Voters Support Progressive Food Procurement Policies
By Morgan Sperry, Analyst at Data for Progress, and Danielle Deiseroth, Senior Climate Data Analyst at Data for Progress
Each year, the United States government spends hundreds of billions of dollars on goods ranging from vehicles to fruits and vegetables as part of the federal purchasing process, called “procurement”. Given the government’s immense purchasing power, the federal procurement process can be an incredibly effective policy lever to accelerate changes in downstream supply chains. Recognizing this invaluable tool that the government has at its disposal, President Biden proposed several measures in the American Jobs Plan to use the federal procurement process for increasing the production of electric vehicles, sustainable building materials, and clean energy infrastructure.
While the American Jobs Plan includes these critical steps to accelerate America’s transition to clean energy, the federal procurement measures in the infrastructure bill that will eventually pass through Congress can be even more ambitious. In their new report Food Procurement and Infrastructure, researchers Chloe Waterman, Mackenzie Feldman, and Julian Kraus-Polk propose ways for the federal procurement process to propagate downstream supply chain changes in one of the most oft-overlooked sectors for decarbonization: agriculture. The proposals in this report outline how changes to federal food procurement — which amounts to tens of billions of dollars of federal spending annually — can jumpstart much-needed changes to our food systems and agricultural supply chains.
In a June 2021 national survey, Data for Progress assessed the attitudes of likely voters towards a series of federal food procurement guidelines proposed in Food Procurement and Infrastructure. We find that voters across party lines overwhelmingly back measures to make the federal food procurement process more sustainable and equitable.
A Majority of Voters Support Measures to Make Federal Food Procurement More Sustainable and Equitable
We find that by a 72-percentage-point margin, likely voters support establishing a goal that federal government-supported programs and institutions spend at least a quarter of their ingredients budget on food produced by local farms. This includes a majority of self-identified Democrats, Independents, and Republicans, who support this initiative by margins of 80-points, 77-points, and 60-points, respectively.
Next, we asked likely voters if they would support mandating suppliers who provide food to federal government-supported programs and institutions to disclose their supply chain data. We find that by a 54-point margin, likely voters back this proposal. This once again includes a majority of Democrats, Independents, and Republicans, who support requiring federal food suppliers to disclose their supply chain data by margins of 69-points, 57-points, and 36-points, respectively.
We then asked likely voters if they would support or oppose phasing in a requirement that all federal food suppliers disclose their greenhouse gas emissions. By a 29-point margin, a majority of likely voters nationally support this proposal. This includes more than three-quarters of Democrats (76 percent support), more than half of Independents (56 percent support), and forty percent of Republicans. While a slight plurality of Republicans oppose this proposal (49 percent), it is notable that a strong majority of Republicans do back other requirements to increase the transparency of federal food providers’ supply chains.
We also asked likely voters if they would support or oppose federal food service programs phasing out purchasing food from Confined Animal Feeding Operations (“CAFOs”), a.k.a. factory farms. We find that by a 37-point margin, likely voters support such a phase-out. This includes a majority of Democrats, Independents, and Republicans, who support a transition away from CAFOs by margins of 57-points, 32-points, and 17-points, respectively.
Finally, we asked likely voters if they would support or oppose establishing a goal that federal government-supported programs and institutions buy a portion of their ingredients from historically disadvantaged farmers. We find that by a 51-point margin, a majority of likely voters support these guidelines. Majorities of Democrats, Independents, and Republicans all back this proposal, by margins of 75-points, 47-points, and 28-points, respectively.
It is clear that likely voters — including majorities of Democrats, Independents, and Republicans — support initiatives to reimagine federal food procurement programs to both reduce emissions and empower farmers. More than eight-in-ten likely voters nationally support adopting guidelines to increase the procurement of locally sourced ingredients, while more than seven-in-ten voters want government food suppliers to increase the transparency of their production details and supply chains.
Additionally, majorities of likely voters support mandating federal food suppliers to disclose their greenhouse gas emissions and phasing out federal procurement of foods produced by factory farms. Finally, more than seven-in-ten voters support food procurement guidelines that prioritize buying from historically disadvantaged farmers. Given the overwhelming popularity of these federal food procurement policies, lawmakers should strive to include them in an infrastructure and jobs bill.
Morgan Sperry (@MorganRSperry) is an analyst at Data for Progress.
Danielle Deiseroth (@danielledeis) is the Senior Climate Data Analyst at Data for Progress.
Methodology
From June 11 to 14, 2021, Data for Progress conducted a survey of 1,175 likely voters nationally using web panel respondents. The sample was weighted to be representative of likely voters by age, gender, education, race, and voting history. The survey was conducted in English. The margin of error is ±3 percentage points.