OCR Text |
Show ' June, 1973 Utah Farm Bureau News Page 6 The American Farm Bureau sponsored a nationwide, independent survey of consumer attitudes toward Carmen and food prices. Results of the survey were released on May 10 at a press conference in Chicago. The survey was conducted by Leo J. Shapiro & Associates of Chicago through 1,123 personal interviews between March 21 and April 10. The interviews were conducted among residents in 200 sampling spots located within 24 metropolitan areas areas. and 11 The following are the survey firms comments on the survey results: tan Food price concern Concern about food prices is the norm among die adult United States population. Seventy percent spontaneously mention inflation and the high cost of living as a problem facing the country. Ninety-fou- r percent spontaneously mention food as an item in their budget where they can reaHy see evidence of an increase in cost over the past few months. This concern about food prices has reached an say they intensity where a large majority are doing something about controlling the amount they spend on food for their household, and nearly everyone is open to and favors one or more suggestions about what should be done nationally to stop prices from taring. Blame government The government is blamed spontaneously as the major cause of high food prices (Table 1). Groups directly involved in food production and supply, on the other hand, are blamed far less frequently than the government. Government action is seen most often as the cure for high food prices. When people are asked what should be done to stop die rise in food- - prices, more call for solutions that than two out of five of use the government power such as freezrequire food prices (Table 2). back or rolling ing concerned for die public, but as seen are Fanners to stop high food prices. Labor relatively powerless (73) (43) er, the fanner is seen as die least powerful of the groups, but is rated highest in terms of their concern for the public. Forty-eigpercent rate the farmers as concerned with the public interest, but only 26 feel that Carmen have the power to do something that could hurt or help the public. rate labor unions as powerful, By contrast 83 but only 29 rate labor unions as concerned about the public interest Similarly, each of the other groups the respondents were asked about, L e., food store chains, distributors and wholesalers, and large corporations producing food, were rated high er in terms of the power they have to help or hurt the consumer than in terms of their concern for the public. Like farmers Farmers are generally liked as a group. Over three-fourt(78) say they fed good when they think about farmers (Table 3). When asked why they fed good about farmers, respondents mod frequently say that fanners work hard and long hours to earn a living, and that they are essential to die nation because they produce food (Table 4). When presented with a list of actions other than freezing prices that have been proposed to deal with rising food prices, there is widespread accepof the notion that government should tance cut Us spending (Table 3). This solution was. favored by a higher percentage of people than any other solution presented to respondents. Of the 12 proposals to deal with high prices, penalizing farmers ranked next to last, with about one in four (27) saying they favored limiting farm profits. By contrast, a substantial majority of respondents favor limiting profits of specific food industry groups, i. e., companies producing and packing food food store chains (78), favored (80), middlemen 1 said limiting only Only they (74). the profits of farmers without also limiting the profife of food manufacturers, middlemen or food store chains. ht hs (86) blame and, therefore, should take action to stop the rise in food prices, is the government. After foe government, foe middleman and high wages are aeea as the culprits responsible for food price increases. People as a whole have a benign attitude toward farmers. They really like facmere and appreciate them for the hard work they put forth in older to supply the consumer with food. People want nearly everyone penalized before foe fanner is penalized. While die consumer is more protective of farmers than bf other groups, the consumer is likely to be most protective of himself. At this point, 27 of consumers say limit the farmers profit ar wdl as other food industry groups. Looking ahead, foe issue is not only how warmly consumers feel about the farmer, but how dose foe consumer is pushed to choose between the farmer and his own welfare. Kuhfura comments William J. Kuhfuss American Farm Bureau president, made these observations about the survey results: This expression of a desire on the part of most citizens to cut government spending, as reflected in foe survey, is in line with Farm Bureaus nationwide campaign to control inflation and to avoid the necessity for a federal tax increase by generating public support for reductions in federal spending necessary to balance the federal budget, Kuhfura said. We have recommended specific proposals to reduce the federal budget for fiscal 1974 which would achieve a savings of nearly $13,400,000,000 in new spending authority and bring about a balanced budget We believe food prices and other items in foe cost of living index have risen because of increases in the money supply caused by our governments irresponsible spending policies. Deficit spending by the federal government and programs and policies which increase foe supply of money and credit faster than production of foods and services are bask causes of inflation, inflation has raised fanners production oosts to foe lugheet level in history.' Supports most cuts Kuhfura said font Farm Bureau supports moat of foe cuts the administration has recommended in foe U. S. Department of Agricultures budget for fisert 1974. The largest reduction in USDA spending recommended by both the adminUfratfon and Farm Bureau is for spending on government commodity programs including farm price' supports and direct payments. Under the recommended cuts - spending by foe Commodity Credit Corporation, the government would be reduced by agency handling payments million. This reflects, Kuhfuss nearly $600 only part of the $1 billion cut in direct payments to farmers participating in commodity programs for 1973 crops. It is interesting to note," Kuhfuss that national sentiment favors reduction in government farm subtidies. That is in line with Farm Bureaus recommendation to Congress which calls for a phase out of income support payments and retention of the concept to help framers make needed adjustments." A disastrous effect The national sentiment, as reflected in the survey, for cutting demand by prohibiting food sales to foreign countries, would have a disastrous effect on the farm economy, as wdl as the general economy, Kuhfuss said. Hie production from 1 out of every 4 acres in U. S. agricultural production is exported, and such exports make a substantial contribution to the countrys balance of trade. The U. S. unfavorable balance of trade would have been much worse' in yean if it had not been for foe tremendous surge in farm exports that have reached an figure of more than $10 billion. We believe that the market system is the best means of assuring consumers an adequate supply of food at competitive prioes. For this reason, we do not favor government regulation of profits, prices or wages in any segment of the food industry," Kuhset-asi- de Reporting the results of a nationwide consumer survey on attitudes toward food prices and farmers is William J. Kuhfuss, president of the American Farm Bureau Federation. Seated by him at the Chicago news conference is Creston Foster of AFBF. unions, by contrast, are seen as powerful but not concerned. Concern for the public When people rate groups involved in food production, handling and supply on the basis of die concern they have for the public and on the basis of the power they have to help or hurt the constra in summary The pattern of consumer response suggests that people are concerned intensely with food prices, but that of all groups involved in food production and supply, the consumer is most protective of the farmer. On the other hand, the group they feel is most to Except for the substitution of statistics for the West, this article appears just as it was published recently in the Iowa Farm Bureau Spokesman. That source is gratefully acknowledged. re-ce- nt fuss said. Table 3 When or yom Table 5 think aboot farmer, do yoa feel good Percent Here ore tome mMiom flat have beeo proposed to deal with rising prices. Specifically, do yoe favor or oppose I ... Percent West All Table Table 2 1 Overall, whe do yom M is most to blame for Give me mi example of what yom led ought to be done to stop food price from rising?" Reducing government spending gi Limiting profits of companies producSO ing and packing food Limiting this profits of the middleman 78 Limiting the profits of food store chains 74 Consumers cutting food expenditures 72 Consumers boycotting food stores 62 Large companies resisting union demands for higher wages 61 Cutting demand by prohibiting food talcs to foreign countries 59 Cutting government agriculture subsidies 59 34 Prohibiting the advertising of meat 27 Limiting the profits of farmers Freezing wages of supermarket em22 ployees 89 13 76 77 64 67 51 - 58 59 32 21 23 Utahn Speaks On Predators Utah sheepmen are losing well over a million dollars a year to predators, a Utah Farm Bureau spokesman said in a federal hearing Monday, June 4. Lamb losses are almost double what they were before chemical toxicants were banned, Ray Theurer of Cache county declared. As chairman of the Utah Farm Bureau natural resources committee, he appeared before federal representatives at Casper, Wyoming. The session there is one of a series to help decide on revised predator control legislation. Lamb losses have built up from 6 percent in 1967 to 10 percent in 1972, USDA research shows. Continued bans on toxicants and steel traps will result in sharp rises in consumer costs for wool and lamb, Theurer warned. Direct financial loss to our sheepmen totaled over a million dollars a year in 1967, he testified. Add control costs and the lack of that money circulation in the Utah economy, and the loss reaches more than $5 million. In place of the complete ban on chemical toxicants which went into effect January 1, 1972, Farm Bureau policy calls for carefully controlled use in areas where they are the wisest control method. - Bill Threatens Farmers With Higher Rail Costs Recent passage of a bill by Congress will lower on the shoulders of farmers and other shippers $600 million a year of retirement payments now contributed by railroad workers. Since farm products account for about 25 percent of all rail shipments, and equipment and supplies coming onto farms another 15 percent, the nations farmers will be hard hit. Hie bill will authorize switching the retirement payments to shippers in two steps: (1) transferring the payments to the railroads, and (2) authorizing the railroads to increase freight rates by that amount. In a recent letter to the congressional committee which reported the bill to the floor of the House of Representatives, the American Farm Bureau pointed out the serious results possible. Harley O. Staggers, D., West Virginia, is chairman of the House Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee and author of H. R. 7200. In its letter to him, the AFBF stated: We recognize that railroad employees make larger payments to the retirement fund than are made for Social Security programs. But they are also entitled to receive larger benefits. Railroad unions have advocated these benefits in the past, AFBF spokesman Clifford Mclntire asserted, with full recognition of the costs in contributions to the retirement fund. He predicted a further drop in the percentage of freight handled by railroads. Found: DES Replacement? Ranchers have sought another growth stimulant for livestock ever since the federal ban on the use of DES (stilbestrol). Arizona scientists may have the answer. They say that estradiol, a natural hormone which animals produce, has reduced cost of gain by 15 percent while boosting gains by 22 percent. Proven equal to DES in feedlot tests, estradiol could by fed for three cents a day per animal. |