What Ohioans Think About Food, Agriculture, and Environmental Issues Presentation by Jeff S. Sharp and Mark Tucker Communications and Technology College of FAES Columbus and Wooster April 29, 2003

Contact Information  Jeff S. Sharp  311 Ag. Admin. Bldg.  2120 Fyffe Road  Columbus, OH   Phone:  Mark Tucker  203 Ag. Admin. Bldg.  2120 Fyffe Road  Columbus, OH   Phone:

Project Background  Funded by OSU Extension, OARDC and the College of FAES  Leadership from Rural Sociology Program, Department of Human and Community Resource Development

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  A stratified sample of 7,976 Ohioans was selected  Stratified by 5 extension districts and metro core county status  Dillman’s TDM utilized with 5 contacts  Response rate = 56.4% (4,014 respondents)

Sample vs. State Population (2000 Census)  Close match: gender, age (over 24), households w/ kids, employment status and household incomes  Limitations  sample had lower proportion of renters, lower # of year olds, and lower proportion of African Americans than expected compared to state population statistics

Outline of Presentation  Ohioans links to agriculture  Views of Agriculture & the Environment  Views of large scale livestock and poultry  Food topics (safety, local foods, organics, biotechnology)  Discussion

General Rural Related Findings

Parents ever owned or operated a farm

Grandparents ever owned or operated a farm

Number of farmers known

Farmers and the Environment

Q.Overall, farming positively contributes to the quality of life in Ohio Q.Overall, farming positively contributes to the quality of life in Ohio  1% Strongly Disagreed or Disagreed  7% Undecided  92% Agreed or Strongly Agreed

Q.Ohio’s economy will suffer if it continues to lose farmers  5% Strongly Disagreed or Disagreed  15% Undecided  80% Agreed or Strongly Agreed

Q. Ohio’s most productive farmland should be preserved for agriculture.  2% Strongly Disagreed or Disagreed  6% Undecided  92% Agreed or Strongly Agreed

Q. I trust Ohio farmers to protect the environment.  12% Strongly Disagreed or Disagreed  29% Undecided  59% Agreed or Strongly Agreed

Q. Ohio farmers are generally sensitive to the concerns of nonfarm neighbors.  11% Strongly Disagreed or Disagreed  45% Undecided  44% Agreed or Strongly Agreed

Q. Environmental protection laws regulating farming practices are too strict.  19% Strongly Disagreed or Disagreed  59% Undecided  22% Agreed or Strongly Agreed

Perceived Risks to Environmental Quality (1=none; 7=Serious) Reason (rank ordered) Mean 1. Disposal of waste in landfills Industrial activities Urban sprawl Res. chemical use on lawns Logging or mining Agricultural activities 3.4

Large-scale livestock and poultry

Familiarity with Issues  Respondents were asked: Are you familiar with the issues associated with large-scale poultry and livestock facilities?  33 percent of respondents indicated “yes”  67 percent indicated “no”

Familiarity by region of the state

Concern about livestock  Respondents were asked: How concerned are you about the development of large-scale poultry and livestock production facilities in Ohio?  21 percent very concerned  51 percent somewhat concerned  28 percent not at all concerned

Concern among those familiar with the issues  Concern was higher among those indicating they were familiar with the issues  34 percent very concerned  51 percent somewhat concerned  15 percent not at all concerned

Level of Concern by region (among those familiar with the issues)

Attitudes about livestock among those familiar w/ the issue

Q. Large-scale poultry and livestock production facilities in rural areas are a threat to rural quality of life.  22% Strongly Disagreed or Disagreed  19% Undecided  59% Agreed or Strongly Agreed

Q. There needs to be increased regulation of livestock production in Ohio to protect the environment.  17% Strongly Disagreed or Disagreed  26% Undecided  57% Agreed or Strongly Agreed

Q. Large-scale poultry and livestock facilities pose a serious threat to water and stream quality in Ohio  11% Strongly Disagreed or Disagreed  18% Undecided  71% Agreed or Strongly Agreed

Q. Large-scale livestock facilities positively contribute to the economy of Ohio.  13% Strongly Disagreed or Disagreed  27% Undecided  60% Agreed or Strongly Agreed

Q. Animal agriculture raises serious ethical questions about the treatment of animals  37% Strongly Disagreed or Disagreed  29% Undecided  34% Agreed or Strongly Agreed

Ohioans and Food

Q. Food is not as safe as it was 10 years ago.  35% Disagreed or Strongly Disagreed  26% Undecided  39% Agreed or Strongly Agreed

Perceived risks to food safety (scaling 1=no risk; 7=serious risk) Reason (rank ordered) Mean 1. Pesticide residues in food Contamination of drinking water Growth hormones in meat or milk Bacterial contamination Bio-terrorist attacks on food supply Mad Cow disease Genetically modified foods 4.6

Q. Organic foods are safer than conventionally produced foods?  22% Disagreed or Strongly Disagreed  41% Undecided  37% Agreed or Strongly Agreed

Q. Biotechnology is having a negative impact on the safety of our food supply  20% Disagreed or Strongly Disagreed  59% Undecided  21% Agreed or Strongly Agreed

Q. When given a choice, prefer to buy foods produced locally.  7% Disagreed or Strongly Disagreed  13% Undecided  80% Agreed or Strongly Agreed

Considerations in communication research  “Media use” is not measured in a consistent manner – difficult to define and operationalize  Communication sources and channels often measured haphazardly  We need your input!

Trust in Sources of Environmental and Food Safety Information (Scaling: 1 = no trust; 5 = High trust) Reason (rank ordered) State (ranking) 1. Physician or other health professionals University Scientist Farmer or Grower U.S. Dept. of Ag Extension educator/agent U.S. FDA Friends of Family U.S. EPA Consumer advocacy group 3.3

Perceived helpfulness of media Not Level of helpfulness Very (1 = not helpful; 5 = very helpful) (1 = not helpful; 5 = very helpful) Newspapers (3.3) Television news (3.2) Magazines (2.8) Radio (2.8) World wide web (2.6) Television talk shows (2.3)

Wrap-up

Future plans  Additional analysis and associated Extension and research manuscripts to be generated through mid-2003  Willingness to do customized analysis for interested parties  Explore possibility of repeating study in 2004 examining these and other emerging FAE issues