Ohio Organic and Local Food Consumers

1. Ohio Organic and Local Food Consumers Molly Bean Smith 2006 OH Fruit & Vegetable Congress January 16, 2006 Columbus, OH

2. Contact Information • Molly Bean Smith, Research Associate • 254 Agricultural Administration Bldg. • 2120 Fyffe Road, Columbus, OH 43202 • E-mail: bean.21@osu.edu • Telephone: 614-688-8798 • Website: www.sri.osu.edu

3. Why understand consumption patterns? • Adoption of innovations/alternatives requires it • Consumption patterns have the ability to shape the food system • Changing demand affects the success/failure of products, sectors, and firms • Organics are a beneficiary – USDA reports that the organic and specialty crop market is growing by 20% each year • Farmer’s markets and CSA is growing

4. How do consumers make food purchasing decisions? • Psychological factors, personal preferences & sensory attributes (like taste) • Expediency factors, such as price, access and convenience • Lifestyle Factors, e.g Health and food safety, environment, animal welfare, local community, Equity and justice (for example, Fair Trade products)

5. Research Context: Organic Industrialization & Local • Growth in organic market has led to some “industrialization” of organic production • Large scale production, large-scale processing • Cascadian Farms, store brand organic, etc. • “Industrialization” challenges the traditional link between organic and local production • Emerging question: How do local producers, particularly organic producers, adapt to market with lower cost industrial organic products?

6. Goal of The Presentation • Profile characteristics of consumers with varying levels of interest in the local and organic attributes • Information may be helpful for marketing purposes • Improve our ability to describe this emerging market and the consumers within it • Identify new opportunities for growing the alternative food system

7. Data Sources • OH Survey of Food, Agriculture and Environmental Issues • Biennial Mail Survey of Rural & Urban Ohioans • Funded by College of FAES, OSU Extension, OARDC, variety of faculty and external partners • Response rate ~56+ percent (N>1,800)

8. Support for local and organic foods

9. Frequency of purchasing local and organic foods

10. Willingness to pay for local and organic foods

11. Typology of Consumers

12. Typology Background • Two dimensional typology based on level of importance attributed to foods being locally grown or produced and labeled organic (1=not important; 7=very important) • Potential benefits of typologies: • Patterns and characteristics of patterns • Better understanding of what drives certain consumption patterns • Assist growers and retailers in understanding and developing their market • May help to increase the consumption or purchasing of particular foods • Assist in development of alternatives

13. Typology of Ohio Consumers

14. Labeling Consumer Types • Disinclined (19.2%)—rate both local and organic as not important factors when making food purchases • Locally inclined (20.2%)—rate local as important, but not organic • Organically inclined (5.6%)—rate organic as important, but not local • Moderately inclined (35.7%)—rate organic and local as somewhat important considerations • Dual inclined (19.3%)—rate organic and local both as very important factors

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

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

17. Importance of intrinsic and expediency food considerations by type (1 to 7) *F-test significant at .05 level

18. Observations on the Typology • Organic group • Relatively high food safety concerns • Less strong affinity/trust/ties for farmers/farming • Local group • Many attributes consistent with what might be expected • Strong ties to farming

19. Observations (cont.) • Disinclined • Many attributes consistent with what might be expected • Moderately inclined • Many attributes middling between disinclined, organic, and local • Potential target audience to introduce to alternative food systems – note this group may need more convincing of the benefits

20. Observations (cont.) • Dual Inclined • Food safety is an important consideration • Health consciousness high • Very supportive of Ohio Ag./Farmers • Not everything we expected: Contrary to class expectations – tend to be older, less educated and report lower income • Self-reported behavioral cross-checks validate this as most motivated alternative food system type • Alternative possibility, confusion about the meaning of organic

21. Final Thoughts • This is a complex issue requiring addt’l analysis to assess the strength of relationships • Local only has a constituency out there • Organic has a following, albeit a smaller one • There are consumers interested in both attributes, but further examination of this group is warranted – for example, what takes precedence for this group – support for farming or food safety concerns? • Opportunity to expand market by reaching out to moderately inclined

22. Next steps in the Program • Continued refinement of the typology and analysis of motivated consumer survey • Current through early 2006 – series of focus groups gauging interest in local/organic foods with different socio-economic groups

23. Questions?See following websites:http://Ohiosurvey.osu.eduhttp://SRI.osu.edu