open i

A recent independent survey of food purchase decisions in Britain suggested that food safety and other headline food issues are of lesser concern to consumers. Taste is almost certainly still more important than these politically correct food characteristics. (860 words).

Anybody connected with food production in Britain might be forgiven for being frustrated by results of a survey undertaken for the British Food Standards Agency. Forty-six percent of consumers cited, "off the top of their heads", price concerns as the most important factor that influenced their food purchases.

With BSE - mad cow disease, swine fever and the strength of sterling, farm incomes declined by 60 percent between 1995 and 2000. And with the foot and mouth outbreak and some exceptionally pernicious weather over the last 12 months further income losses have certainly yet to show up in statistics. Farmers might surely have expected a little more understanding from their customers.

And that price was also so critical to consumers seems to fly in the face of suggestions that consumers are increasingly concerned about food safety and interested in buying organic, animal welfare friendly and environmentally sensitive food production. All of these, of course, add to production costs but still rated lower in consumer minds than price.

Farmers would, however, have missed the point over an important facet of human nature; that of never being fully satisfied. What this survey probably said was that almost half of consumers really had no concern about the food they ate. They only wished that food, like their dream car, home or holiday, was a little cheaper.

In the same vein it must have been gratifying for the food industry and indeed the FSA that only four percent of consumers cited food safety as a concern.

The FSA was set up in April 2000 to "protect public health from risks which may arise in connection with the consumption of food, and otherwise to protect the interests of consumers in relation to food." It was first muted in early 1997 in the wake of the BSE, mad cow disease, crisis when food safety concerns, particularly for beef, were headline news. It naturally received unquestioned political support.

Making sense of surveys such as this is, however, hazardous. This was highlighted by apparent anomalies in the response to a similar but prompted food purchase influence question. Food safety rose from tenth in the unprompted question to third place, while price slipped from first to sixth place and the environment rose from thirteenth to fifth.

Yet more surprising in this question, brand name was the only item out of 12 which failed to be cited as very or quite important by more than half consumers. While opinion surveys are interesting, owners of brands who have detailed information of actual sales, still devote substantial resources on promoting their brand names.

What has, however, been very evident in recent years has been the increase in coverage in the press and media of food, and when there are no food scares, more specifically cuisine. This coverage rarely if ever features branded food. And no television chef worth his salt will refrain, while he is waiting for the fresh mushrooms to saute, from comments about health, taste and other such characteristic of the dish he is preparing. Likewise newspaper food editors add corresponding colour to their copy. And there always seems to be a culinary contribution to best-selling book lists.

When responding to a survey, consumers, particularly when prompted for options, will inevitably plumb for the small "p" politically correct answers. Evidence of the influence of food editors is clearly apparent on retail shelves where for instance single digit fat content is promoted as ninety plus percent fat free.

The desire to be politically correct in what we say as oppose to what we think in a big "P" political terms has a parallel in the food market. Being seen to be buying what is healthy or otherwise in vogue in ink and on the airwaves may be different from what is enjoyed in the privacy of the home off the plate.

Interestingly, in both the unprompted and prompted questions in the FSA survey, taste rated a solid second place. Just as only the delay to the next secret ballot protects the politician from what voters really think, only the capacity of the home freezer, fridge and food cupboard isolates the retailer from the gap between what people eat as opposed to what they like to be seen buying. And the sophisticated taste panel techniques of brand promoters not to mention their sales data give them a better steer than the politicians' opinion polls.

As the politician is subject to the discipline of the vote, so the future of the farmer, who sits at the bottom end of the food chain, will be shaped by what is eaten. In this context the results of surveys with leading questions, including those with prompted responses, can be misleading.

This is not to deny that meaningful nutritional and health information will be totally ignored by consumers, but it is unlikely to the sole or even primary basis of consumer purchases.

October 23, 2001