What Ohioans Think About Food, Agriculture, and Environmental Issues South Extension District Jackson, OH February 21, 2003

Project Background  Funded by OSU Extension, OARDC and the College of FAES  Focus on social issues in agriculture as they relate to the ecological paradigm  Assistance from Dept. of Human and Community Resource Development & Rural Sociology Program  Support of OSU Public Issues Education Team

Project Team  Department of HCRD/Rural Sociology Program  Jeff Sharp, Molly Bean Smith, Bill Flinn, Mark Tucker, Sherrie Whaley  OSU Extension  Greg Davis, Jerry Thomas, Denny Hall

Methodology  Sample of 7,976 Ohioans selected and stratified by 5 extension districts and metro core county status  Dillman’s TDM utilized with 5 contacts  Response rate = 55.7%  In this presentation: analysis reported for the state of Ohio (weighted) and for the South District (n=484)

Summary of the Sample  Comparison of sample to State and South District populations (2000 Census)  Close match: gender, age (over 24), households w/ kids, household incomes  Limitations: Renters, Respondents in homes valued at less than $100,000, year olds

Outline of Presentation  Rural and Agricultural Connections  Rural Consumptive Behaviors  Farmland Preservation and Land-Use  Agriculture and the Environment  Food Topics

Rural and Agricultural Connections

Current and Preferred Place of Residence: South District

Current and Preferred Place of Residence: Ohio

Parents ever owned or operated a farm?

Grandparents ever owned or operated a farm?

Approximate number of farmers known.

Rural Consumptive Behaviors

Respondents asked about rural/ag consumptive behaviors  Data for South District only  Contrasts reported where bivariate differences were identified  Place of residence  Age (40 or less; 40-60; over 60)  Education (High school, some college, B.A., B.A.+)  Married/living together versus single  Households w/ kids less than 18

Q.Visit a small town for recreational shopping or sightseeing  6% Never  21% Seldom  42% Occasionally  31% Frequently  City or Suburban resident less likely to visit small town

Q. Take a recreational drive through the countryside  5% Never  20% Seldom  50% Occasionally  25% Frequently

Q. Hunt or Fish?  5% Never  23% Seldom  47% Occasionally  25% Frequently  More likely among: Country and Farm; LT 40 and year olds; Singles; Households w/ kids  Double barreled question creates some interpretation issues

Q. Travel to a rural area to experience or view the natural environment?  11% Never  21% Seldom  23% Occasionally  17% Frequently

Q. Hike, canoe, bicycle, or engage in a similar type of outdoor recreation in a rural area?  31% Never  30% Seldom  25% Occasionally  14% Frequently  More common among: LT 40 and year olds; those with some college or more; those married or living together; and households w/ kids

Q. Visit a farm for social or recreational reasons  33% Never  36% Seldom  23% Occasionally  8% Frequently  More likely among: 40 years and younger; households w/ kids

Q. Purchase farm produce or other food items at a farmer’s market or roadside stand?  6% Never  20% Seldom  49% Occasionally  25% Frequently  Less common among those less than 40.

Farmland Preservation and Land Use

Q.Overall, farming positively contributes to the quality of life in Ohio Q.Overall, farming positively contributes to the quality of life in Ohio  95 % agreed or strongly agreed  4% undecided  1% disagreed or strongly disagreed

Q. Ohio’s most productive farmland should be preserved for agriculture.  95% agreed or strongly agreed  4% undecided  1% disagreed or strongly disagreed

Q. The loss of farmland is acceptable if it creates economic growth and new jobs in the state.  22% agreed or strongly agreed  25% undecided  52% disagreed or strongly disagreed

Reasons for preserving farmland (rated on scale of 1 to 7) Reason (rank ordered) South State (ranking) 1. Protect water quality (1) 2. Preserve for food production (2) 3. Preserve farming way of life (5) 4. Preserve natural places (3) 5. Protect wildlife habitat (4) 6. Preserve scenic quality (6) 7. Preserve rural character (7) 8. Slow development (8) 9. Preserve for public use (9)

Land-use compatibility

Q. Ohio farmers are generally sensitive to the concerns of nonfarm neighbors.  55% agreed or strongly agreed  31% undecided  14% disagreed or strongly disagreed

Q. Farming activities that are offensive to nonfarm neighbors should be restricted.  30% agreed or strongly agreed  33% undecided  37% disagreed or strongly disagreed  Stronger agreement among city residents; those over 60 years

Agriculture and the Environment

Perceived Risks to Environmental Quality (Scaling: 1 = no risk; 7 = serious risk) Reason (rank ordered) South State (ranking) 1. Disposal of waste in landfills (1) 2. Industrial activities (2) 3. Urban sprawl (3) 4. Logging or Mining (5) 5. Res. use of chemicals on lawns (4) 6. Agricultural activities (6)

Q. I trust Ohio farmers to protect the environment.  64% agreed or strongly agreed  27% undecided  9% disagreed or strongly disagreed  Stronger agreement among city residents, those over 60 years; LT high school diploma

Q. Environmental protection laws regulating farming practices are too strict  32% agreed or strongly agreed  49% undecided  18% disagreed or strongly disagreed  Stronger agreement among city residents; those over 60 years; LT high school diploma

Do you know of any large-scale poultry or livestock production facilities near where you live?

How concerned are you about the development of large-scale poultry and livestock production facilities?

Are you familiar with some of the issues related to large-scale poultry and livestock production facilities?

Select attitudes about livestock  Following items from a series of eight questions related to large scale livestock and poultry facilities & two questions related to livestock and animal welfare

Q. Large-scale poultry and livestock production facilities in rural areas are a threat to rural quality of life  59% agreed or strongly agree  19% undecided  22% disagreed or strongly disagreed

Q. The environmental impact of large-scale livestock operations have been greatly exaggerated.  29% agreed or strongly agreed  26% undecided  45% disagreed or strongly disagreed  Stronger agreement among those w/ LT high school diploma

Q. Large-scale facilities pose a serious threat to water and stream quality  70% agreed or strongly agree  15% undecided  15% disagreed or strongly disagreed  Stronger agreement among those over 60 years

Food Topics (Safety, Local Foods, Organics, Biotech)

Q. Food is not as safe as it was 10 years ago.  48% agreed or strongly agreed  20% undecided  32% disagreed or strongly disagreed  Stronger agreement among city residents; under 40 yrs; LT high school diploma

Perceived Risks to Food Safety (Scaling: 1 = no risk; 7 = serious risk) Reason (rank ordered) South State (ranking) 1. Contamination of drinking water (2) 2. Pesticide residues in food (1) 3. Terrorist attacks on food supply (5) 4. Growth hormones in meat or milk (3) 5. Bacterial contamination (4) 6. Mad cow disease (6) 7. Genetically modified foods (7)

Trust in Sources of Environmental and Food Safety Information (Scaling: 1 = no trust; 5 = High trust) Reason (rank ordered) South State (ranking) 1. Farmer or Grower (3) 2. Physician or other health professionals (1) 3. Friends of Family (7) 4. U.S. Dept. of Ag (4) 5. Extension educator/agent (5) 6. U.S. FDA (6) 7. University Scientist (2) 8. U.S. EPA (8) 9. Consumer advocacy group (9)

Q. I consider imported foods as safe as those produced in the U.S.  12% agreed or strongly agreed  20% undecided  69% disagreed or strongly disagreed  Stronger agreement among city residents

Q. When given a choice, I prefer to buy foods produced locally.  84% agreed or strongly agreed  10% undecided  5% disagreed or strongly disagreed  Stronger agreement among those over 60 years

Q. Organic foods are safer than conventionally produced foods.  38% agreed or strongly agreed  35% undecided  27% disagreed or strongly disagreed

Q. Biotechnology is having a negative impact on food safety.  25% agreed or strongly agreed  57% undecided  18% disagreed or strongly disagreed  Stronger agreement among those w/LT high school diploma; singles

Q. The use of biotechnology in agriculture is having a positive impact on the environment.  10% agreed or strongly agreed  59% undecided  31% disagreed or strongly disagreed  Stronger agreement among those over 60 years

Goals for Future Food, Ag., Env. Research