News
For foods produced using regenerative agriculture, affordability and taste are more important than environmental and social responsibility, according to an August report from Purdue. Purdue University’s Center for Food Demand Analysis and Sustainability (CFDAS) conducts monthly surveys of 1,200 1000 mg ferrous sulfateAmerican consumers. In its August 2024 issue of Consumer Food Insights, researchers looked at consumers’ familiarity with and perceptions of regenerative agriculture.The current food system is not sustainable for people or the environment. The method of regenerative agriculture, focused on building a circular food system that benefits both the environment and farmers, aims to establish a sustainable future for all. The sustainable farming approach prioritises restoring soil health, increasing biodiversity, and improving ecferric pyrophosphate folic acid glycineosystems. Unlike traditional farming, regenerative agriculture does not follow a one-size-fits-all approach. Instead, it adapts to local conditions using various practices to reduce soil disturbance and enhance water and nutrient retention. While the varying regenerative agricultural approaches are crucial in sequestering carbon from the soil, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and producing more nutritious food, these differing methods mean that, on a consumer level, things get a little murky when it comes to understanding exactly what regenerative agriculture is.The purdue data shows that when it comes to familiarity with regenerative agriculture, 71% of US consumers are unfamiliar or only slightly familiar with the term.Those who reported some familiarity—extremely familiar (6%), very familiar (9%), and moderately familiar (14%)—were asked to describe the term in a few words. The most common words included: soil, health, land, and agriculture.Despite the growing conversations around sustainability and sustainable farming practices, this suggests that consumer awareness of regenerative agriculture is low. Consumers’ intentions to purchase and purchasing behaviour itself are not always aligned.Purdue researchers found the results were mixed when consumers were asked about their willingness to pay more for foods produced using regenerative agriculture. Fifty-six percent of respondents said they were willing to pay a premium; yet when asked to choose between a traditionally produced snack priced at $5, or one produced using regenerative agriculture at $5.50, 53% opted forferrous fumarate folic acid the traditional and cheaper option.Theoretically, consumers may support sustainable practices, but cost, value, and taste may be just as, if not more important factors in purchasing decision-making. Sustainability claims on their own may not be enough to drive consumer purchasing behaviour, and although sustainability is becoming an increasingly important consideration, it appears to not be the driving factor. Research on consumer purchasing choices by Innova Markets shows that taste often surpasses sustainability concerns. Alongside this, a 2024 study published in Future Foods exploring consumer willingness to pay a premium for sustainable snack options, found that even when sustainability was airon bisglycinate or ferrous fumarate factor, health was the primary driver in purchasing decisions.Price sensitivity may be a key barrier to the adoption of products produced using regenerative agriculture, and brands may need to ensure their products remain competitively priced while highlighting how they balance sustainability with value. The 44% of consumers who were unwilling to pay morferrous gluconate uses in hindie for regenerative agriculture or sustainable food products and the 53% who chose the traditional ($5) lower-cost item, were asked an additional multichoice question about their decision. A large majority (88%) cited price as the main reason for their unwillingness to purchase. Nearly half (47%) agreed with the statement “I support regenerative agriculture, but I do not want to pay higher food prices”, and 42% agreed with the statement “I do not want to pay higher prices for food”.Among consumers who were willing to pay more and those who chose the regenerative agriculture product at $5.50, 45% agreed with the statement “I support regenerative agriculture, and I am willing to pay higher food prices for it”, and 33% agreed with “I support regenerative agriculture”, however, 20% said that while they support regenerative agriculture in principle, they do not want to pay higher prices for food.Consumers appear to not be opposed to the idea of regenerative agriculture, but are more likely to opt out if it means paying more for a product. Brands looking to leverage regenerative agriculture in their marketing may need to rethink their messaging or look for ways to increase consumer education on the topic. Focusing on the tangible benefits of regenerative agriculture in their marketing and messaging, such as the environmental impact and future food security, may give brands a competitive edge.2023 data from YouGov shows that over half of global consumers are sceptical of the sustainability claims of most brands. Worryingly, only one in 10 consumers (9%) said they believe a brand’s sustainability claims. In addition, the Purdue survey found that over two-thirds of the consumers surveyed were unfamiliar with regenerative agriculture as a term, pointing to the pressing need for education as well as transparency.
Affordability and taste more important to consumers than environmental responsibility
