McDonalds Move to Freedom Food Pork - Understanding What matters to Consumers

A look at food sourcing policies of major companies provides useful clues about what matters to consumers.

Such companies spend tens if not hundreds of thousands of pounds tracking consumer trends and are keen to adopt those which they think will make a difference to the way they are supported by the public. It is therefore interesting to see that McDonalds have committed to serving only RSPCA Freedom Food pork. A call to the McDonalds helpline confirmed that by pork they mean their bacon and sausages.

Whether or not you happen to be a supporter of the RSPCA, particularly their recent overtly political moves on hunting prosecutions and stance on badger culling, there is no doubt that the Freedom Foods logo and standards appeal to the public, and are becoming more widely used. Sainsbury for example is a huge supporter of Freedom Foods chicken and pork based products, and charges a premium for them.

Sainsbury though is positioned as one of the more upscale supermarkets, selling pricey food. McDonalds aims at the value end of the market, yet they have sufficient belief in the appeal of higher welfare to incorporate such foods on their menu, despite the added cost this presents along the chain.

We do not know who bears the cost, and whether consumer prices have nudged up, or McDonalds take a hit on margin, or indeed the producers and processors are squeezed.

What we do know is that this commitment to providing more than basically produced food is a thread that has been running through McDonalds for some time. They still use only organic milk and eggs. They came out very well in the recent horsemeat scandal because they only use beef from UK or Irish farms. 

Their move to Freedom Food pork will mean that they see animal welfare as of sufficient interest to their customer base to make the change worthwhile in business terms.

The McDonalds move does not necessarily signal that consumer demand will lead to an upgrade of pig welfare standards across the whole food industry. But it does suggest that concern for animal welfare is no longer a niche issue.

Note to McDonalds's marketing department - the advert would have been much stronger if it referred to bacon and sausages, not pork which tends to mean chops or a roast.

Food Shopping 2012 - Not So Different From Granny's Day

So many things about the way we shop today would strike a chord with consumers in the 50’s and even 60’s. Then, there was little choice but to buy locally.  Home delivery was the norm with the customer making a list, and handing it over to the shopkeeper who would then drop the order off at a prearranged time. List making was critical as post war housewives abhorred waste, instead carefully planning meals, and eking out the Sunday roast for days – cold on Monday, in a pie Tuesday, and soup on Wednesday. Some of the more controversial farming methods like broiler chickens, or eggs from caged hens, or intensively reared pigs or fish farms were still to come, and anyway, shoppers often knew their local producer and found this reassuring.

A return to buying locally, home delivery, and list making are all major trends today, and concern about animal welfare is growing.  

The hard numbers confirm the trends.

Sales through local convenience stores have mushroomed, and they now account for over one fifth of all grocery sales, up 5% to £33.6bn in 2011. Local stores are indeed convenient. They cater for the weary commuter who does not want to detour via a superstore on the way home, preferring instead to buy what is needed for supper that evening and go straight home. They are a boon for the older, and walking to a local store helps save on petrol costs.

Localism is not confined to a local shop. Supermarkets are getting in on the act, mindful that nearly half of consumers say that supporting local/ British producers is their number one shopping concern.

On line shopping and delivery to home has exploded. This market is now worth £4.8bn, up 21%, and sales are expected to double by 2015.

And the rise in sales of welfare friendly chicken, the use only of free range eggs by all the major supermarkets, and the interest in better welfare pork all attest to increasing numbers of consumers putting their money where their animal welfare mouth is. 31% of shoppers cite animal welfare concerns as a driver for what they buy.

Much has been written about the careful consumer, adapting to difficult economic times by sticking to a budget, using lists rather than buy whatever takes their fancy, and going back to cooking.

Whilst the way we shop may be a return to previous decades, the technological tools we have to help us would leave the 1950’s shopper wide eyed. The internet allows grocery lists to be sent to the store without having to leave the armchair, smart phone apps can be used to create a shopping list anywhere, and thousands of recipes are available at the touch of a button rather than having to wade through cookbooks.

A return to old fashioned methods and values helped by the latest technology will be welcomed by most.

It must be remembered though that within this warmth and nostalgia lies a fundamental truth – and that is the need for an acceptable price/value relationship. There is a hard edge to shopping today, and it is about seeking the best bargains, finding the lowest price, buying 40% of goods on promotion, and making sure that the item in question, whether a premium or low ticket item, really is worth the price. This was probably true for the 1950’s as well as in 2012. 

Consumer Purchases of "Ethical" Foods - Some Data from DEFRA

It is difficult to get a factual grip on the difference between what consumers say they will do and what they actually do when buying food. DEFRA has had a stab at this as part of their effort to build a sustainable food chain.

Their research confirms that consumers are interested in the issues surrounding sustainable food production, but that actual purchase of some foods generally defined as ethical remains fairly low.

Free range eggs

This is the animal welfare issue that has gained most support. 50% of those who think animal welfare is important buy free range eggs - but only a third of them buy free range all the time, and at the other end of the spectrum, 31% buy free range less than 10% of the time.

Free range chicken

88% of households buy free range chicken less than 10% of the time, and 75% never buy free range at all. DEFRA does not report purchase of higher welfare chicken where sales have grown rapidly, and so the numbers may underplay consumer committment to welfare.

Fair Trade tea and coffee

This is another sector which has received wide publicity, but 93% of households buy fair trade coffee less than 10% of the time, with the equivalent figure for tea being 85%.

British apples in season

Despite growing enthusiasm for local produce, 62% of households buy British apples in season less than 10% of the time.

Green issues

The DEFRA research does not give buying figures for environmentally friendly products, but does give clues about peoples' feelings on the subject. In general, people are aware of the issues but stop short of agreeing with inconvenient or financially disadvantageous measures to limit environmental damage. So, whilst 82% agree that people have a duty to recycle, only 13% feel car owners should pay higher taxes to offset the environmental damage they do, and just 8% strongly agree that people who fly should bear the cost of environmental damage.

The DEFRA research paints a picture of informed consumers, who say they are actively seeking sustainable or ethical foods, but who are not yet wholly committed to buying them.

It serves as a timely reminder that, for most people, making the leap from being informed and interested to embracing a wholesale change in buying behaviour takes a very long time.

Animal Welfare - What Does the Public Really Think?

Animal welfare issues are again in the news.

Last week alone saw Hugh Fearnley Whittingstall take on Tesco in the cause of truthful labelling on chicken, Jamie Oliver supporting British pigs, a concerted advertising campaign by Sainsbury promoting their Freedom Foods pork, chicken, and salmon, and news of their ban on caged eggs. We also heard that Tracy, marchioness of Worcester has done a programme advocating better pig welfare, to be screened tonight.

On the other hand, last week also saw a piece by Andy Bond of ASDA in The Grocer claiming that worrying about animal welfare is yesterday’s agenda, and that celebrity chefs are patronising cash strapped consumers. Waitrose who have for years promoted high animal welfare standards seem to be losing sales, and organic meat products, which support high welfare, have apparently seen a big sales drop in the last three months.

So do consumers care?

The facts suggest that many already care enough to have changed how they shop, and that the more information they are given about the issue, the more prepared they are to change. It’s by no means everybody, and even the worried have limits on how much they are prepared to pay, but there is a growing movement to higher welfare products.

IGD research continues to find this. They say that whilst price has increased in importance as a factor influencing shopping habits, the number of consumers who have specifically bought foods with high animal welfare standards has increased from 11% in 2007 to 18% in 2009. They also point out that use of free range eggs has now moved to processed foods such as mayonnaise and pasta.

TNS the market research group in a survey commissioned by Compassion in World Farming have reported that free range chicken sales grew by 35%, and higher welfare sales by 42%, between December 2007 and December 2008. They also say that in December alone, standard chicken sales dropped by 11% in total and by 55% in Tesco. Free range, higher welfare and organic chickens now account for about 15% of sales, still small, but growing fast.

On to pigs. Jamie’s programme attracted 1.9 million viewers, less than the 3 million for his chicken programme, but nevertheless a sizable audience. It is early to judge whether it has made a difference although Waitrose have reported that their sales of pork (all British of course) rose by 20% following the programme.

It looks as if Andy Bond’s sweeping statement that consumers are not prepared to pay for higher welfare products is just not true, and if we are talking patronising, then for Bond to lump all his customers into one box and not recognise that people have different priorities, pressures and values, seems patronising in the extreme.

Most supermarkets, even Tesco and ASDA have acknowledged the trend and sell a higher welfare chicken to help the conscience stricken but cash strapped consumer.

Sainsbury have introduced a Freedom Food endorsed option costing about £1.50 more for the average bird, but with a clear explanation of the better rearing conditions. Sainsbury have also kept their range of basics, free range and organic for those who want alternatives.

They are adopting the same approach on pork. Again, it’s Freedom Food endorsed, again there is an explanation of why it is better for the pigs, and the extra price is small at about 50p per kilo more than standard.

Where will the animal welfare issue go from here? I feel that as awareness of how farmed animals are raised grows, consumers will increasingly look for higher welfare options. It may take years, and it will require commitment from well known respected champions like Hugh and Jamie who will not be put off by vested interests coming down on them like the proverbial ton of bricks, and equally will seek out the full facts before acting. It was a bit depressing for example that Jamie in his admirable support for British pigs did not mention that there are still some unsavoury yet legal pig raising conditions here such as housing the animals on slats. But you have to start somewhere.

There is evidence too that animal welfare concerns could extend to other species. The long running Anchor advertisements for butter from “free range cows”, with the implication that not all cows run freely in the sunshine as consumers would like to believe, would be an example of a company, foreign at that, spotting both the trend towards higher welfare.

Finally, it is not too difficult to imagine that better welfare conditions become such an issue that supermarkets decide to raise the bar for producers yet refuse to pay more.



























claiming that worrying about animal welfare is yesterday’s agenda, and that celebrity chefs are patronising cash strapped consumers, and a concerted advertising campaign by Sainsbury promoting their Freedom Foods pork and chicken, and their ban on caged eggs. This week Tracy, Marchioness of Worcester, will be seen on More 4 TV in the cause of pigs. Meanwhile Waitrose who have for years promoted high animal welfare standards seem to be losing sales, and organic products, which also promote high welfare, have seen a big sales drop in the last three months.

So do consumers care? The facts suggest that many already care enough to have changed how they shop, and that the more information they are given about the issue, the more prepared they are to change. It’s by no means everybody, and even the worried have limits on how much they are prepared to pay, but there is a growing movement to higher welfare products.

The IGD continues to find this. They say that whilst price has increased in importance as a factor influencing shopping habits, the number of consumers who have specifically bought foods with high animal welfare standards has increased from 11% in 2007 to 18% in 2009. They also point out that use of free range eggs has now moved to processed foods such as mayonnaise and pasta.

TNS the market research group in a survey commissioned by Compassion in World Farming have reported that free range chicken sales grew by 35%, and higher welfare sales by 42%, between December 2007 and December 2008. They also indicated that in December alone, standard sales dropped by 11% in total and by 55% in Tesco. It should be said though that the percentage of sales in free range, higher welfare and organic remains small.

On to pigs. Jamie’s programme attracted 1.9 million viewers, less than the xx for his chicken programme, but nevertheless respectable. It is early to see whether it has made a difference although Waitrose have reported that their sales of pork (all British of course) rose by 20% following the programme.

It looks as if Andy Bond’s sweeping statement that “xxxxx” is just not true, and if we are talking patronising, then for Bond to lump all his customers into one box and not recognise that people have different priorities, pressures and values, seems patronising in the extreme.

Sainsbury have spotted the trend, and have been very shrewd in the way that they have tackled the issue. In an effort to help the conscience stricken but cash strapped shopper, they have introduced Freedom Food endorsed, higher welfare chicken with a clear explanation of why it is better for the birds. It does cost more but only about xxxx a kilo, or £ for an average bird. They have also kept their range of basics, free range and organic for those who want an alternative.

They are adopting the same approach on pork. Again, it’s Freedom Food endorsed, again there is an explanation of why it is better for the pigs, and again, the extra price is small.

Where will the animal welfare issue go from here? I feel that as awareness of how farmed animals are raised grows, consumers will increasingly look for higher welfare options. It may take years, and it will require commitment from well known respected champions like Hugh and Jamie who will not be put off by vested interests coming down on them like the proverbial ton of bricks, and equally will seek out the full facts before acting. It was a bit depressing for example that Jamie in his admirable support for British pigs did not mention that there are still some unsavoury yet legal pig raising conditions here such as housing the animals on slats. But you have to start somewhere.

There is evidence too that others are looking at animal welfare conditions from a different angle. The long running Anchor advertisements for butter from “free range cows” would be an example.

Finally, it is not too difficult to imagine that better welfare conditions become such an issue that supermarkets decide to raise the bar for producers yet refuse to pay more.

Trends at Sainsbury - Justin King Speaks of Consumers, Farmers and Buying British

The conference and lecture season is in full swing and a few days ago Justin King, Chief Executive of Sainsbury spoke at the Royal Agriculture College's annual Bledisloe lecture. Smooth shaven, hair slicked back, immaculately suited and lightly tanned even in November, King could not have presented a greater contrast to last week's profiled speaker, John Torode. But in common with John he delivered an excellent session.

Justin King's main messages were these:

Value is increasingly important to Sainsbury shoppers. Own brand sales are booming due, he feels, to offering outstanding quality at a price well below the branded equivalent. Own brand now account for 51% of all the products they sell. The Basics range is also growing fast. People are cooking more from scratch. In an interesting twinning of the two, he said that free recipe cards, which have been around for three years, had really taken off when they had a value message like "Feed your family for a fiver" and "Love your leftovers".

Despite tough times though, consumers are not prepared to go back on their principles, rather they want "value, but not at the expense of values". King cited Sainsbury sales of higher welfare chicken, which now account for 33% of all chicken sold compared with 14% in 2006. And sales have accelerated, even as the credit crunch bites harder. Free range egg sales also continue to grow. Apparently animal welfare issues are the second highest in his postbag, the top issue being palm oil and concerns about destruction of the rain forests and the creatures who dwell there.

The premium market continues to grow, but not all bits of it. Fair Trade still sells well, as does food with higher quality ingredients, and higher welfare products. But organic is struggling, in King's view because consumers are increasingly questioning whether the premium charged is justified, and because the sector has "lost sight of its roots", straying away from core basic foods into fringe activities.

Mindful of his audience and its farming connections, Justin King devoted a section of his speech to British farming.

Justin King had a blunt message to farmers. Basically, there are still too many substandard operators who drag the returns down for everyone else. On the plus side, Sainsbury are prepared to pay a premium to farmers who deliver certain standards, this is the case on milk now, and they are working on a similar scheme for beef and sheep.

He feels British farmers are still too production focussed, and not concerned enough about consumers and what they want. Whilst consumers do like to buy British when it represents the best in quality and freshness, they are very happy to buy from abroad, especially from the developing world. In a nutshell, Sainsbury has no intention of confining itself to purchasing only British food.

A few days after the lecture, Sainsbury posted a good set of financial results for the first half of 2008. Recent TNS market research data showed their market share to be holding up pretty well against the onslaught from the cheaper end of the grocery trade, and doing better than Tesco. Sainsbury seems to be steering a sound course through difficult times.

Consumers,Clones and Concerns

The Food Standards Agency research findings that consumers do not support animal cloning for food have been widely reported, (apart from in the farming press, bizarrely), and both the findings themselves and consumer reactions to the reports merit pause for thought. The research is thorough, and the reports on it were confined to the facts, with no hysterical headlines. Media commentators reactions were also well balanced, with a couple of commentators coming out in support and one asking for a reasoned debate on the subject. The facts are though that consumers are unlikely to buy food from cloned animals.
In the research itself, people were worried about the animal welfare implications of cloning for both the mother who, because of the high failure rate risked becoming a breeding machine, and for offspring who in most instances are born with disease and deformity. People vividly remember BSE and CJD, and so were concerned about whether the food would be safe to eat; and they doubt whether those involved can be trusted, be they biotech companies, breeders, farmers, or retailers. All the worries were compounded by an inability to see any benefits from cloning apart from more profit to those in the cloning chain.
I don't think that this research can be dismissed as the views of a tiny number of people who may have particularly strong views about animal welfare or food safety or the ethics of cloning.Those taking part were screened to ensure they had no extreme ideas about any aspect of food, and findings are in fact very similar to those from America where they have carried out extensive research on the topic.
Reaction to media commentators columns also showed resistance from the public, but with a sizable minority being open minded. Melanie Reid in the Times came out strongly in favour of cloned food. 29 people were moved to respond to her views, of whom 8 said it sounded ok to them. The rest were strongly against, with some saying her piece was an illogical and factually incorrect piece of journalism. The Observer's Tim Haywood sat on the liberal fence saying that whilst he did not like the idea himself, there should be a reasoned debate about it, a point of view endorsed by 6 out of nine people commenting on his article. Hannah Strange also of the Times concluded that the animal welfare issues associated with cloning would mean that UK consumers would not support it.She drew one response saying that cloning needed the same animal welfare safeguards as ant other animal related activity, and one feeling that there was no cause for concern.Many of those reponding to articles, whether for or against,called for clear labelling so that consumers knew what they were buying and could avoid if they wished. The Mail, mouthpiece of middle England, reported the research and of the people who commented half were open minded, particularly if cloning would help feed the world.
At first sight therefore, public response seems more favourable than the FSA research might indicate. However there are two major findings which lead to the conclusion that UK consumers just will not buy cloned food.First, the research shows clearly that the more consumers know about cloning the more alarmed they get. As yet the cloning debate is still in its infancy in the UK, but anxiety will grow with more publicity. Second, there is a striking attitude difference between men and women. 60% of women reject outright the idea of buying cloned food, compared with one third of men. Conversely, about a third of men are prepared to buy cloned food, but only 14% of women.The key point here is that its still women who do most of the food shopping.
So, there are major drawbacks in consumers minds already about cloned meat, and as the debate unfolds there will be alot who will not accept it.
But this consumer unease won't come as a surprise to farmers, many of whom instinctively understand the public's feelings.

Free Range Chicken Sales Still Flying

The boom in free range chicken sales continues.


The Sunday Telegraph interviewed chicken buyers from ASDA, Tesco and Sainsbury, and they all report the same thing - rocketing demand following the Fearnley Whittingstall/ Jamie Oliver programmes which highlighted the conditions in which intensively reared chickens are raised. Sales increases in free range and higher welfare chickens have soared by between 50% and 70%, and this might be an underestimate as shelves are often empty because supermarkets can't keep up with consumer demand.


ASDA has seen free range sales increase by 50%, and reckons that it will be August before they are able to keep up with demand from their shoppers. Sainsbury has seen sales of free range and higher welfare chicken grow by 53% in January to March this year, and think it might be close to the end of the year before they are able to keep up with demand. Tesco has seen sales of free range and higher welfare chickens grow by 70%, and these ranges now account for 30% of their total chicken sales.


Eggs are affected too. Executives from the UK's biggest egg packer are reportedly touring the country trying to persuade farmers to convert to free range.


What does this tell us about consumers? Clearly animal welfare is important to them, and they are prepared to pay for it. But the chicken welfare issue has been around for decades, so what has suddenly happened to achieve this transformation in shopping habits? Perhaps the answer lies along these lines....
Animal welfare is something consumers care about but don't want to consider too closely. But all of a sudden the issue is in their living rooms, and so hard to ignore. Further, the issue is clear and simple (are these farming conditions acceptable?). And the solution equally clear and simple (buy free range/ better welfare chicken). Finally, the message is conveyed by trusted people.

Rebels with a cause, seeking change, might learn from the chicken experience.

Whither Ethical Purchasing?

One of the questions of the day is whether rising food prices and a financially squeezed consumer will result in ethical purchase considerations taking second place to price. Not so far said the Institute of Grocery Distribution yesterday. Certainly the recent flight to free range/organic chicken seems to support their view, and it will be interesting to examine further data on ethical purchasing as it emerges.

It does seem as if food ethics are becoming top of mind for consumers.
The IGD has just done some research, and published figures on the interest levels which consumers have in various ethical product types.
%
Animal welfare (net) 69
Free range 59
Not tested on animals 35
High standards of animal welfare 34
Local/British (net) 55
British 49
Local regional 40
Environmentally friendly (net) 53
Minimum packaging 36
Recycled/biodegradable packaging 36
Sustainably managed sources 21
Committed to reducing carbon footprint 20
Not transported by air 11
Fair traded products 48
Organic products 32

The figures confirm the range of ethical worries facing the consumer. As the IGD points out, consumers also worry about the health implications of a purchase, and remain unprepared to accept low quality. Finally, these are interest levels, not what is actually purchased, which gets back to the need to translate interest into hard purchase.

But the most striking thing of all about these figures is how issues which are strongly branded, ie which stand for a clear simple message, receive the highest levels of purchase interest. Just look at free range, Fairtrade, and British. This need for a strong brand which captures the essence of an ethical issue is becoming vital. Consumers are definitely more interested in ethical products but along with the interest comes a whole new set of worries. Consumers are asking themselves whether it is ok to buy, say, string beans from Africa because they are Fairtrade, despite the food miles that might have been clocked up, and even though it means less veg bought from a local farmer. The dilemma is made worse as sophisticated marketing types fight to put ethical claims on to their products, and consumers try and decide which claim best fits their own view of what is right.

So. Should local foods be strongly branded, with a clear standards for what "local" means? Could the British brand be made stronger with standards that are more than just a baseline? What does environmentally friendly actually mean?

Food for thought perhaps.

Consumers, Chickens and Changing the World

Good heavens! Sales of free range chickens increased by 35% last month whereas standard sales dropped by 7%.(TNS data reported in yesterday's Independent). Free range sales could have been higher except the shelves were empty because supermarkets could not keep up with demand. The catalyst was programmes by celebrity chefs Jamie Oliver and Hugh Fearnley Whittingstall drawing attention to the conditions in which standard chickens are kept.

Some are linking this news with the growth in Fair Trade, which doubled last year to £500m, and M&S's decision to charge for plastic bags, and concluding that consumers can change the world. The conclusion is indeed right, but commentators are missing one big point. The growth of Fair Trade has resulted from supermarkets stocking more products, and, as in the case of bananas, selling only Fair Trade, so consumers don't have the option of buying any other type. Similarly the decision to charge for plastic bags is led by the supermarket.

What is different about the chickens is that supermarkets had nothing to do with the change in what consumers bought. Indeed, they were taken completely by surprise as the empty shelves show. The change in buying was wholly due to consumers seeing something they did not like and acting.

The power of the consumer should never be underestimated. The supermarkets are not totally in charge. What is needed to change consumers minds and buying habits is clear communication, from a trusted source.

Farmers might do well to ask themselves if the media rolled up at their farms would they be proud to let the cameras in. And the farming industry should be asking itself whether it policies and practices always merit the same level of trust that the likes of Jamie and Hugh.

Cloned Food

I'm surprised there's been so little fuss in the UK about cloned food.

On 11th January the European Food Standards Authority (Efsa) announced its conclusion that products from cloned pigs and cattle are unlikely to be a threat to food safety or the environment but that products should be labelled as cloned. It admitted that cloning has significant animal health and welfare issues. It was silent on the ethics of cloning. Comments from the public are requested by 25th February.

The next day the European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technology, reporting to the European Commission said "considering the level of suffering and health problems (to animals) EGE has doubts as to whether cloning animals is ethically justified". It went on to say that it does not see convincing arguments to justify the production of food from clones and their offspring.

But where is the outcry to get cloning stopped? Yes, the Soil Association, RSPCA, Compassion in World Farming and Friends of the Earth have spoken out against the practice, the media have reported the factual news, and supermarkets has said that they will not sell cloned products.To date though, there have been no questions raised in Parliament, no newspaper editorials providing a view, no surveys done among the public to see what they feel about the issue. The NFU say they will be guided by the science, which sidesteps the ethics, and see no need for labelling. Major food processors do not appear to have commented.


Contrast this with what has happened in America where the FDA announcement on 14th January that food from cloned cattle, pigs and goats is safe to sell into the food chain has caused outrage. The ruling was made in the teeth of four years of furious opposition from consumers, around 60% of whom have consistently said in research polls that they oppose cloned food on ethical and safety grounds, and from Congress for reasons of ethics and lack of robust data. Fury has been heightened by the decision not to require specific labelling, leaving the public with no idea whether they are eating cloned food or not. Big food processors and retailers have declared that they will not sell cloned foods. Even the NFU has said that if cloned food is to be sold then it needs to be labelled saying "consumers have a right to know if their food comes from cloned animals". The continued outcry has had an effect. The US Department of Agriculture has asked for the moratorium on cloned food sales to be continued to "allow sufficient time to prepare so that a smooth and seamless transition can occur". Which has been translated as buying time so that consumers can be educated.


It all raises the question of how on earth cloning animals for food has got as far as it has in the US. Clearly there are issues of ethics, unease, and compassion, meaning that consumers don't want to buy the products, food companies don't want to process them, and retailers don't want to sell them.

Getting back to the UK, why is it all so quiet here? Perhaps an announcement from Europe does not have the same impact as one from here at home. Perhaps people think it will never happen. Perhaps a short news report in the brain dead days just after Xmas isn't sufficient to raise awareness.Hopefully its just that it's early days in the process, and when the penny drops the UK public will spring into action with widespread and spirited campaigning. It worked on GM foods.

Trendspotting 2008

As economic gloom rises, access to cheap credit evaporates, nervousness sets in about spending the money we've got, and rising food costs have registered even on the affluent, it is timely to ask whether a hunt for lowest possible food prices is set to obliterate any other considerations in consumers' minds. Applying some tried and tested lessons about consumer behaviour when the going gets tougher may help answer the question. So, somewhat bravely, here are predictions about food market trends in 2008.

Value not price

At times of economic pressure people search harder for value, which is different from just looking at sticker price. Value is a combination of price, quality, and feeling good about a purchase. Its perhaps best summed up as answering yes to the question "is this worth it?". Top quality, fairly priced products will continue to sell well. Anything seen as pricey for what it is will not, and supermarket top tier product staples such as meat, fruit, veg and dairy may struggle unless they are clearly better than alternatives.

Environmental concern

This is here to stay largely due to the high level of publicity it receives. Products and services seen to be beneficial to the environment will continue to see sales growth.

Provenance/Ethical purchasing/Health

These trends have been combined as they are closely related in consumers' minds. Provenance may be described as "can I trust the source of this food and how it got here". The link with health comes because consumers are worried for health reasons about what goes into their food and how it is processed. They worry for ethical reasons about where it has come from and how far, how the animals have been treated, and have the producers been fairly rewarded. All these concerns have combined to power sales of local food, organics, fair trade, and special animal welfare schemes, even though the sticker price is usually higher than for other options. The forecast for all these sectors is continued growth, albeit at a lower rate than historically. Those who are truly committed will not change buying habits, but occasional purchasers if pushed for cash may buy less often.

Channels of purchase

The places people buy from and the way they buy are also likely to change. People drawing in their purchasing horns may choose to eat out less, or trade down in the amount they are spending on a night out. So sales through catering channels will slow or even decline. One channel which could grow is internet grocery shopping which saves petrol costs, and food miles, and is more convenient.

So in the end....

Though conditions may be tough, and overall growth may slow, there is unlikely to be a major reverse in the encouraging trend towards consumers caring more about their food, and being prepared to pay that bit extra for top quality, fairly priced products that help them live lives that they can feel good about.

Animal Welfare - Supermarkets Respond to Consumer Pressure

Just a quick update on animal welfare for chickens. The consumer voice has now got so loud that Sainsbury, Morrisons and the Coop have announced this weekend that they will ban or phase out sales of eggs from caged hens, thus joining Marks and Spencer and Waitrose who have already removed them from sale. ASDA and Tesco are still dragging their feet, but are likely to come under pressure to act soon. The news comes just as Jamie Oliver and Hugh Fearnley Whittingstall start their campaign against intensively farmed chickens. (See blog "Animal Welfare Action" posted here on 6th December).

Animal Welfare Action

Virtually every day in the last week or so has seen a story supporting better animal welfare.

It started with Jamie Oliver denouncing battery chicken farming on Channel 4, closely followed by Hugh Fearnley Whittingstall on the same topic. As we know, where these two go today public opinion tends to follow tomorrow.

Then we had the introduction of "faux gras", a goose friendly way of producing foie gras where the birds are not force fed but rather have access to a rich diet to fatten naturally. The product has been launched in Waitrose which stopped selling foie gras 6 years ago, as well as Fortnum and Mason.

Monday's Times featured the launch of a campaign by farmers and industry figures to develop the British veal market, based on calves raised in first class welfare conditions, either outdoors and fed grass and milk, or grass only until the animals are about 16 months old. The industry is keen to see whether consumers will respond if they are reassured about welfare, as a veal market in the UK would stop the controversial export of live calves, and help find an outlet for dairy beef.

And radio 4's British Food and Farming Awards gave the top prize for Best Campaigner/Educator to Compassion in World Farming for their work in improving conditions for farmed animals.

All in all a good week for those committed to raising their animals in the best possible conditions.