Egg producer attitudes and expectations regarding the transition to cage-free production: a mixed-methods approach.

Several cage-free egg mandates and retailer pledge deadlines are set to take effect in January 2026. Yet it is unknown whether producers can transition to cage-free production at a rate commensurate with these goals. This study uses qualitative and quantitative data from 2 U.S. egg producer surveys to evaluate the operational activities of conventional and cage-free facilities, identify market challenges, and assess the expected transition timeline. Across both studies, producers indicated higher fixed and variable costs in cage-free housing systems, with capital and labor being 2 of the central drivers of the cost increase. While several producers are willing to adopt cage-free production, they are hesitant to view the market shift as an opportunity. Among the most commonly cited barriers are limited customer demand, high capital costs, and a contradiction to environmental sustainability and food security efforts. With the current challenges, respondents are skeptical that the industry will meet the January 2026 voluntary pledge deadlines. The results from this study offer a holistic view of the potential ramifications of the cage-free transition on the egg market and can be used to inform marketing strategies and policy discussions.

Measuring sustainable consumer food purchasing and behavior.

Consumer food purchasing and willingness to adopt a sustainable healthy diet (SHD) is a key factor affecting the sustainability of the entire food system. Studies have developed scales to measure consumer preferences for particular consumption patterns, while others have sought to empirically define the multiple dimensions of a sustainable food system (environmental, social, economic, etc.). This paper builds on these literatures by tracking consumers' SHD behaviors using a large-scale, longitudinal survey of adults in the United States and mapping them onto multiple systems-level indicators. We wanted to know whether consumers interact with the sustainability of their food along the same principles developed by experts. Our study defines 18 food purchasing behaviors that support the sustainability goals of leading scientific institutions, uses factor analysis to identify the unobserved drivers behind these behaviors, and creates SHD scores to investigate their correlations with other consumer characteristics and behaviors. Factor analysis results show consumer food purchasing is motivated by three underlying sustainability dimensions-Economic Security, Socio-Environment, and Nutrition-which are fewer constructs than often defined by academic researchers. SHD scores reveal higher adoption of behaviors that fall under Economic Security relative to the other two dimensions. All three sustainability constructs are impacted by socio-economic and demographic characteristics.

The Intrinsic and Instrumental Values of Blockchain to Provide Beef Traceability in Hong Kong, South Korea, and the United States.

Although previous research has identified that consumers are willing to pay for traceability, it remains unknown which types of traceability information might have the highest value, and whether consumers have an intrinsic value for blockchain technology above and beyond the instrumental value of providing traceability. A choice experiment was conducted with over 1500 consumers in Hong Kong, South Korea, and the U.S. In all three countries, consumers were willing to pay premiums for beef with traceability related to all parts of the supply chain, country of origin, and temperature history; however, the preference ordering of beef from different countries varied across Hong Kong, South Korea, and the U.S. The intrinsic value of using blockchain to deliver traceability information differed by country and by attribute, and consumers in the U.S. were most sensitive to the information describing blockchain technology. Even when traceability conveys negative information, such as temperature rising above safe levels for a short period, we find that consumers prefer knowing to not knowing, suggesting uncertainty and ambiguity aversion.

Most plant-based meat alternative buyers also buy meat: an analysis of household demographics, habit formation, and buying behavior among meat alternative buyers.

The promise of novel plant-based meat alternatives (PBMAs) to lessen the health and environmental impacts of meat consumption ultimately depend on market acceptance and the extent to which they displace meat in consumers' diets. We use household scanner data to provide an in-depth analysis of consumers' PBMA buying behaviors. PBMAs buyers tend to be young, single, female, college educated, employed, higher income, and non-white. About 20% of consumers purchased a PBMA at least once, and 12% purchased a PBMA on multiple occasions. About 2.79% of households only purchased PBMAs. About 86% of PBMA buyers also bought ground meat; however, PBMA buyers spent about 13% less on ground meat. Interestingly, after a household's first PBMA purchase, ground meat consumption did not fall. The number of households buying a PBMA for the first time fell over the two year period studied, despite the increase in market share in the ground meat market.

U.S. perspective: Meat demand outdoes meat avoidance.

Despite ample discussion of health, environment, and animal welfare effects of meat production and consumption, this article documents past, current, and projected consumption patterns reflecting robust meat demand in the United States. There is some evidence of meat avoidance behavior among a segment of the population, including younger, higher educated, higher income consumers in the Western United States. At the same time, the majority of U.S. residents self-declare as regularly consuming products from animals, and there is evidence of strong demand growth for meat products in recent years. Key factors influencing protein purchasing decisions are presented revealing critical roles of taste, freshness, and safety. Combined this article summarizes both the aggregate and more refined, household-level situation underlying robust meat demand in the U.S.

Meat Demand Monitor during COVID-19.

Meat products represent a significant share of US consumer food expenditures. The COVID-19 pandemic directly impacted both demand and supply of US beef and pork products for a prolonged period, resulting in a myriad of economic impacts. The complex disruptions create significant challenges in isolating and inferring consumer-demand changes from lagged secondary data. Thus, we turn to novel household-level data from a continuous consumer tracking survey, the Meat Demand Monitor, launched in February 2020, just before the US pandemic. We find diverse impacts across US households related to "hoarding" behavior and financial confidence over the course of the pandemic. Combined, these insights extend our understanding of pandemic impacts on US consumers and provide a timely example of knowledge enabled by ongoing and targeted household-level data collection and analysis.

Farmer and farm worker illnesses and deaths from COVID-19 and impacts on agricultural output.

Farmers and farm workers are critical to the secure supply of food, yet this population is potentially at high risk to acquire COVID-19. This study estimates the prevalence of COVID-19 among farmers and farmworkers in the United States by coupling county-level data on the number of farm workers relative to the general population with data on confirmed COVID-19 cases and deaths. In the 13 month period since the start of the pandemic (from March 1, 2020 to March 31, 2021), the estimated cumulative number of COVID-19 cases (deaths) was 329,031 (6,166) among agricultural producers, 170,137 (2,969) among hired agricultural workers, 202,902 (3,812) among unpaid agricultural workers, and 27,223 (459) among migrant agricultural workers. The cases amount to 9.55%, 9.31%, 9.39%, and 9.01% of all U.S. agricultural producers, hired workers, unpaid workers, and migrant workers, respectively. The COVID-19 incidence rate is significantly higher in counties with more agricultural workers; a 1% increase in the number of hired agricultural workers in a county is associated with a 0.04% increase in the number of COVID-19 cases per person and 0.07% increase in deaths per person. Although estimated new cases among farm workers exhibit similar trends to that of the general population, the correlation between the two is sometimes negative, highlighting the need to monitor this particular population that tends to live in more rural areas. Reduction in labor availability from COVID-19 is estimated to reduce U.S. agricultural output by about $309 million.

Unscrambling U.S. egg supply chains amid COVID-19.

This article investigates how the shift from food-away-from-home and towards food-at-home at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic affected the U.S. egg industry. We find that the pandemic increased retail and farm-gate prices for table eggs by approximately 141% and 182%, respectively. In contrast, prices for breaking stock eggs-which are primarily used in foodservice and restaurants-fell by 67%. On April 3, 2020, the FDA responded by issuing temporary exemptions from certain food safety standards for breaking stock egg producers seeking to sell into the retail table egg market. We find that this regulatory change rapidly pushed retail, farm-gate, and breaking stock prices towards their long-run pre-pandemic equilibrium dynamics. The pandemic reduced premiums for credence attributes, including cage-free, vegetarian-fed, and organic eggs, by as much as 34%. These premiums did not fully recover following the return to more "normal" price dynamics, possibly signaling that willingness-to-pay for animal welfare and environmental sustainability have fallen as consumers seek to meet basic needs during the pandemic. Finally, in spite of widespread claims of price gouging, we do not find that the pandemic (or the subsequent FDA regulatory changes) had a meaningful impact on the marketing margin for table eggs sold at grocery stores.

Beef and Pork Marketing Margins and Price Spreads during COVID-19.

COVID-19-related disruptions led to a historic rise in the spread between livestock and wholesale meat prices. Concerns about concentration and allegations of anticompetitive behavior have led to several inquiries and civil suits by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Department of Justice, with increases in price differentials serving as a focal point. This article notes the difference between price spreads and marketing margins, outlines corresponding economic theory, and describes the empirical evidence on wholesale meat and livestock price dynamics in the wake of COVID-19 disruptions. At one point during the pandemic, beef and pork packers were both operating at about 60% of the previous year's processing volume. We explore how such a massive supply shock would be expected to affect marketing margins even in the absence of anticompetitive behavior. Moreover, we document how margin measurements are critically sensitive to the selection of data and information utilized. Finally, we conclude with some discussion around policy proposals that would pit industry concentration against industry coordination and economies of scale.

Who practices urban agriculture? An empirical analysis of participation before and during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) disrupted the food system motivating discussions about moving from a dependence on long food supply channels toward shorter local supply channels, including urban agriculture. This study examines two central questions regarding the adoption of urban agriculture practices at the household level during the COVID-19 pandemic: whether the outbreak of the novel coronavirus elicited participation in urban agriculture (e.g., community growing and home growing) and what are the characteristics of individuals who participate. To answer these questions, we conducted two online surveys in Phoenix, AZ, and Detroit, MI. The first round occurred during 2017 and the second during the lock-down in 2020. Using bivariate probit models, we find that (1) considerably fewer individuals participate in urban agriculture at community gardens compared to at-home gardening; (2) participation overall is lower in 2020 compared to 2017; and (3) respondents in Detroit practice urban agriculture more than respondents in Phoenix. Across both cities, our results suggest that the continuity of individuals' participation in growing food at community gardens and home is fragile. Not all characteristics that determined who participated in community gardens before COVID-19 are determining the likelihood to participate during the pandemic. In addition, growing food at home before COVID-19 was practiced by larger households and employed respondents, yet, during the pandemic, we find that home-growing was more likely when children were in the household and households were smaller and younger (Detroit), and younger and more educated (Phoenix). These findings suggest that many urban households' food-growing practices may not yet be mainstream and that other barriers may exist that inhibit households' participation.

Food consumption behavior during the COVID-19 pandemic.

We conducted an online consumer survey in May 2020 in two major metropolitan areas in the United States to investigate food shopping behaviors and consumption during the pandemic lockdown caused by COVID-19. The results of this study parallel many of the headlines in the popular press at the time. We found that about three-quarters of respondents were simply buying the food they could get due to out of stock situations and about half the participants bought more food than usual. As a result of foodservice closures, consumers indicated purchasing more groceries than normal. Consumers attempted to avoid shopping in stores, relying heavily on grocery delivery and pick-up services during the beginning of the pandemic when no clear rules were in place. Results show a 255% increase in the number of households that use grocery pickup as a shopping method and a 158% increase in households that utilize grocery delivery services. The spike in pickup and delivery program participation can be explained by consumers fearing COVID-19 and feeling unsafe. Food consumption patterns for major food groups seemed to stay the same for the majority of participants, but a large share indicated that they had been snacking more since the beginning of the pandemic which was offset by a sharp decline in fast food consumption.

Consumer beliefs about healthy foods and diets.

BACKGROUND: The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has begun a public process to redefine how companies are allowed to use the term "healthy" on food packages. Although the definition is formulated based on the latest consensus in nutrition and epidemiological research, it is also important to understand how consumers define and understand the term if it is to be behaviorally relevant. This research is an exploratory study designed to provide a descriptive account of consumers' perceptions of and beliefs about the meaning of "healthy" food. METHODS: A nationwide U.S. sample of 1,290 food consumers was surveyed in December 2018. Respondents answered 15 questions designed to gauge perceptions of healthy food and to elicit preference for policies surrounding healthy food definitions. Responses are weighted to demographically match the population. Categorical variables have a sampling error of ±2.7%. Exploratory factor analysis is used to determine latent dimensions of health perceptions related to food type. RESULTS: Consumers were about evenly split on whether a food can be deemed healthy based solely on the foods' nutritional content (52.1% believing as such) or whether there were other factors that affect whether a food is healthy (47.9% believing as such). Consumers were also about evenly split on whether an individual food can be considered healthy (believed by 47.9%) or whether this healthiness is instead a characteristic of one's overall diet (believed by 52.1%). Ratings of individual food products revealed that "healthy" perceptions are comprised of at least three underlying latent dimensions related to animal origin, preservation, and freshness/processing. Focusing on individual macronutrients, perceived healthiness was generally decreasing in a food's fat, sodium, and carbohydrate content and increasing in protein content. About 40% of consumers thought a healthy label implied they should increase consumption of the type of food bearing the label and about 15% thought the label meant they could eat all they wanted. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest consumer's perceptions of "healthy," which is primarily based on fat content, partially aligns with the FDA definition but also suggest consumers perceive the word as a broader and more nuanced concept that defies easy, uniform definition. Results highlight areas where nutrition education may be needed and suggest disclosures may need to accompany health claims so that consumers know what, precisely, is being communicated.

Consumer preferences for and beliefs about slow growth chicken.

Improvements in genetics, feed, and housing have dramatically reduced the time required for broilers to reach market weight. However, some advocacy organizations have argued that the improvements in productivity have been accompanied by reductions in animal welfare and meat quality, prompting retailers to consider policies that either set a minimum number of days of production or require slower-growing heritage breeds. The overriding purpose of this project is to determine the market potential and consumer willingness-to-pay for chicken breast with different labels, with primary focus on slow growth labels. A national survey of over 2,000 US chicken consumers was conducted. A choice experiment, which simulates retail purchases, was included to compare slow growth chicken breast demand for consumers exposed to different types of information and who made choices in the presence or absence of brands. Willingness-to-pay for slow growth chicken, and importance of the attribute in consumer choice, is sensitive to the information provided and is generally lower in importance than other labels, except when consumers are provided pro slow growth information. There are multiple market segments consisting of consumers with distinct preferences for chicken breast attributes. Depending on the treatment in question, 30 to 40% of consumers are insensitive to price changes. If presented with a pairwise choice between slow growth chicken priced at a $0.72/lb premium, an estimated extra cost of slow growth, and an unlabeled chicken breast, slow growth is projected to be chosen by 37, 48, and 35% of respondents in the no added information, pro slow growth, and anti slow growth information conditions, respectively.

Mandatory labels can improve attitudes toward genetically engineered food.

The prospect of state and federal laws mandating labeling of genetically engineered (GE) food has prompted vigorous debate about the consequences of the policy on consumer attitudes toward these technologies. There has been substantial debate over whether mandated labels might increase or decrease consumer aversion toward genetic engineering. This research aims to help resolve this issue using a data set containing more than 7800 observations that measures levels of opposition in a national control group compared to levels in Vermont, the only U.S. state to have implemented mandatory labeling of GE foods. Difference-in-difference estimates of opposition to GE food before and after mandatory labeling show that the labeling policy led to a 19% reduction in opposition to GE food. The findings help provide insights into the psychology of consumers' risk perceptions that can be used in communicating the benefits and risks of genetic engineering technology to the public.

Preference evaluation of ground beef by untrained subjects with three levels of finely textured beef.

After receiving bad publicity in 2012 and being removed from many ground beef products, finely textured beef (referred to as 'pink slime' by some) is making a comeback. Some of its proponents argue that consumers prefer ground beef containing finely textured beef, but no objective scientific party has tested this claim-that is the purpose of the present study. Over 200 untrained subjects participated in a sensory analysis in which they tasted one ground beef sample with no finely textured beef, another with 15% finely textured beef (by weight), and another with more than 15%. Beef with 15% finely textured beef has an improved juiciness (p < 0.01) and tenderness (p < 0.01) quality. However, subjects rate the flavor-liking and overall likeability the same regardless of the finely textured beef content. Moreover, when the three beef types are consumed as part of a slider (small hamburger), subjects are indifferent to the level of finely textured beef.

What consumers don't know about genetically modified food, and how that affects beliefs.

In the debates surrounding biotechnology and genetically modified (GM) food, data from consumer polls are often presented as evidence for precaution and labeling. But how much do consumers actually know about the issue? New data collected from a nationwide U.S. survey reveal low levels of knowledge and numerous misperceptions about GM food. Nearly equal numbers of consumers prefer mandatory labeling of foods containing DNA as do those preferring mandatory labeling of GM foods. When given the option, the majority of consumers prefer that decisions about GM food be taken out of their hands and be made by experts. After answering a list of questions testing objective knowledge of GM food, subjective, self-reported knowledge declines somewhat, and beliefs about GM food safety increase slightly. Results suggest that consumers think they know more than they actually do about GM food, and queries about GM facts cause respondents to reassess how much they know. The findings question the usefulness of results from opinion polls as a motivation for creating public policy surrounding GM food.-McFadden, B. R., Lusk, J. L. What consumers don't know about genetically modified food, and how that affects beliefs.

Economic Assessment of FMDv Releases from the National Bio and Agro Defense Facility.

This study evaluates the economic consequences of hypothetical foot-and-mouth disease releases from the future National Bio and Agro Defense Facility in Manhattan, Kansas. Using an economic framework that estimates the impacts to agricultural firms and consumers, quantifies costs to non-agricultural activities in the epidemiologically impacted region, and assesses costs of response to the government, we find the distribution of economic impacts to be very significant. Furthermore, agricultural firms and consumers bear most of the impacts followed by the government and the regional non-agricultural firms.

Can neural activation in dorsolateral prefrontal cortex predict responsiveness to information? An application to egg production systems and campaign advertising.

Consumers prefer to pay low prices and increase animal welfare; however consumers are typically forced to make tradeoffs between price and animal welfare. Campaign advertising (i.e., advertising used during the 2008 vote on Proposition 2 in California) may affect how consumers make tradeoffs between price and animal welfare. Neuroimaging data was used to determine the effects of brain activation in dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (dlPFC) on choices making a tradeoff between price and animal welfare and responsiveness to campaign advertising. Results indicated that activation in the dlPFC was greater when making choices that forced a tradeoff between price and animal welfare, compared to choices that varied only by price or animal welfare. Furthermore, greater activation differences in right dlPFC between choices that forced a tradeoff and choices that did not, indicated greater responsiveness to campaign advertising.

Neurofunctional correlates of ethical, food-related decision-making.

For consumers today, the perceived ethicality of a food's production method can be as important a purchasing consideration as its price. Still, few studies have examined how, neurofunctionally, consumers are making ethical, food-related decisions. We examined how consumers' ethical concern about a food's production method may relate to how, neurofunctionally, they make decisions whether to purchase that food. Forty-six participants completed a measure of the extent to which they took ethical concern into consideration when making food-related decisions. They then underwent a series of functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) scans while performing a food-related decision-making (FRDM) task. During this task, they made 56 decisions whether to purchase a food based on either its price (i.e., high or low, the "price condition") or production method (i.e., with or without the use of cages, the "production method condition"), but not both. For 23 randomly selected participants, we performed an exploratory, whole-brain correlation between ethical concern and differential neurofunctional activity in the price and production method conditions. Ethical concern correlated negatively and significantly with differential neurofunctional activity in the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (dlPFC). For the remaining 23 participants, we performed a confirmatory, region-of-interest (ROI) correlation between the same variables, using an 8-mm3 volume situated in the left dlPFC. Again, the variables correlated negatively and significantly. This suggests, when making ethical, food-related decisions, the more consumers take ethical concern into consideration, the less they may rely on neurofunctional activity in the left dlPFC, possibly because making these decisions is more routine for them, and therefore a more perfunctory process requiring fewer cognitive resources.

Which biotech foods are most acceptable to the public?

New discoveries are prompting questions about which types of genetically engineered foods and applications are likely to be most accepted by the public. Results of a survey of over 1000 US consumers reveals that people prefer eating beef to eating corn or apples if the foods are not genetically engineered, but exactly the opposite is true if the foods are genetically engineered. Eating fresh food is preferred to processed, but much less so if both food types are genetically engineered. Desirability of genetic engineering depends on the reason for the biotechnology application.