Terms such as ‘resilient’ and ‘regenerative’ agriculture are unlikely to influence food choices unless they are translated into clear, personal benefits, new consumer research has found.
A new report entitled Making Agriculture Matter from EIT Food Consumer Observatory – Europe’s central hub for consumer insights and trends in the agrifood sector – explores how food produced through resilient and regenerative farming practices can be better communicated to consumers.
It features analysis of data collected from around 300 members of the Consumer Observatory’s online community hailing from 17 different European countries including the UK. These span a balanced spread of gender, age (18- to 75-year-olds), location (urban/rural), and education level, with participants interested in talking about food news.
Among the key findings was that consumers feel farming has become too industrialised and profit driven, although they accept that traditional methods are not enough and understand the importance of scale by integrating modern technology. Moreover, regenerative agriculture is seen as more pragmatic and scalable than organic agriculture, with the approach carrying a “strong aura of naturalness” which is readily connected to healthier food.
Consumers are concerned about the presence of chemicals in food but hesitate to trust and pay a premium for organic products. The ‘regenerative’ label does not in itself connect with consumers, noted the report, adding that the concept requires translation into tangible personal benefits like taste and health before it can drive purchase preference.
Similarly, ‘resilient agriculture’ evokes thoughts of emergency preparedness and food security but does not necessarily make products more desirable or worth paying more for. The term is most associated with whole, plant-based, easily stored foods rather than processed foods, animal products, or anything that could be positioned as premium or indulgent, states the report.
Recommendations for food manufacturers, retailers, and farmers are also provided in the report.
Food manufacturers are encouraged to present a substantiated health claim as a meaningful point of difference, such as specific nutritional benefits compared to other products. Processed items including bakery should have health claims grounded in ingredients, whilst farming origin can also support the context – soil health does not transfer effectively to manufactured food format.
Retailers are recommended to centre their communication on personal benefits rather than agricultural methods. Narratives and information about the farmer and their values are an effective way to build trust and differentiate, wrote the report, with storytelling about ingredients origin signalling a higher price. Investing in independent certification covering nutrient density or farming standards gives resilient agriculture products the trust to support purchase decisions.
Lastly, farmers should translate their practices into consumer-relevant outcomes, namely richer flavour, fewer chemical inputs, and traceable provenance.
No comments yet