Consumer support to require clear, fact-based communication with focus on affordability factor.
The general public lacks a familiarity with farming methods known as regenerative agriculture, according to the August 2024 Consumer Food Insights Report conducted by Purdue University’s Center for Food Demand Analysis and Sustainability (CFDAS).
Regenerative agriculture refers to farming methods that result in improved soil health, carbon capture, improved biodiversity and healthy water resources.
Around 43% of survey respondents said they were not at all familiar with the term regenerative agriculture and another 28% was only slightly familiar.
Those that reported at least some familiarity with regenerative agriculture were asked to describe it in a few words. The most common words used were soil, health, land and agriculture.
For the study, Purdue experts connected with 1,200 consumers across the U.S.
“This reveals an opportunity for producers and industry leaders interested in expanding regenerative agriculture practices in their operations to clearly communicate to consumers what regenerative agriculture means to their operations,” said the report’s lead author, Joseph Balagtas, professor of agricultural economics at Purdue and CFDAS director.
Affordability imperative to consumer support
After presenting respondents with the broad definition of regenerative agriculture, CFDAS researchers gauged support for or opposition to the practice in the context of four hypothetical scenarios. The first two scenarios involved practicing regenerative agriculture on U.S. farms and the voluntary adoption of its methods by farmers. The other two scenarios related to industry or government plans that provide financial incentives for adopting the practices but that would result in higher prices or taxes to pay for the incentives.
“While consumers say they generally support regenerative agriculture initiatives, the level of support goes down when given additional information about the cost,” Balagtas said.
The survey found that consumers are less supportive of plans when the costs are passed down in the form of price increases or taxes. At the same time, at least half of consumers in each treatment are supportive of regenerative agriculture adoption to some degree, regardless of whether or not they received additional information about the potential costs to consumers.
“Understandably, food policy is likely to be less popular when it comes at the expense of consumers, who are already dealing with high food prices,” Balagtas said.
Affordability outweighs other attributes that consumers see as benefits of regenerative agriculture, such as improving soil health or reducing water use.
“The benefits of regenerative agricultural practices come at a cost, part of which may be borne by food consumers or taxpayers. Advocates of regenerative ag will need to consider the willingness of consumers or taxpayers to pay for those practices,” Balagtas said.
Among those who were not willing to pay or who chose the traditional lower cost item, over 88% made their decision due to the higher price point. While slightly under half indicated a support of regenerative agriculture, they do not want to pay higher prices for it at the grocery store.
Among those who stated that they were willing to pay or who chose the product produced using regenerative agriculture methods at a higher price, around 45% indicated support for regenerative agriculture and a willingness to incur the extra cost. However, 20% signaled that their response indicated their support for regenerative agriculture more so than a willingness to pay more for it, the researchers reported.
In regard to the tradeoffs between different attributes in terms of their perceived importance for regenerative agriculture, maintaining food prices (3.1) received the highest average ranking out of the seven attributes explored, ahead of environmental attributes, such as enhancing soil health (3.7), reducing water use (4.0), reducing greenhouse gas emissions (4.4) and preserving biodiversity (4.8). The economic attributes, profitability and yield, rank in the middle. The low dispersion of the average rankings, the researchers said, indicated that opinions vary among consumers.
Around 42% of consumers indicated a believe that it should be the government's responsibility to fund regenerative agriculture farming methods in the U.S. Unsurprisingly, few think the cost should be placed on consumers (6%). The researchers noted that this reveals an interesting dissonance given that government funds come from consumers in the form of tax dollars.
You May Also Like
Enter a zip code to see the weather conditions for a different location.
