|
Farmer And Consumers
RANDY P. KROTZ
ST. LOUIS, MO.
Should we call it “conventional agriculture” or “traditional agriculture” or even accept the less flattering term some consumers utilize for a large section of food producers, “industrial farming?” A vast majority of food consumed in the U.S. is grown and raised in a manner that does not necessarily align with the consciousness of many food shoppers. Consumers have shaped their image of farming, both good and bad, based on the extremes they experience in the media every day. Tortured animals, pesticides poured on vegetables, or the flip side, which shows animals raised in all the comforts of home or crops produced with a magic concoction of minerals and supplements and rock music playing to keep the insects away.
Okay, let’s recap the point I am trying to make. Consumers have little understanding of agronomic practices and are exceedingly vulnerable to believing the loudest or most consistent voice they hear regarding how their food is grown and raised. And let’s admit this, farmers and ranchers, that is rarely your voice. In fact, most of the time, the messages that breakthrough to the average consumer come from major food brands. They are nearly always the only marketers capable of finding the advertising and promotional budget necessary to move the needle on brand recognition or belief formation.
My next three paragraphs could be used to summarize the monumental effort farm and commodity organizations have put forward over the past 20 years to help consumers understand difficult topics in agriculture. These issues include antibiotic use in farm animals, GMOs, animal welfare, pesticide use, sustainable production, CRISPR technology, etc. As an ag industry expert in the field of consumer communications, I can confidently tell you that your investment has made a difference. Still, the wave of negative and distracting messages has been more like a tsunami than a rising and receding tide.
On the fringe of “production agriculture,” which is another widely used term, there are farmers and ranchers who are listening carefully to food shoppers’ wants and needs and are aggressively working to deliver to that market. Building a brand around the term “natural” or 15 other label claims that catch the eye of consumers is the most popular approach to branding we see today. If you want to see 12 absent claims on the same product package, wander into a high-priced coffee shop and grab a bag of chips. It is truly remarkable to contemplate that a consumer can digest so many production claims on one product…which, of course, they cannot.
Has traditional farming lost market share to foods labeled as organic or natural or non-rBST, or non-GMO or no-antibiotics? Absolutely! Will it continue? Yes. Is it a significant market share and impeding profitability for farmers and ranchers? Probably not yet. Indeed, there are those in agriculture that are sprinting toward the opportunity to serve these specialty or niche markets. As consumers ourselves, we trust that food companies are not adding these labels and increasing their prices without farmers receiving their fair share. Premium-priced grocery stores that have cornered the market on products littered with absence claims and delivering a narrative to shoppers that includes superior health and environmental stewardship are continuing to gain ground in areas of the country where the price is not always king.
Summarizing this complicated topic isn’t easy, but let me try it this way. Consumers prefer eating food that comes from a farm where the animals receive exceptional care, and crops and vegetables are grown locally. Price is still crucial when making purchase decisions, but not like it once was, especially in restaurants. Food production segmentation through labeling is popular and profitable, and will likely increase when opportunities present themselves related to the current pandemic. ∆
RANDY P. KROTZ: CEO AgWiki
|
|