Do consumers really care how their food is produced?

I recently read a speech made at a conference by someone from the US. I thought I kept the article for reference, but can’t find it – I’m not good with paper. I’m not that good with a laptop either, so you can imagine what a struggle life is.

What they said was the majority of consumers could not care where or how food was produced, as long as it was good and cheap. The main message was most consumers were more concerned about just how food production affected them, rather than any ethical or welfare issues. I know many consumers care how food is produced, very passionately (and volubly), but I tend to agree with the speaker I have alluded to – the majority couldn’t care less.

I used to work with a group of people, one of whom used to, quite regularly, criticise the way modern-day chicken is mass produced. He had seen some footage of broiler chickens where the birds looked overcrowded. He knew we produced broiler chicken (on a relatively small scale) and introduced the topic, presumably to start an argument. I didn’t respond, which really irritated him. I’ve found if you are patient, your chance will usually come.

My chance came one Monday morning. At coffee time, he told us he had bought a ready-cooked, piping hot chicken for £4.99 from a supermarket. I was on him like a proverbial ton of bricks. I said: “How do you think that works then?”

“What do you mean, how does it work?” he replied.

I retorted: “Someone buys a day-old chick, feeds it and looks after it for about six weeks. It has to be transported to a processing plant, killed, feathered and dressed; transported to your supermarket, cooked and sold for £4.99.” I didn’t give him chance to reply. “I’ll tell you how it works. It works by putting tens of thousands of birds in a shed, throughout their life, and after they are dead, cost is kept to a minimum so you can get your Sunday dinner on the cheap.” I think I won the day on that one – he was more excited about his cheap Sunday lunch than agonising about chicken-rearing methods.

Post-Brexit issue?

But we need to look a little closer at this message from the US. It clearly was targeted at farmers, but was probably aimed at politicians. If you were involved in the food industry in the US what better message could you give a British politician, at this Brexit time, than the one that says most consumers could not care less how food is produced?

Especially if you come from a country with lots of food to export and that food includes chicken washed in chlorine (which doesn’t bother me) and beef laced in hormones (which does bother me). And, similarly, for a lot of British politicians – those who advocate a future diet based on trade deals around the world – what better message could there be? Farmer representatives can complain about lower standards around the world as much as they like, but why should they worry, here’s an argument that says consumers don’t care anyway.

I could be wrong on all this. Perish the thought, but perhaps I’m getting cynical.

In this pre-Brexit era, the most overused word is probably “if” – it will probably have to be parked up for a couple of years post-Brexit to give it a rest. But, if we open up to more world trade, what will happen to food standards in general and livestock production in particular in the UK?

Consumer choices

At present two basic choices are available to consumers. I’m speaking in general, but they are organic and conventional food.

Organic food is a niche product. The size of the niche varies according to prosperity. When I was involved in the dairy trade you could easily track the niche and link it to the relative prosperity of the south-east and the M4 corridor. Consumers generally like the idea of organic food and will pay a premium for it, just as long as they can afford it. A hard core will buy organic come what may, but an element of the market follows the rise and fall of people’s income.

It’s the next portion of the market that really interests me – it is by far the largest sector. It comprises food produced to “conventional” standards. We in the industry love to tell ourselves this food, especially animal products, is produced to the highest standards in the world. I’m not sure how we get to that conclusion. It’s a bit like when a new Wimbledon champion is asked which is the best tennis tournament in the world. They are hardly going to say the French are they?

But whatever trade deals are done on food, they will be done. If China exported food it could already be on its way, which is an interesting dilemma. I see little prospect of livestock production standards being allowed to lower in this country. If that was on the agenda there would be a hue and cry.

So we could, quite easily, move to a situation where three types of food are available in this country. We would have the organic sector. This is a market place that is limited in size by prosperity. It can never be the largest sector because it only works for producers if it commands a premium.

We would have, what I have called, the conventional sector. Here, consumers can’t afford organic, but they will care enough to support the standards they are told are the highest in the world.

And we probably will have a new sector of imported food that has question marks over its standards – and a market for this food. Because, like my friend with the £4.99 chicken, a market will exist for this food among consumers who couldn’t care less.

It is difficult, at this stage of proceedings, to predict the size of the various sectors, but the middle sector is most vulnerable. It will find it difficult to move into organics because of the niche limit and find it impossible to compete with cheap imported food.

Politicians will seek out these deals if only to save face. The impact on farming and the fabric of the countryside as we know it could be immense – only time will tell.