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.

Assessing Hilary Benn's Call for UK Farming to Produce Alot More

Excited by Hilary Benn’s call last week for farmers to safeguard food security by “producing a lot more”, and keen to understand what we are all supposed to do, I read the back up papers issued by Defra.

Nothing in those papers looks radical enough to provide a step change in output. And its clear that Defra, whether consciously or unconsciously, is prioritising the environment over productivity.

For the first time Government has produced a set of performance related indicators, or in plain English, a list of things they want to measure. This is important as what gets measured tends to get done. The Sustainable Food and Farming performance indicators show that Government wants to measure 9 areas.

Of the 9, just one, Market Focused Farming, measures farming productivity. The target is for UK farmers to deliver 50% more Gross Value Added than the EU average of 14 pre enlargement countries. Currently the figure is 32%.

The things that Government feels will help achieve the target include more diversification, more collaboration, more membership of farm assurance schemes, more benchmarking, higher levels of training, more organic farming, and more use of risk management tools, particularly in the arable area. Government is working on how to measure farming’s response to climate change, and the cost to farming of regulation.

Whilst all of those indicators are useful, none will deliver big increases in output.

Also specifically farming related is an indicator called The Burden on the Taxpayer, where two sets of figures will be produced, the value of direct CAP payments, and the cost of animal disease and the level of cost sharing. As yet no target has been set for the cost to the taxpayer, either up or down, but it can probably be assumed that the aim is to reduce it.

Of the other 7 performance indicators, three are directly environment related. The Environmental Cost of the Food Chain indicator will measure river water quality, pesticide and fertiliser use,good agricultural and environment condition,pollution incidents, and membership of the Entry level Stewardship Scheme.

Better Use of Natural Resources has a target of halting the decline in soil organic matter. Landscape and Biodiversity has a target of halting the decline in farmland birds by 2014, and then seeing an increase, and also improving the condition of Sites of Special Scientific Interest. It specifically mentions farmer entry to the Higher Level Stewardship Scheme as a way of achieving the objectives.

Animal Health and Welfare targets have yet to be developed.

The final two areas are Public Health, which targets more fruit and veg consumption, and there will be a target for Rural Productivity.

Overall, the indicators are heavily environment related, and suggest that Government actions prioritise environment over productivity.

No one is denying that in the words of Peter Kendall, farmers “must produce more and at the same time impact on the environment less”. And certainly there should be no return to production linked subsidies as this leads to poor quality products, and a complete disconnection from what the market wants.

But there are actions which can make a radical difference to productivity levels, yet contribute to a better environment.

The number one priority has to Research and Development. As yet there is no target for the amount of money to be devoted to agriculture, and current R&D expenditure stands at just £164m. The obvious area for focus is developing disease resistant fruit, veg, cereal and grass species which require minimal water and fertilisers to grow. More has to be done to understand and eradicate animal disease, including animal husbandry and stock management techniques which concentrate on disease prevention and avoid the need for routine treatment.

There are other areas to target. There must be a measure for bovine TB levels. There should be a target for public procurement of British produce. There should be a time frame for sorting out labelling to make clear what is and is not British. And the Rural Development agencies should have a target for direct farm initiatives.

But enough of the whingeing. What can be done? Well, there is a consultation going on, and it is an opportunity for every farmer in the land to make their views known.

All in all, the talk from Benn is disconnected from the walk. Hopefully though, it will be just a short time before his call is turned into practical, prioritised, and funded government action plans.