Consumer Perceptions of Locally Grown Foods and the Environmental & Economic Impacts of Long- Distance Food Transport Rich Pirog Marketing & Food Systems Program Leader Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture Iowa State University - Ames
What are food miles? Distance food travels from where it is grown/raised to where it is purchased (consumer or end-user) 1969 DOE study 1,346 miles 1980 estimation (UW) for produce 1,500 miles Food miles in industrial nations have increased significantly in last 50 years
340% U.S. total vegetable imports and per capita consumption trends relative to 1970 base year 310% 280% 250% 220% 190% 160% 130% 100% 4.1% vegetables imported in 1970 Vegetable import Vegetable consumption 11.6% vegetables imported in 2001 70% 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 Year Data from USDA Economic Research Service
200% U.S. total fresh fruit imports and per capita consumption trends relative to 1970 base year 190% 180% Fruit import Fruit consumption 38.9% fresh fruit imported in 2001 170% 160% 150% 140% 130% 120% 110% 100% 20.8% fresh fruit imported in 1970 90% 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 Year Data from USDA Economic Research Service
Weighted average source distances calculated from USDA AMS arrival data -1998 Chicago Terminal Market. Estimations do not include distance from terminal market to point of retail sale
Weighted Average Source Distances (WASD) for Fresh Produce Chicago Terminal Market 1981 1989 1998 Truck WASD continental U.S. (miles) Arrivals by truck overall (% of total) Arrivals by rail overall (% of total) Foreign arrivals (% of total) 1,245 miles 49.6% 50.4% 12.5% 1,424 miles 68.6% 31.4% 16.4% 1,518 miles 86.9% 13.1% 21.5%
Estimated fuel consumption, CO2 emissions, and distance traveled for three truck-based food transport systems. Food transport system Fuel Consumption (gal/year) Co2 Emissions (lbs./year) Distance traveled (miles) National semitrailer 368,000 8,400,000 2,245,000 Regional midsize truck 44,000 993,000 370,000 Local small truck (institutional) 88,000 1,730,000 1,518,000 From: Food, Fuel, and Freeways Leopold Center, 2001. Each system was to transport 10% of per capita consumption of fresh produce to feed Iowa
Ecolabel Value Assessment Phase II: Objectives Analyze consumer response to ecolabel options and to freshness dating concept Ascertain perceptions regarding percent of food produced locally Better understand market power and appeal of grown locally compared to other terms Assess skills of ISU Business Analysis Lab to provide market assistance to sustainable growers
Ecolabel Value Assessment Phase II Perceptions of ecolabel prototypes (Internet) Geographic perceptions of locally grown Local grown, family farm, organic perceptions Taglines and freshness dating Options to increase profitability IL, IN, IA, KS, MN, MO, NE, WI Iowa willingness to pay study (Internet) Iowa and Omaha and Quad City metros Level of interest and willingness to pay (above conventional price)
Consumer Internet Study Phase I December 2003
Consumer Internet Study Phase I December 2003
Consumer Internet Study Phase I December 2003
Consumer Internet Study Phase I December 2003
Consumer Internet Study Phase II: Ecolabels with two taglines
Consumer Internet Study Phase II: Ecolabels with two taglines
Consumer Internet Study Phase II: Ecolabels with single tagline - local
Consumer Internet Study Phase II: Ecolabels without taglines - USA
Phase II Ecolabels Perceptions of local foods Ecolabel and No Ecolabel Respondents
What is the first thing that comes to mind when you look at these labels? % responses 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 No response Road or cars Homegrown Freshness Negative feelings Positive feelings Strawberries Other labels w ith tw o tag lines From: Ecolabel Value Assessment Phase II Leopold Center and ISU Business Analysis Lab May 2004 Leopold Center
What is the first thing that comes to mind when you look at these labels? % response 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 No response Origin Strawberries Grown locally Freshness Not appealing Other labels with single tag lines From: Ecolabel Value Assessment Phase II Leopold Center and ISU Business Analysis Lab May 2004 Leopold Center
Percent of respondents who thought the following tag lines were very influential. 50 40 30 20 10 with ecolabels without ecolabels % respondents 0 There's no taste like home...grown The road to freshness is a short one. Give back to the community and treat yourse.. Vine ripened down the road, or box ripened... Freshness- dated so you know when it left... Tag lines From: Ecolabel Value Assessment Phase II Leopold Center and ISU Business Analysis Lab May 2004 Leopold Center
Which of the following are important to you when you purchase local foods? Percent choosing most important % responses 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Price Environmental concerns Healthier foods Quality Food security Helps local economy Supports local farmers Taste Freshness Other with ecolabels without ecolabels attributes From: Ecolabel Value Assessment Phase II Leopold Center and ISU Business Analysis Lab May 2004 Leopold Center
What do you consider "local" when making a food choice? 50 40 % response 30 20 10 0 No response Grown 25 miles or less from purchase point Grown 100 miles or less from purchase point Grown in your state Grown in the Midwest Other with ecolabels without ecolabels From: Ecolabel Value Assessment Phase II Leopold Center and ISU Business Analysis Lab May 2004 Leopold Center
Ecolabel Value Assessment Phase I What do you consider "local" when making a food purchase or carrying a food product through your store or business? % responses 50 40 30 20 10 0 no response Grow n 25 miles or less from purchase Grow n 100 miles or less from purchase Grow n in my state Grow n in the Midw est Other Business - No Ecolabel Consumer -No ecolabel
What percentage of the fresh produce, meat, and poultry for sale in your community do you perceive was grown/raised within your state? % responses 50 40 30 20 10 with ecolabels w ithout ecolabels 0 No response Less than 5% 5-25% 26-50% 51-75% more than 75% Percentage Grown/Raised in State From: Ecolabel Value Assessment Phase II Leopold Center and ISU Business Analysis Lab May 2004 Leopold Center
If price and visual appearance for m eat or produce w ere the sam e and the package label provided only the follow ing information about the product, how w ould you prioritize your selections from 1st choice through last choice? (rank 1 to 5) % responses 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 No response Grow n locally Grow n locally- Certif ied organic Grow n locally- Pes tic ide free Grow n in (your state) - Certified organic Certif ied organic with ecolabels First Choice without ecolabels From: Ecolabel Value Assessment Phase II Leopold Center and ISU Business Analysis Lab May 2004 Leopold Center
If price and visual appearance for meat or produce were the same and you knew the following information to be true about the product, prioritize your selections from 1st choice through last choice. % responses 80 60 40 20 0 No response Grown locallysome pesticides used Grown locally- Certified organic Grown locally- Pesticide free Grown in (your state)-certified organic Origin unknown- Cerif ied organic with ecolabels First Choice without ecolabels From: Ecolabel Value Assessment Phase II Leopold Center and ISU Business Analysis Lab May 2004 Leopold Center
Please rank the following terms on how closely related they are to the term family farm. % responses 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 No response Grow n locally Pesticidefree Organic Grow n in your state Product of USA Huma nelyraised with ecolabels without ecolabels Most Closely Related From: Ecolabel Value Assessment Phase II Leopold Center and ISU Business Analysis Lab May 2004 Leopold Center
Percent responding "High Potential" to options to financially assist farmers in state of residence 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 % responses Local a nd regiona l markets Organic pro duction Agri-tourism In-state processing options Farming m ore acres Marketing coope rative/farm er m arket w ith ecolabels w ithout ecolabels Options From: Ecolabel Value Assessment Phase II Leopold Center and ISU Business Analysis Lab May 2004 Leopold Center
Increasing Locally Grown Purchases What would influence you to buy more locally grown or produced food? Available/More available in area Prices reasonable/competitive Available at the grocery store Advertise/Advertise more Food was fresher Food tasted good/better Support farmers/local farmers Available all year round Knew someone who grew it Better labeling (locally grown indicated) Farmer's Market was convenient More/Larger variety Available at Farmer's Market Base: Those who have purchased local (n=494) 34.8% 15.0% 12.2% 9.1% 8.1% 6.3% 6.8% 5.2% 5.4% 6.0% 4.2% 3.6% First Mention 62.6% Second Mention Univ. of Nebraska
From: Ecolabel Value Assessment Phase II Leopold Center and ISU Business Analysis Lab May 2004
Interest in local foods and willingness to pay Iowa and Omaha/Council Bluffs and Quad Cities metros
How often have you thought about how and where your food was produced? 50 % responses 40 30 20 10 0 None of the time Rarely Some of the time Frequently All of the time From: Ecolabel Value Assessment Phase II Leopold Center and ISU Business Analysis Lab May 2004 Leopold Center
How would you rate your level of interest in purchasing foods that are: % responses 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Raised locally? Raised socially responsible? Raised environmentally responsible? High Very High From: Ecolabel Value Assessment Phase II Leopold Center and ISU Business Analysis Lab May 2004 Leopold Center
Percent of respondents willing to pay 30% or more if foods were produced in a way shown to maintain or improve the environment, community life, and livelihood of local farms, by type of food. % responses 20 15 10 5 0 Fru its/veget... Breads/Grains Beans/Legumes Milk/Cheese Eggs Pork Beef Chick en/t urk ey Luncheon M... From: Ecolabel Value Assessment Phase II Leopold Center and ISU Business Analysis Lab May 2004 Leopold Center
Geographical Indications (GIs) GIs are indications that identify a good as originating in a region or locality where its quality, reputation, or other characteristic is essentially attributable to its geographic origin. All other countries must prevent use that suggests a product originates in a geographical area other than the true origin and misleads the public or creates unfair competition.
Three Types of GIs PDO (Protected Designation of Origin) Foodstuffs must be produced, processed, and prepared in a given geographical area using recognized know-how. PGI (Protected Geographical Indication) A geographical link must occur in at least one of the stages of production, processing, or preparation. TSG (Traditional Specialty Guaranteed) Highlights traditional character of a foodstuff, either in composition or means of production
U.S. Certification Mark Definition: Trademark used to certify regional or other origin, material, mode of manufacture, quality, accuracy, OR other characteristics Can be used to designation geographical origin. Vidalia Onions Certification mark owned by Georgia Department of Agriculture and covers all or part of 20 counties in Georgia Potential for others in the U.S.?
Summary Food miles offer a simple metaphor to contrast food systems (local vs. global) Eating locally/regionally may help reduce fuel use and greenhouse gas emissions More consumers are questioning where their food comes from and how it is produced Consumers are inclined to support local and regional foods because of taste, freshness, quality, value Access and availability to local foods are challenges Freshness-dating may appeal to consumers and help local/regional farmers market certain types of foods Consumers understand what local signifies more than they do organic; local/regional foods are linked more to image of family farm and can be be an important part of the food story
For more information E-mail: rspirog@iastate.edu Web site: www.leopold.iastate.edu (Marketing web page) Phone: (515) 294-1854