eggs by a high proportion of the respondents.  This reality may be driven by the proportion of expenditure on food in relation to total income. In the demographic earning less than $25,000 in annual household income 60 percent was devoted to food.  This dropped sharply to 20 percent in the category with a household income of between $25,000 and $50,000.  Evidently a proportion of consumers in the lower income categories were constrained in their purchases and would naturally buy the lowest priced eggs available. This is based on their acceptance of the inherent nutritional value of eggs. The low-income demographic recognize that conventional cage-derived eggs are indistinguishable from substantially higher-priced certified organic or cage-free products.  It is only in the high-income categories that consumers can afford to spend more on intangible attributes satisfying their need to relate to concerns including welfare and environmental sustainability. 

It is interesting that consumers are generally not addressing the issue of food waste.  A quarter of respondents either “never” or “sometimes” actively reduced wastage in their homes and 54 percent always discarded food past the use-by date.  This raises the question of realistic expiry dates for eggs that differ among states.  Although the organoleptic quality of eggs may deteriorate over time, if stored under refrigeration, eggs are safe to eat beyond existing limits given the current standards of SE prevention, washing and integrity of shells in the U.S.

In determining the level of trust and the relevance of information available, consumers overwhelmingly accepted the USDA, the FDA, the AMA in addition to their primary care physicians as being reliable sources of information.  The Centers for Science in the Public Interest, an activist group and the American Farm Bureau Federation representing the agricultural sector were regarded as less credible.  Food manufacturers including Nestle and Tyson Foods that have a generally high image were regarded as even less trustworthy with regard to nutritional and production information.  Of the two cable news channels, CNN was regarded as superior to Fox and talk-show hosts such as Joe Rogan were ranked as the least trustworthy. Enigmatically McDonald’s corporation scored the lowest on both the trustworthy and relevance indexes indicating that this QSR chain has a lot of image building to do to regain consumer confidence.  With respect to overall trust in food information, there was little difference between female and male respondents or those either over or under 40 years of age. Responses yielded scores of around the 3.7 on a scale of 1 to 5 with the highest score representing complete trust.

The Purdue University Consumer Foods Insights will serve as an excellent barometer of consumer opinion and motivation to purchase specific foods and products.  The survey clearly showed that a significant low-income demographic is motivated by price and that overall in the U.S. there is less concern over environmental and welfare issues than would be expected given publicity and agitation by activists groups and lobbyists using social media as their collective megaphone.

EGG-NEWS has longed maintained that it is unjust for an affluent minority to impose their mores and social conscience on those who are faced with food insecurity.  Producers of food products of animal origin should contrive to maintain herds and flocks under conditions of acceptable welfare that invariably generates optimal productivity.  Consumers should be allowed choice in their purchases to maintain acceptable nutritional standards at an affordable cost.