Inside D.C.

For consumers, it’s often not what’s said that matters, but what’s done

There’s always been healthy debate over the relevance of polling when it comes to testing the political winds on any issue.  The incessantly asked question is as follows:  Does a citizen’s answer to a pollster translate directly to citizen behavior? The answer:  Sometimes, yes, a lot of the time, no.

Survey and poll results are the product of how a question is asked.  A departed albeit noble opponent in the animal rights wars conducted an annual “survey” on public attitudes toward regulating animal welfare on farms and ranches.  Industry polling showed consumers loved and trusted farmers.  To neutralize industry surveys, his was a single question poll reading something like: “If you knew that farm animals were routinely tortured and abused on American farms, would you support regulating farms and ranches?”  You can see the press release headline, can’t you?

Another great example is the public’s attitude toward usingf live animal models in medical research.  Even among those in the general population who oppose using animals in research, if the question is predicated upon that animal research finding a cure for AIDS, Alzheimer’s or cancer, the attitude shift is monumental.

The most recent example of this citizen schizophrenia was trotted out during this week’s floor battle over the Safe & Accurate Food Labeling Act, a bill authored by Reps. Mike Pompeo (R, KS) and G.K. Butterfield (D, NC) – supported by over 100 bipartisan cosponsors – to give the federal government authority to preempt the states when it comes to whether foods and feeds containing genetically modified (GM) ingredients need to be labeled.

Throughout the debate, opponent after opponent rose to accuse supporters of ignoring the wishes of “90% of the American public” by acting to block a patchwork of state and local laws and regulations on food labeling.  These proponents of GM labeling referred to a series of polls – many by reputable polling companies – which, indeed, show 90% or more of the public believe GM foods should be labeled.

Pompeo wouldn’t have it.  He very calmly asked his colleagues why, if 90% of Americans want labeling, have the voters over the last two election cycles in arguably liberal states – California, Colorado, Washington and Oregon – overwhelmingly defeated state ballot questions seeking to impose GM labeling on vittles sold for man or animal in those states?  Ultimately the Pompeo-Butterfield bill was approved 275-150, with amendments designed to undermine its effectiveness losing by equally lopsided margins.

Another example is the contradiction of words and action when it comes to citizen food purchasing generally.   This example also gives proof to the reality you do not have to spend thousands of dollars on consumer “attitude” research if you ask the correct question.  It’s also simplicity personified.

Meat processors hired graduate students to haunt the nation’s supermarket parking lots.  Potential buyers entering the market were asked if they intended to buy meat, and if they answered in the affirmative, they were asked what factors or issues affected those meat purchases.  Inevitably a list of issues du jour would be given, e.g., food safety, antibiotics, imports, organic, local, animal welfare, biotech, and on and on.

A separate team would chase consumers loading groceries into their cars.  The citizens were approached and asked if meat had been purchased that day.  If they answered in the affirmative, the same follow-up question was asked about factors affecting their purchases.  In the vast majority of cases, the answer was the same:  Price and convenience guided those purchases.

I’d wager a month’s salary similar disconnects between attitude and action exist on a host of issues affecting the food industry.  The disconnect between answer and action isn’t difficult to explain, nor is the behavior in the examples I’ve given you.  It comes down to enlightened self-interest.