General enquiries on this form should be made to:sciencesearch.defra.gov.uk/Document.aspx?Document=… · Web viewTelephone No.020 7238 1612E-mail:[email protected]

General enquiries on this form should be made to:Defra, Science Directorate, Management Support and Finance Team,Telephone No. 020 7238 1612E-mail: [email protected]

SID 5 Research Project Final Report

NoteIn line with the Freedom of Information Act 2000, Defra aims to place the results of its completed research projects in the public domain wherever possible. The SID 5 (Research Project Final Report) is designed to capture the information on the results and outputs of Defra-funded research in a format that is easily publishable through the Defra website. A SID 5 must be completed for all projects.

This form is in Word format and the boxes may be expanded or reduced, as appropriate.

ACCESS TO INFORMATIONThe information collected on this form will be stored electronically and may be sent to any part of Defra, or to individual researchers or organisations outside Defra for the purposes of reviewing the project. Defra may also disclose the information to any outside organisation acting as an agent authorised by Defra to process final research reports on its behalf. Defra intends to publish this form on its website, unless there are strong reasons not to, which fully comply with exemptions under the Environmental Information Regulations or the Freedom of Information Act 2000.Defra may be required to release information, including personal data and commercial information, on request under the Environmental Information Regulations or the Freedom of Information Act 2000. However, Defra will not permit any unwarranted breach of confidentiality or act in contravention of its obligations under the Data Protection Act 1998. Defra or its appointed agents may use the name, address or other details on your form to contact you in connection with occasional customer research aimed at improving the processes through which Defra works with its contractors.

Project identification

1. Defra Project code FO0414

2. Project titleConsumer insight into food prices and food security (Part 1)

3. Contractororganisation(s)

Warwick HRIWellesbourneWarwick CV35 9EF

54. Total Defra project costs £186,894

(agreed fixed price)

5. Project: start date................. 01/07/2009

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) Page 1 of 15

end date.................. 01/07/2010


6. It is Defra’s intention to publish this form. Please confirm your agreement to do so..............................................................................................YES NO (a) When preparing SID 5s contractors should bear in mind that Defra intends that they be made public. They

should be written in a clear and concise manner and represent a full account of the research project which someone not closely associated with the project can follow.Defra recognises that in a small minority of cases there may be information, such as intellectual property or commercially confidential data, used in or generated by the research project, which should not be disclosed. In these cases, such information should be detailed in a separate annex (not to be published) so that the SID 5 can be placed in the public domain. Where it is impossible to complete the Final Report without including references to any sensitive or confidential data, the information should be included and section (b) completed. NB: only in exceptional circumstances will Defra expect contractors to give a "No" answer.In all cases, reasons for withholding information must be fully in line with exemptions under the Environmental Information Regulations or the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

(b) If you have answered NO, please explain why the Final report should not be released into public domain

Executive Summary7. The executive summary must not exceed 2 sides in total of A4 and should be understandable to the intelligent

non-scientist. It should cover the main objectives, methods and findings of the research, together with any other significant events and options for new work.

Consumer insight into food prices and food security - Part 1The aim of this first part of a two-part project was to assess consumer understanding of, and reactions to, changing food prices and food security, and their expectations of Government. The objectives were to:

1. Examine consumer understandings of the concept of ‘food security’.

2. Explore the extent to which the component elements of ‘food security’ influence household food purchasing and consumption decisions.

3. Gain insights into consumer experiences of food price changes and impacts of the economic downturn over the past two years.

4. Examine the feasibility of developing one or more potential indicators of consumer confidence in food security and in the wider food system.

The context to this research was the rise in food prices in 2008, following decades of falling food costs and generally rising incomes, the current economic recession and increasing concern among government and the public over environmental threats and potential instabilities in the food system. Defra’s definition of food security is for all consumers to have access at all times to sufficient, safe and nutritious food for an active and healthy life at affordable prices; to enable this, food supply must be reliable and resilient to shocks and crises, and food has to be produced in sustainable ways. The research focused on understanding consumer perceptions and behaviours in relation to key components of food security at household level: access (where and how people obtain food), affordability (experience of, and practices in relation to, changes in food prices) and availability (what is bought), as well consumers’ sense of food security (confidence in the food system; intended and actual changes in practice in the relatively short term.)

The principal methods for data gathering were a rapid, quantitative survey administered on-line in November-December 2009 and a series of deliberative workshops in different locations, with groups in different socio-economic and life stage (April-June 2010). The sample for the on-line survey (1,014 respondents) was drawn from the NOP-GFK Consumer Panel which comprises 230,000 UK adults (aged 18 and over) who are randomly recruited on an on-going basis by NOP-GFK to take part in consumer research. The panel includes individuals from all key socio-economic cohorts including low income groups, with 8% of the panel earning <£7,000 pa and 13% between £7,000-£14,000 pa. All respondents selected for interview from the NOP-GFK panel were primary food purchasers within their respective households. A proportional stratification ensured data emanating from the study were representative of the primary food shopper population as a whole and were not skewed by any particular grouping.

The sampling strategy for the workshops was built around two key concerns: firstly, that the research engaged explicitly with the experiences of low income consumers; and secondly that the work needed to link with other research which uses Defra’s recent model for segmenting populations in terms of views,


values and intentions towards environmental problems. On the basis of these requirements, a sampling frame was constructed to prioritize those consumers most likely to have had direct experience of food insecurity (and also most ‘at risk’ if food security is threatened), but also engaged with the broader range of consumers in order to explore in more depth their understandings of ‘food security’, expectations of government and to develop indicators of confidence. Such purposive sampling was necessarily biased, with the one unintended possible shortcoming being that none of the participants were over 65. The sample size of 122 participants was similar to that used in other qualitative studies.

The survey and workshop findings showed project participants to be very aware of rising food prices; for many of those surveyed this had made food shopping a more stressful activity, with cutting back, changing commodities and bargain hunting becoming a regular necessity. This was particularly true for those on low incomes and in households with children. Low income householders in particular reported how they shopped around to take advantage of the best offers in terms of food price, but they also recognised the relationship between food price and food quality. Many articulated difficult trade-offs which had to be made in terms of buying low priced food (particularly ‘junk food’) and the lower quality of that food in terms of health and nutritional content. There was a wide range of understandings of why prices had risen and in particular, the role of rising energy prices was cited as a reason for increased food prices due to the increased costs of transport (few mentioned the increased costs of food production). In terms of strategies for coping with further price rises of food and other household bills, respondents recognised that these would be dependent on household income: those on lower incomes clearly have less room for manoeuvre in terms of changing behaviour. Many of those surveyed reported that they were already budgeting very carefully and those on the lowest incomes had little expenditure they could reduce. People on higher incomes on the other hand, could reduce expenditure such as taking fewer or no holidays, cutting out a second car, or, in terms of food, changing food brands. The majority of workshops participants in particular looked to Government to keep prices manageable, although they was no consensus on how exactly Government would be able to achieve this.

Very few project participants had come across ‘food security’ as a term signifying food availability, accessibility and affordability for all at all times; when pressed, the majority thought it referred to aspects of food safety. With reference to food safety, project participants discussed the importance of reliable and trustworthy food labelling at length. Only a minority of respondents considered the possibility that there could be a serious risk to global or national food supplies from factors such as environmental disasters, population growth or conflicts.

When presented with the formal definition of food security most could engage with its meaning and understand the implications of change. Many of those surveyed disagreed that full food security has been achieved in the UK, mainly because they felt that whilst food in general is plentiful, ‘healthy’ food is not ‘affordable for all.’ Again, despite appreciation of the complexities involved, the majority saw Government as having overall responsibility for food security because of its role in national and local retail and food distribution infrastructure, its regulatory functions and its moral responsibility for ensuring the whole population can access sufficient healthy, affordable food. Only a few respondents in higher income groups saw responsibility being primarily with the consumer.

Project Report to Defra8. As a guide this report should be no longer than 20 sides of A4. This report is to provide Defra with details

of the outputs of the research project for internal purposes; to meet the terms of the contract; and to allow Defra to publish details of the outputs to meet Environmental Information Regulation or Freedom of Information obligations. This short report to Defra does not preclude contractors from also seeking to publish a full, formal scientific report/paper in an appropriate scientific or other journal/publication. Indeed, Defra actively encourages such publications as part of the contract terms. The report to Defra should include: the scientific objectives as set out in the contract; the extent to which the objectives set out in the contract have been met; details of methods used and the results obtained, including statistical analysis (if appropriate); a discussion of the results and their reliability; the main implications of the findings; possible future work; and any action resulting from the research (e.g. IP, Knowledge Transfer).


Background to the project (this report considers Part 1 of a two-part project)Defra’s definition of food security is for all consumers to have access at all times to sufficient, safe and nutritious food for an active and healthy life at affordable prices; to enable this, food supply must be reliable and resilient to shocks and crises, and food has to be produced in sustainable ways. The current concerns about UK and international food security stem from security of key inputs such as energy and water, potential impact of global climate change and the recent economic crisis and track. One key mechanism by which potential insecurity is indicated is through price: UK food price inflation peaked at 14.5% in August 2008 (DFID/Defra 2010), with variation for specific commodities, despite efforts by the retail sector to absorb increases in inputs and other costs. In the UK this followed several decades of falling food costs, generally rising incomes and thus a decreasing proportion of income spent on food even by the lowest income quintile. Such increases in food prices, coinciding with increases in oil and transport costs, financial and job insecurities, are likely to have differential effects on households in different circumstances. In addition, there is some evidence of project participant concern over the reliability of the food system because of environmental threats and emergent instabilities. The research was therefore timely, and focused on the project participant level in terms of perceptions and behaviours in relation to key components of food security at household level: access (where and how people obtain food), affordability (experience of, and practices in relation to, changes in food prices) and availability (what is bought), as well project participants’ sense of food security (confidence in the food system; intended and actual changes in practice in the relatively short term.) The overall aim Part 1 of the project was to assess project participant understanding of, and reactions to, changing food prices and food security, and expectations of Government, and to examine the feasibility of developing potential indicators of project participant confidence in the food system. Statistical analysis of the Defra Family Food Survey data was undertaken in Part 2 of the project (to be published) to assess the cost of a healthy diet and household dietary patterns.

ObjectivesThe project objectives covered in this report are as follows:

1) Examine project participant understandings of the concept of ‘food security’.

2) Explore the extent to which the component elements of ‘food security’ influence household food purchasing and consumption decisions.

3) Gain insights into project participant experiences of food price changes and impacts of the economic down-turn over the past two years.

4) Based on outcomes from the above research, examine the feasibility of developing one or more potential indicators of project participant confidence in food security and in the wider food system.

The research was carried out between July 2009 and July 2010. It is described in much greater detail in Annex 1.

Brief description of methodologyA preliminary literature trawl was used to inform the design and subsequent interpretation of the project participant survey and workshops.

To establish national baseline data on which to build subsequent qualitative inquiry, an initial large scale quantitative survey was undertaken to provide robust data on overarching project participant attitudes and behaviours. Whilst face-to-face might arguably be the preferred method for project participant research of this type, the costs of such an exercise (bearing in mind the requirement for a large sample size of >1000 respondents) were beyond the budget and time allocated for the research. Given sharply declining response rates and correspondingly high levels of bias associated with telephone surveys (A. Inman, personal communication), a telephone methodology was not considered an optimal approach. As a consequence, in terms of data collection, an on-line methodology was selected as the most appropriate option available. Previous research has shown that web panels ‘can be a viable alternative to telephone surveys that allows researchers to conduct high-quality research’ (Braunsberger et al., 2007). The sample for the survey was drawn from the NOP-GFK Consumer Panel (approach agreed with Defra social scientists) which comprises 230,000 UK adults (aged 18 and over) who are randomly recruited on an on-going basis by NOP-GFK to take part in consumer research. The panel includes individuals from all key socio-economic cohorts including low income groups, with 8% of the panel earning <£7,000 pa and 13% between £7,000-£14,000 pa.

In total, 1,014 questionnaires were completed, from respondents recruited through a stratified random sample of the GFK-NOP panel, which is based on demographic quotas with a low income quota for this survey. Thus the data from the survey are representative of the UK population by key gender, age and income – especially low income – demographic groups. The unit of analysis was the individual respondent, but the questionnaire was designed to obtain data on household purchasing and decision making. It was administered through a secure website, contained 41 questions and took around 25 minutes to complete. The questionnaire included a number of


attitudinal questions, and also presented respondents with a series of conjoint scenarios which enabled quantitative analysis of how project participants trade-off attributes such as price, health, convenience, taste, quality, when purchasing food items, and the relative importance of each attribute within overall purchasing decisions. Data from open-ended questions were classified using code-frames to rationalise responses into response categories. All data from both the open and closed questions within the questionnaire were then compiled into frequency counts prior to the creation of cross tabulations using SPSSv14. Data from the conjoint exercise were modelled using Sawtooth analytical software to produce utilities for each level of each attribute. Utilities are a measure of the value or attractiveness of each attribute level to respondents and were used to derive a measure of relative importance for each attribute. Relative importance measures demonstrate how important a given attribute (e.g. price, environmental performance, production location etc) is to the purchase decision and are expressed as a fraction of 100%. These measures are ratio-scaled, but they are also relative which means an attribute’s importance score is always relative to other attributes being measured. For example if price has a relative importance score of 60% and production location a score of 30%, this means price is twice as important as production location in the purchase decision. In most cases, questions were answered by the total base of 1014 respondents which means confidence limits (95% interval) for the results are mainly between +/- 2% to 3%. In a small number of cases, some questions were answered by a sub-sample of respondents in which case confidence limits (95% interval) increase to approximately +/- 5%. Where differences in responses between different socio-economic groups (e.g. income groups) have been reported, care has been taken to ensure these differences are statistically significant (at a 5% error level).

Drawing on the findings from the on-line survey, a series of deliberative workshops were undertaken between April and June 2010 to enable more detailed and in-depth understanding of consumer perceptions and behaviours, in relation to socio-economic group, location, and life stage. Workshop design was informed by the results of the quantitative survey; 15 workshops were held in urban and rural locations in the West and East Midlands and the South West, with a total of 122 participants. The sampling was purposive to target low income participants who were likely to be experiencing long-term food insecurity and was consequently biased, with the one unintended possible shortcoming being that none of the participants were over 65. The sample size of 122 participants was similar to that used in other qualitative studies (M. Kneafsey, personal communication). Mostly primary shoppers were recruited by key demographic, life stage, and household type criteria seen as factors likely to influence attitudes and behaviours towards food security. They were also recruited according to the Defra Environmental Segmentation model. Workshops were incentivised, recruitment was undertaken ‘on street’ and workshops were held in a number of local venues including community centres, church halls and a pub. The workshops involved a number of group activities, as well as facilitated discussions, to explore perceptions and behaviours in relation to ‘food security’ as a general concept and in relation to likely instabilities in the food system, and specifically to rising food prices. They also sought project participant views on the roles and responsibilities of government and other actors in the food system in relation to food security now and in the future.

Results and discussionObjective 1: Examine consumer understandings of the concept of ‘food security’.

a) What do consumers understand by the concept of ‘food security’? (in terms of both unprompted understanding and considered response to definition of affordability, accessibility and availability)

In general terms, the specific phrase term ‘food security’ had very little resonance with the majority of research participants, from both the quantitative and the qualitative phases, in terms of unprompted understandings. In the on-line survey, only 30% of respondents recognised or recollected the term as having been discussed in the media (newspapers, radio, TV). When invited to comment nevertheless on what the term might mean, 66% of survey respondents did not provide an answer. Of those who did, about three quarters associated ‘food security’ with food safety, hygiene standards and quality control: ‘where food is safe to eat’ was a very common response. That food was clearly and trustworthily labelled, including tamper-proofed, was also often mentioned. Similarly, very few workshop participants had ever heard the term used before, and when encouraged to consider what it might mean, most respondents conceptualised it primarily in terms of ‘food safety’. Again ‘food safety’ itself meant a wide range of things to different participants: food that was not genetically modified or irradiated; food that contained as few chemicals and pesticides as possible; food that did not have too much salt or calories in it; food that is free from ‘poisons’ and/or bacteria; food has not been ‘tampered’ with or ‘contaminated’ in any way. As in the online survey, the origin of food, its packaging, and clear labelling of its contents, were seen as important indicators of food safety.

However, some participants in both phases of the research conceptualised ‘food security’ in terms other than as ‘food safety’. For example, nearly 20% of survey respondents who gave an answer conceived of food security in terms of ensuring a supply of food to feed the population, whether this be in a general or global sense, or in relation to national or household food supply; 6% defined food security in relation to individual or household access to food. In the workshops, only a few mentioned security of food supply at national level, unprompted, but when asked to think about it, many said it was an ‘obvious’ component, which they did not much think about, having become used to national food supply continuing. Only those who had memories of World War II and subsequent rationing could really connect with notions of supply scarcity.


Although understanding of and reactions to ‘food labelling’ was not the focus of the present research, the issue was mentioned spontaneously by many in the online survey and in every workshop when people commented on what ‘food security’ might mean and how they could be sure of it. From the consumer perspective, this makes sense: most respondents purchased most of their food, usually from supermarkets, and interrogated labels to a greater or lesser extent; thus labels were seen as key to discussing ‘food security’ where it was taken to mean the consistency, safety and reliability of food being purchased. For example, in all workshops, ‘labels’ were mentioned as an essential part of being able to trust where food came from, to be confident about how it has been produced and to be sure what is inside both the packaging and the product itself. The participants’ sense of food security came from knowing food was genuine (it was what it claimed to be) and from label legitimacy (that labels were accurate and trustworthy).

However, at the same time workshop participants were suspicious of labels about ‘best before’ and/or ‘use by’ dates; there was much critical discussion about such labelling and the potential for their being unhelpful or over cautious, which would undermine their sense of food security and would promote wastage (there was considerable discussion in the workshops on the contribution ‘wastage’ might make to security of provision at local and household levels).

In terms of considered response to Defra’s definition of ‘availability, accessibility, affordability’, respondents demonstrated quite detailed awareness of food accessibility and food prices, were aware that prices had risen, and could discuss their strategies and practices for coping at length. ‘Availability’ was usually discussed in terms of what was present in shops, rather than issues of supply and production.

This is not surprising, since most respondents’ knowledge of and potential for thinking about ‘food security’ of course comes primarily from their experience as food shoppers: they relate to the food system as consumers, and as such, had quite good understanding of supermarket strategies in terms of stocking, presentation and pricing. Among workshop participants, those with professional experience, usually linked to catering of some kind (e.g. school procurement, cooks, catering management) volunteered opinion about supply in terms of production or imports, although in workshops located in rural areas/with more rural respondents, there was noticeably more nuanced discussion of farmers’ activities and farming policy, all of which were raised when participants were considering ‘food availability’. However, in most workshops people engaged with the component ideas fairly vigorously, and some respondents could demonstrate quite a sophisticated grasp of the complexities. Thus there is no evidence that respondents are completely unaware of problems facing the food system, or that they do not understand and/or experience the component parts of Defra’s concept of food security – rather, it is that they are not familiar with the terminology ‘food security’. Indeed, when asked towards the end of the workshop to consider the extent to which the UK enjoys a state of ‘food security’, using the Defra definition, most were clear that ‘full food security’ has not been achieved, not least the element of ‘affordability’ for all.

b) Does the term and its component ideas have resonance with day-to-day practice, or does it relate to more long term concerns?

In relation to the term ‘food security’, since the majority of views connected ‘security’ as to do with the safety, reliability, consistency and trustworthiness of food, the term probably had more of long term connotation, except in relation to poisoning (which was discussed in terms of particular outbreaks or personal experiences of sickness). However, in that much of the initial discussion centred on the trustworthiness of labels, the term does perhaps have resonance with more day-to-day practice. In terms of the component ideas, respondents’ comments about food prices (see below) were very much to do with day-to-day practice, especially among those in more low income groups (in both the survey and workshops).

When discussing component ideas, participants associated ‘accessibility’ and ‘affordability’ with more regular practice, but ‘availability’, in that it was discussed, was seen as more of a long term issue. Few survey participants showed much awareness of structural or systemic long term problems which might threaten UK food security; some workshop participants were mainly concerned with their own households’ needs, but many showed interest and some concern over more long term circumstances when prompted to consider external threats, although few raised these issues unprompted. Even when encouraged to imagine major disruptions or problems, very few workshop participants could envisage a scenario where food would not be physically available or accessible ‘somehow’, or that any issues that did arise would not be merely temporary.

c) How far is the term seen as primarily a UK issue, or is it usually discussed or conceptualised on a global scale?

In the online survey, where people responded to the request to comment on ‘food security’, most seemed largely to be thinking of UK concerns, even when discussing food’s safety and reliability (at least, very few mentioned any global examples). Nevertheless, about a fifth of those who offered a view or definition linked the term to security of food supply, and slightly more mentioned global than national supply. The comments were in general terms of there being ‘enough food to feed everybody [in the world]; the UK focussed comments were mostly in terms of the ability to be self-sufficient in food. A few referred to the UK being able to continue importing enough food. Although these were brief comments done in an online survey, those mentioning such issues (i.e. not seeing ‘food security’ only as a ‘safety’ issue) often displayed some sophistication of understanding about international food


security. There were also a few online respondents who mentioned household level security (such as knowing they would be able to afford the next meal for their family).

This tendency to focus on UK concerns was borne out in the workshops where people discussed food security as ‘safety’. However, when discussing assurance of supply or affordability, the responses were more mixed. Some spoke of the need to ensure continuing food imports, others referred to a need for increased national self-sufficiency. Others discussed potential challenges to food supply from population growth and from environmental threats, such as major floods or droughts. ‘Does it mean sort of whether food will continue to be available at the sort of levels that we know it now with population growth and all the rest of it?’ [Workshop 12]. Notably, in workshops held after April 2010, several mentioned the ‘ash cloud’ as an example both of an unpredictable environmental threat, and also in terms of potential effects on transport, although most usually qualified this comment with recognition that the proportion of food transported by air is small. More salient to many perhaps was the experience of heavy snow in the winter 2010, and its effects on food and personal transport – affecting availability and accessibility.

Animal diseases were also mentioned as potential threats (loss of bees, foot and mouth, bird ‘flu) and there was usually discussion of political or economic threats to production, with wars and trade problems highlighted. Fuel problems and associated industrial disputes were noted as potential problems, but only in terms of transport, not in their potential for disrupting food production (this was true in the online survey as well).

Some workshop participants showed clear understanding of specific aspects of why food prices were thought to have risen, which they saw related to security of supply, such as the biofuels/food debates: You’ve got things like wheat fields and they turn that over to biofuels. So you’re losing, less ground so that’s food security cos it’s not always going to be there and that will push the prices up. [Workshop 7]. As in the online survey, there were always those who saw it in terms of household/ individual needs: I would presume it would be securing food for people whatever wage they are on so that everybody can have food as a necessity rather than a luxury [Workshop 5].

d) Is there evidence that people’s ideas have changed in recent months, as the term has been more widely used in the public domain?

Since the majority of respondents (online and workshops) were not familiar with the concept of ‘food security’ without prompting, there was no evidence that people’s ideas had changed or developed as the issue gained policy salience over 2009-2010. However, in that a few mentioned growing biofuels might be competing with food for land usage, or the problems with bees, there is some evidence that recent issues raised within global food security have reached public consciousness.

In terms of expertise, the online commentators were anonymous of course, and may have had knowledge from professional or personal experience as well as media reports. No workshop participant was a professional ‘expert’ in food security, or an active member of a lobbying group, although there were certainly one or two with professional experience of working in the food system (such as purchasing officers or restaurant managers) which showed in their commentary.

Objective 2: Explore the extent to which the component elements of ‘food security’ influence household food purchasing and consumption decisions now and in the recent past (this research is not attempting to capture behaviour at individual levels, nor of workplace or school food purchase and choice.)

a) Have consumers experienced variation in availability, accessibility and affordability of food over the past two years? Are there differences in experience by household type or circumstance?

Respondents in both the online survey and the workshops had noticed changes in food prices over the last two years and had begun to change their practices. Few commented on changes in availability; comments on physical accessibility were usually in relation to particular circumstances (a local shop, bus route, personal car access or change of job etc). (Note, previous work for Defra by Dowler and Davis, in Collier et al, 2009, details findings from a rapid assessment in 2008 of changing practices in response to rising food prices.)

In terms of food prices, 90% of online respondents had noticed the increase over the last 2 years, with half saying they thought prices had ‘increased a lot’; this awareness was similar across all income groups. At every workshop there was unanimous and almost instantaneous agreement that food prices had risen. When asked to specify which items they had particularly noticed, both survey and workshop participants mentioned bread, meat, and dairy products (particularly cheese); the workshop participants also mentioned fruit and vegetables, which were less prominent in online responses. (Note that during the workshops, first of all people’s unprompted responses were recorded; then, specific items which had been identified in the online survey were shown with average price increases, and the displays were used as prompts for subsequent discussion.) Among online participants, 37% agreed it was becoming more difficult for them to afford the variety of food they want to buy, a proportion which varied by income group: it was 48% for shoppers from households with an income of £14,000 or less and 24% for shoppers from households with an income >£41,000 [χ² (12, N=1014)=74.2, P=.000]. About a fifth of respondents went so far as to say they considered the cost of food a serious source of stress for themselves and their families; this proportion was 50% higher among those from households with an income of £14,000 or less [χ² (12, N=1014)


=71.1, P=.000], or with children (though there were no differences between households of different sizes). Similar comments were made by workshop participants, especially where people drew on personal experience; several spoke of the challenges they faced living on restricted incomes, particularly in coping with changes in income and how that had affected food access: ‘You are very limited actually when you are on jobseekers allowance – the big supermarkets with their own brands. So it boils down to money at the end of the day’ [Workshop 9]. Those who had recently lost jobs seemed to adopt similar strategies to those longer term on low incomes: they, too, shopped around for bargains and used ‘own brands’, special offers etc. Those in more rural areas noted additional problems of physical access, and their dependence on cars (their own or friends’) to reach shops at a distance. In some instances this led to discussion of the impact supermarkets have had on small, local shop’s survival and quality.

b) Have there been any changes in food shopping practices in the last two years because of perceived changes in food availability, accessibility or affordability? (i.e. in what is sold, in which shops, at what price, and in relation to money available for food)

Among survey respondents who said they had noted food price increases, a number of strategies had been adopted to cope (people could give more than one answer): 60% throw less food away; 53% look for bargains or have switched to supermarket own brands (52%); 39% bulk purchase and 24% buy less food.

In workshop discussions around responses to recent increases in food price, participants said they had changed their shopping and cooking practices in a number of ways. In terms of food shopping, participants reported that they are now more likely to search for food ‘bargains’ and take advantage of offers in the supermarket (such as ‘buy one get one free’); to swap to cheaper or supermarket own brands; to change where they buy food from, leaving supermarket chains and turning instead to discount supermarket chains, local markets, and other local food outlets. In terms of food consumption and cooking behaviours, workshop participants talked about wasting less food suggesting that they were freezing more food either in terms of saving any leftover food, or cooking in bulk and storing portions for a later date; trying to cut down on their consumption of meat; and cooking more meals from scratch, in response to perceptions that this is cheaper than buying certain ready-made products.

c) Which commodities/products do consumers see as ‘essentials’? Are these the same as products/commod-ities which they feel they would always ‘have to have’ available? Is there variation in such essentials by type of household?

This question, posed in both the survey and in workshops, was one participants found difficult to answer cogently, other than by producing a list of expected staples such as bread, milk, dairy products, fruit and vegetables. In the workshops, there was no distinctive evidence of variation in the types of foods considered as essential by different types of household, despite probing, although parents stressed the importance of being able to provide a ‘healthy’ diet for their children. There was a sense that people felt they would be able to substitute one product for another, if shortages were to occur. For example, powdered milk could replace fresh milk; pasta could replace potatoes. Again, it seemed that people could not envisage a scenario where food products would be in short supply, other than because of cost.

d) What can prompt consumers to ‘panic buy’, and which products do they focus on?

When asked about ‘panic buying’ about 10% of online respondents claimed they had found themselves doing this, usually for bread, milk (fresh or dried), rice, sugar, pasta, vegetables (fresh or tinned), coffee, tea and beans. The numbers saying they undertook such practices were too small to examine differences in products bought across any socio-demographic or economic groupings. Among workshop participants, the majority denied ‘panic buying’, and very few could remember instances where they had purchased food in this way. A small number reported having ‘stocked up’ with non-perishable foods during the recent ‘flu pandemic, but since this followed government advice these instances cannot be said to qualify as ‘panic buying’ in the way it is understood in this context.

e) To what extent are factors other than price taken into account in purchasing food? In particular, what part do nutrition/health, ethical or environmental/economic sustainability issues play in decisions to shop in par-ticular places and buy food: in general; in purchasing ‘essential’ foods; in purchasing ‘panic’ foods? How do factors such as family life, paid work, availability of time, affect food purchasing decisions and practice?

In order to examine assess how people took factors into account in purchasing food and what ranks as key, a section of the questionnaire was designed to capture key motivations and how people trade one off against another. Conjoint Analysis enabled assessment of attribute ranking and trade offs. The analysis was done for chicken and bread, on the assumption that most people would purchase one or both of these key food items. The results were very similar for both food items, and only the data for chicken were subsequently analysed in detail. In the survey online questionnaire, scenarios presented each item in terms of proxy attribute indicators: price, ‘healthiness’ (fat content), ‘environment’ (carbon footprint), appearance (wrapped, unwrapped), location (local, regional/UK, UK/abroad). The analysis showed price to be by far the most important issue which people said they took into account when buying chicken; price was twice as important as production locality or health, and environmental considerations had a very low priority (Figure 1).

These attribute rankings vary by age and income but the order does not significantly change. Thus older shoppers (65+) are less price sensitive than those who are younger (under 25). Those aged 65 and over place a greater emphasis on healthy eating and are more concerned with the locality of food production systems (buying locally),


although they less likely to be motivated by considerations of environmental cost. However, unsurprisingly, price is less of an issue for higher income shoppers who also display a higher propensity to buy lower fat products. Higher income and lower income households do not differ in their purchase decisions regarding environmental impact and locality of food production.

The implications of the conjoint analysis are that, as the price of food increases, shoppers are increasingly likely to prioritize health and environmental impact considerations when making food purchases. Older age groups and higher income groups are slightly less likely to trade healthy eating off against price.

However, the workshops revealed the complex ways in which people organised their shopping practices, to fit into their daily routines and make best use of their household resources while meeting food preferences of family members as well as fundamental values. Low income householders in particular spoke at length about how they shopped around to take advantage of the best offers in terms of food price, but that they also recognised the relationship between food price and food quality. Many articulated difficult trade-offs which had to be made in terms of buying low priced food (particularly ‘junk food’) and the lower quality of that food in terms of health and nutritional content. A number of parents discussed the difficulties of feeding their children healthy foods given the widespread advertising for unhealthy food; many also argued that if incomes were to fall further, the result would be that people would eat less healthy and lower quality food. A minority of respondents had begun growing their own food, partly as a way of saving money, but more importantly, because they enjoyed growing the food and knowing exactly where it had come from and how it had been produced. A few participants wanted to buy British products in order to support British farmers. Overall, the workshop data demonstrates that whilst price inevitably has to be a priority for most food shoppers, this is not to the exclusion of other considerations, in particular food quality in terms of health and nutrition. As project participants widely denied ‘panic buying’, there is no evidence about the issues they would take into account, beyond practical considerations about the long-term durability of foodstuffs for storage in case of emergencies. Respondents were generally less able to articulate ‘environmental’ or ‘ethical’ concerns when talking about their shopping (beyond regular mention of buying free-range eggs) in the workshops. Nevertheless, it is clear from other data (such as that from IGD, 2008; 2009; 2010) that whilst price has become a more important factor during the recession (from 29 % in 2008 to 47% in 2010), environmentally friendly purchasing (13%) has generally held up even as prices have risen. In addition, ethical values purchasing as a driver of product choice has increased significantly from 8% in 2008 to 13% in 2010,

Figure 1 The relative importance of product attributes (conjoint analysis)

f) What do consumers think the future food system will look like as far as their food purchasing is con-cerned? How do they think they might have to, or choose to, change their practices? What would help them to change practices in ways which meet their own standards and needs?

Among online survey respondents over 90% said they had been able to obtain enough affordable, safe and nutritious food over the previous 2 years for their current household, although this proportion depended on income [χ² (6, N=1014)=40.8, P=.000]. Only half those on < £14,000 said they could meet household needs at all times, compared to 70% for those with income >£41,000. However, only about half (55%) said they were very confident that this circumstance would continue in the future; others were less confident and about 6% unable to predict. Many thought their food circumstances would change in the near future, with about half saying they thought they would have to spend a higher proportion of income on food, and would be buying different foods to cope (for

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) Page 10 of 15

instance, different cuts of meat). 29% cited eating a much less varied diet as a likely future response, and about the same proportion said they would almost certainly be eating less meat because it would have become an expensive, luxury item. However, conversely, 41% thought their dietary variety unlikely to change, and 35% did not expect meat to become a luxury item. As might be expected, this view varied by income group [χ² (12, N=1014) =52.3, P=.000]: 45% of those with incomes greater than £41,000 don’t expect meat to become a luxury item, whereas only 31% of those with incomes below £14,000 express this confidence.

In workshop discussions around future food price rises, many participants found it difficult to put a price on when food would become too expensive. For instance, in discussions about the price of chicken, many people simply said that when it became unaffordable they would have to stop buying it. Respondents rarely cited a single product which they would continue to buy even if it became very expensive. Most respondents found it difficult to envisage how they would respond to future food price rises. Some participants talked about how they would have to cut back on their other household expenditure, such as heating, in order to afford food, and it was often felt that people would have to eat poorer quality food if prices increased. Many respondents (from varying socio-economic groups) recognised that reactions to price changes would be dependent on household income. Some workshop participants also talked about growing more of their own food in the future however others argued that this would not necessarily work out to be a cheaper option.

Objective 3: Gain insights into consumer experiences of food price changes and the impacts of the economic downturn over the past two years.

a) How has consumer thinking and practice about budgeting for food in relation to other essentials changed in response to rising food prices? Are there particular types of practice that people have changed or sought to emphasise (what practices are prioritised)? How do these practices vary by different household types and circumstances (as above)?

Of the survey respondents who said they had noticed food prices had risen, 57% had had to make savings on other household items or activities as a result. There was a significant difference across income groups [χ² (2, N=891)=41.99, P=.000]: with 6 out of 10 households with an income of £14,000 or less made savings compared with 4 out of 10 households with an income >£41,000. This effect was also more likely to have had an impact in households with children [χ² (1, N=891)=14.7, P=.000]: 7 out of 10 households with children said they were making savings compared to only 50% of households without children. Of the households making savings, 62% mentioned buying fewer clothes, 74% ate out less, 54% cut back on holidays, and 32% had reduced heating and electricity consumption. This was particularly true for the lower income groups. As discussed above, in the workshops it was clear that participants had developed a number of strategies to manage rising food prices, especially where these were combined with falling incomes. However, those on lower incomes clearly had less room for manoeuvre in terms of changing behaviour. Many were already budgeting very carefully and those on the lowest incomes had little expenditure they could reduce. People on higher incomes would mention ways in which they could reduce expenditure such as taking fewer or no holidays, cutting out a second car, or, in terms of food, changing food brands.

b) What is consumers’ understanding about why food retail prices have risen in general and for particular commodities (such as meat)? How would people react to prices remaining at these higher levels – or go-ing even higher (what are the implications for food purchasing behaviour)? Do consumers value food price stability rather than level?

In both the survey and workshop phases of the research, participants were invited to give their views on the factors behind the food price rises. In the online survey, only 12% of the respondents said they had little idea why food prices had risen in recent years, and these tended to be those aged less than 25 years. When asked their opinions only 20% responded; of those who did, with one or more reason, two thirds mentioned increased oil/fuel prices and effects on transport costs (very few mentioned production costs) There were similar findings in the workshops: ‘Energy is the key to all that. You think energy, yeh, it takes energy to produce most of this food – combine harvesters don’t run on fresh air and excitement do they?’ [Workshop 5]. About half of the survey opinion givers thought the recession and the economic crisis were to blame (many mentioned inflation, greed, currency problems and speculation); a few mentioned government or EU taxes, or supermarkets. ‘It seems to me that the British economic situation as well as the global one are at the core of the price rises’ [Survey Respondent]; ‘Greedy politicians, bankers, businessmen’ [Survey Respondent ].

Participants from both phases of research mentioned increased costs throughout the whole food system: production, wages and feed for livestock, packaging, quality control and a perception of ‘raw ingredients’ having increased in price. About a third of survey respondents who offered comments on causes of rising food prices saw the reasons as global factors, and mentioned the effects of climate change, rising and changing populations, and poor harvests, having contributed to rising demand across the world. ‘Increased demand due to rising prosperity in certain developing countries; demand for raw materials for biofuels; climate change’ [Survey Respondent].

In both the survey and workshops a small proportion specifically named the government as being responsible for food price rises, or specific policies such as cutting subsidies or the Common Agricultural Policy. In some workshops there was unresolved debate over the role of imports versus UK production in causing price rises,

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) Page 11 of 15

particularly the potential benefit to UK producers: So why are the prices going up, exactly then why if it’s dearer for us through the imports, then why not invest in doing it here or however you do it, invest in more our farmers and that and make sure that our farmers get a good deal and then that price carries on to us’ [Workshop 14]. Respondents were rather less clear about the role of home grown v non-domestic production in terms of effects on prices, but they certainly saw policy on self-sufficiency as a Government responsibility.

Finally, some felt supermarkets bore responsibility for rising prices; both from survey responses, and in some workshops discussion, there was comment on the potential for profit making; supermarkets were seen as extremely powerful actors in the food system, largely driven by profit: ‘‘If people are spending less than the supermarkets or whatever are going to put the prices up higher to compensate for that’ [Workshop 10].

In terms of specific commodities, few had ideas about why meat prices had risen, beyond a handful in the online survey who mentioned the cost of feed or impact of biofuel production. Workshop participants all knew meat prices had gone up; none had much idea why.

As mentioned above, about half of survey respondents thought they would have to spend a higher proportion of income on food, presumably because of higher prices and felt their purchasing patterns would change as a result. Again, as discussed above, workshop participants found it hard to imagine food prices significantly higher than even the costs now, in terms of what they would do, especially if incomes remained the same or fell. There were some comments about growing more, but few saw this as a solution to all food needs. When workshops participants were asked whether fluctuating or stable food prices were preferable, there was no consensus – some people argued for stability because it would help them to plan but others felt that fluctuating prices would enable them to buy more expensive foods when they dipped in price. It was clear, however, that participants did not want prices to become stable at a high cost, particularly for healthy foods. These conditions were, as stated, largely ‘unimaginable’.

c) What are consumers’ expectations of Government (nationally and locally) over food prices in particular, and over ‘food security’ in general? (What kind of regulation would people tolerate, welcome, ignore? Do people expect food to remain relatively ‘cheap’, and if so, how would they see that being achieved?)

When asked, 80% of survey respondents and the majority of workshop participants thought it was primarily Government responsibility to ensure basic food items are affordable for all, and 60% of survey respondents look to Government to ensure people have access to a wide choice of affordable nutritious food at all times. As mentioned, there was a small proportion among on-line survey participants who thought the Government actually behind rising food prices. However, despite these assertions of responsibility to ensure affordability and access, more than half of survey respondents did not think the Government in fact had much control over food prices. Workshop participants, on the other hand, were largely very convinced that both rising prices and price stabilities were down to Government intention and intervention.

During the workshops, people were asked to discuss where they felt responsibility for ensuring ‘food security’ lay through an exercise which required them to discuss and rank different actors’ (retailers, government, farmers, processors, and people/ communities) potential roles in ensuring food security (affordability, accessibility, availability and quality). Strikingly, in every workshop, and despite considerable discussion, most saw Government as having most responsibility for ensuring food security, particularly for access and affordability for all. The only exceptions were a small number within workshops with higher-income project participants, who ranked Government as ‘least responsible’ for both ‘quality’ and ‘affordability’. In all workshops the ideas discussed were quite nuanced since the issues were seen to be complex. Participants recognized that there is a limit to what Government can do, given it is the private sector which grows, processes and retails food. Retailers were seen as having a level of responsibility for ensuring the affordability of food, although as mentioned, there was a degree of cynicism as to retailers’ motivations and the potential commitment to such a public good as ‘food security’ – certainly, they were not seen as likely to be minded to keep food prices down for anything other than attracting customers (i.e. not as commitment to ‘food security’). ‘The customer has a choice and nowhere more so than an economy like ours. How easy is it to go to a different shop or go online or just not go shopping?’ [Workshop 15]. Workshop participants were more positive about farmers and producers having responsibility for ensuring the availability and quality of food, but none made the connection with Government roles in regulating production standards, animal welfare, or food safety.

Few ranked ‘people and communities’ with much responsibility; the main feeling expressed was that they were consistently sidelined in terms of power and responsibility – some felt consumers could be playing a more active role, but could not imagine how this might be achieved. ‘People in the community should have more say but the people who are in government don’t listen’ [Workshop 9]. Again, a few in workshops with higher-income project participants saw ‘people and communities’ as having main responsibility for food affordability – i.e. that people should be able to manage their own household budgets – but this was an exception. Issues of power and control were widely discussed; most groups concluded that consumers had very little voice or capacity to change the food system.

There was often strong desire for Government to have oversight and leadership; for instance, doing more to control supermarket pricing and profit. Nevertheless, there was often scepticism that Government had the capacity, willingness or power to play such a role, or even how appropriate it would be to allow it. The belief that

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) Page 12 of 15

Government should be ‘in charge’ of food circumstances ties in with earlier findings that people found it very difficult to imagine future scenarios where the food system would be very different – even that prices would continue to rise, let alone some commodities become unaffordable or unobtainable. The Government was seen as being most responsible for food security for a number of key reasons: its responsibility for national and local retail and food distribution infrastructure; holding a moral responsibility for ensuring that the population has access to food; and being well placed to hold an oversight role over the whole food system.

The attribution of roles and responsibilities within the food system were fairly consistent across different workshops, and thus across all income groups (apart from the exceptions mentioned) and Defra environmental segmentation groups.

d) What are consumers’ expectations of Government over communicating information about food security? Do these expectations differ according to differential consumer motivations, practices or circumstances?

There were no clear views over how proactive the Government should be in communicating information about ‘food security’, and indeed whether it would be effective for them to try. This is probably because, although people had good understanding of the component elements and the complexity of a system which enabled all potentially to have access to available, affordable food for health, the term ‘food security’ was itself unfamiliar and confusing, and few implicitly regarded it as the Government’s job to tell them about it.

Objective 4: Based on outcomes from the above research, examine the feasibility of developing one or more potential indicators of consumer confidence in food security and in the wider food system. Explore the contributions of such consumer level indicators to Defra’s Food Security Assessment Package (http://www.Defra.gov.uk/foodrin/security/assessment.htm).

It is very difficult to translate the findings into potential indicators of consumer confidence. Those surveyed expected Government to take overall responsibility for ensuring availability, accessibility and affordability for food and found it hard to conceptualize how such confidence might be measured or assessed. When pressed, they spoke of the need for trustworthiness of labelling (on food stuffs and in supermarkets): that food was genuine, appropriate (for health) and safe. Food prices were, to some extent, used as a signal that all was not well within the wider food system; even though there was not a wide complete understanding of all pertinent factors (unsurprisingly), participants had quite nuanced ideas and certainly saw the potential of a number of factors to destabilize the system, such as the growth of biofuel production, rising oil prices (only in terms of food transport, not production) and the complexity of commodity markets. The latter may be behind the continual assertion in workshops that Government was partly responsible for rising food prices (terms of trading, the CAP, taxation, farmer support, planning permissions, etc were all mentioned).

Final discussion

This consumer research was carried out in 2009-2010 at a time of economic and wider uncertainties; although food prices had fallen from the 2008 spike, the cost of many basic commodities was higher than had been the case for some time, and other basic costs (fuel, water, council tax etc) had also risen. From the survey, it is clear that there is raised awareness amongst respondents of higher food costs. The research used both quantitative and qualitative methods to engage with people’s views and experiences. A rich data set was produced, which has been discussed at two different disciplinary conferences for academics and practitioners (health, planning, food, etc) and at a stakeholder meeting in London.

The findings showed that project participants were very aware of rising food prices, and for many this had made food shopping a more stressful activity, with cutting back, changing commodities and more bargain hunting becoming a regular necessity. This was particularly true for those on low incomes and in households with children. There was a wide range of understandings of why prices had risen; the majority of workshops participants in particular looked to Government to keep prices manageable. Very few project participants had come across ‘food security’ as a term signifying food availability, accessibility and affordability for all at all times; when pressed, the majority thought it referred to aspects of food safety. However, when presented with the formal definition, most could engage with its meaning and understand the implications of change. Again, despite appreciation of the complexities involved, the majority saw Government as having overall responsibility for food security because of its role in national and local retail and food distribution infrastructure, its regulatory functions and its moral responsibility for ensuring the whole population can access sufficient healthy, affordable food. Only a few in higher income groups saw responsibility being primarily with the consumer.

Different sampling approaches were used for the quantitative survey and the deliberative workshops. The aim of the quantitative survey was to obtain a high response rate from a representative sample of primary food purchasers. This was achieved using an on-line survey, where proportional stratification ensured data emanating from the study were representative of the primary food shopper population as a whole and were not skewed by any particular grouping. The sampling strategy for the workshops was more biased in that it was built around two key

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) Page 13 of 15

http://www.defra.gov.uk/foodrin/security/assessment.htm

concerns: firstly, that the research engaged explicitly with the experiences of low income consumers; and secondly that the work needed to link with other research which uses Defra’s recent system for segmenting populations in terms of views, values and intentions towards environmental problems. On the basis of these requirements, a sampling frame was constructed to prioritize those consumers most likely to have had direct experience of food insecurity (and also most ‘at risk’ if food security is threatened), but also engaged with the broader range of consumers in order to explore in more depth their understandings of ‘food security’, expectations of government and to develop indicators of confidence. Such purposive sampling was necessarily biased, with the one unintended possible shortcoming being that none of the participants were over 65. The sample size of 122 participants was similar to that used in other qualitative studies (M. Kneafsey, personal communication).

Considerations for further work

Future work should continue to monitor the impact of food prices on household spending, both through effective use of the Family Food Survey and by commissioning relatively rapid qualitative investigation among household types known to be vulnerable to budgetary shortfall. This would include those living in areas of high living costs (such as major inner cities, London in particular); those with children under or at primary school age (where child care costs are incurred for working parents); those who experience regular periods of unemployment in areas of high unemployment; those in paid employment who earn the minimum wage; those living on state old-age pensions.

The workshops in this research were done in urban areas of relatively high deprivation as well as two rural locations. However, none was in central London or other places where housing costs are high and disproportionate in the household budget; the impact of the future cap on housing benefit should be monitored for its effects on household ability to afford a healthy diet.

Given current UK concern with the economy, public perception of potential instabilities within the global food system are unlikely to be as high as in recent years, when there has been media and other attention (particularly TV). Research is needed to investigate ways of generating public interest in, and understanding of, the factors which contribute to UK food security, and risks pertaining thereto. One avenue which could be pursued is to consider ways to support efforts in the voluntary/civil society sector to improve consumer understanding of, and engagement with, the food system (participants in the workshops mentioned school and other local growing initiatives, improvements in school meals, local growing schemes, as ways in which their appreciation of food system complexities had been increased, and their access to affordable healthy food improved).

In particular, the links between the food system and climate change (both as cause and potential mitigator) should be made more apparent. At present, there seems to be no clear consumer understanding of these links, which is not surprising given that scientific research in this area is still in its infancy. At the moment, the broad ‘environmental credentials’ of foods are signalled mainly by higher prices; so for example, buying 'free range' locally produced meat may be a more expensive option for supermarket shoppers, although it can often be cheaper when bought direct from the producer. More thought should be given to the extent to which consumers are actually enabled to behave any differently in relation to the food system and food security. As we have noted earlier, respondents relate to the food system primarily as ‘shoppers’, so it’s unsurprising that they have limited ideas about what their responsibility for food security should - or could – be; they have no direct impact on food production or legislation, for instance. Further research could therefore explore what exactly consumers could do to improve individual and collective food security – beyond the strategies we have already identified, which are mainly in response to changing food prices. Research is needed to assess what appropriate consumer behaviour in relation to rising food prices, and as a response to climate change demands and the need to maintain a healthy diet, ought to encompass. In this study, respondents were puzzled by questions implying they could be expected to behave in ways other than those they were already adopting, in response to rising prices. Although there is no doubt that many were aware of some of the environmental and ethical issues surrounding food, our research suggests that many consumers do not know what to ‘do’ with that knowledge or how to procure food any differently. So for instance, even if they do have an interest in other ways of accessing food, such as home growing, this is not always a feasible option for a host of reasons: access to land, time, knowledge, confidence, initial outlay for tools, seeds, compost etc. When it comes to making choices at the supermarket, price is of course a key influence. Even if consumers wanted to contribute to food security by buying more ‘sustainable’ products, for example, they have to weigh this against the affordability of those products. Moreover, in the absence of clear signals about which foods are more ‘sustainable’ it is very difficult for consumers to make any judgement on that dimension.

Finally, many of those surveyed in this study said they found it difficult to find, or to afford, as much healthy food as they wanted to within reasonable, accessible distance, especially if they were on low incomes and found themselves forced to economise on food quality. Government departments should work closely with planning authorities and the retail sector to ensure wide availability and affordability of healthy food, and to establish appropriate systems to monitor such access.

Knowledge transfer

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) Page 14 of 15

To date, two papers have been given at academic conferences (following competitive abstract submission):

‘Thinking about “food security”: engaging with UK consumers’ (interim results), Dowler, Collier, Kneafsey, Lambert & Inman, presented at the 2nd International Conference Food, Society and Public Health, BSA/Food Study Group, July 5-6th 2010. To be published in special issue of Critical Public Health

‘Consumer perceptions of “food security”: perspectives from the UK’, Kneafsey, Lambie, Dowler, Collier & Inman, presented at the Royal Geographical Society/IBG Annual Conference, theme Food Security, Sept 1st -3rd 2010. To be submitted to a forthcoming special issue of the Journal of Rural Studies.

References to published material

9. This section should be used to record links (hypertext links where possible) or references to other published material generated by, or relating to this project.

References (in section below)

Braunsberger, K., Wybenga, H. and Gates, R., 2007. A comparison of reliability between telephone and web-based surveys, Journal of Business Research, 60, 758–764.

Dowler, E. and Davis, L (2009) Potential for changes in food supply systems to shape consumer demand in different locations and circumstances: a rapid review. Contribution to Defra Project FO0416.

H.M. Treasury (2010) Comprehensive Spending Review. http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/spend_index.htmIGD (2008) Adapting to change: shoppers and the credit crunch. Oct. (online summary and presentation to

Council of Food Policy Advisers, Jan 2008)IGD (2010), Shopper Trends 2010: IGD’s annual monitor of key trends affecting food and grocery shop-ping in the year ahead Watford: Institute of Grocery Distribution.Defra (2008). A framework for pro-environmental behaviours. Report January 2008.

http://www.defra.gov.uk/evidence/social/behaviour/documents/behaviours-jan08-report.pdf

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) Page 15 of 15

http://www.defra.gov.uk/evidence/social/behaviour/documents/behaviours-jan08-report.pdf

http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/spend_index.htm

Documents

General enquiries on this form should be made to:sciencesearch.defra.gov.uk/Document.aspx?Document=… · Web viewTelephone No.020 7238 1612E-mail:[email protected]