Purdue University also found consumers slightly familiar with tariffs
It's hardly surprising that lower-income households would be feeling stress over the price of groceries but a reportfrom Purdue University confirms that it's indeed the case.
The average grocery price stress level rating came in at 5.1 on a scale ranging from no stress at all (0) to extreme stress (10).
Low- and middle-income households are more likely to report higher stress levels on this scale, with those earning less than $75,000 annually reporting an average rating of close to 6, whereas high-income earners reported an average rating around 4, said the reports lead author,Joseph Balagtas, professor ofagricultural economicsat Purdue. and director of CFDAS.
New questions in the latest Purdue survey included a section that gauged consumer understanding of tariffs, like those President Trump is implementing.This included what they see as the costs and benefits of such policy and how they think tariffs affect food prices.
Most consumers 80% are at least somewhat familiar with the tariffs concept.
The survey presented consumers with an open response format rather than a list of potential benefits and costs of tariffs. Around one-third of respondents say there are no benefits to tariffs while 20% are unsure, Balagtas said. Helping or protecting domestic industries was the most commonly cited benefit, followed by government revenue and trade fairness, leverage and regulation.
A greater share of self-identified Democrats say there is no benefit to tariffs (42%) relative to independent (31%) and Republican consumers (21%).
Many of the open responses mentioned cost of living and price increases. This was by far the most common theme, particularly in responses from Democratic consumers (63%). Fewer consumers believe there are no costs to tariffs (14%) and around 21% are unsure.
Most consumers (72%) think that tariffs raise prices to some degree. How severe the increase also varies by political affiliation, Balagtas said. More than half of Democrats say they increase prices a lot relative to 35% of independents and 22% of Republicans.
Diet quality
The researchers also put aside economics for a moment and took a look at what consumers are actually eating. They set up anine-question diet assessment known as theMini-EAT Tool.
The questions asked consumers to report on how often they are a variety of food groups such as fruits, vegetables, whole grains and sweets. Using these responses, CDFAS economists estimated diet quality.
We estimate an average Mini-EAT score of 61.9 in January, said Elijah Bryant, a survey research analyst at CFDAS and a co-author of the report. This has remained relatively stable over time and translates to a diet quality classification of intermediate. The threshold for an unhealthy diet is scores less than 61, showing theres plenty of room for improvement in terms of what we eat.
Overall diet well-being remains stable, with two-thirds of American adults rating their diet as 7-10 (thriving) when asked where their diet fits on a scale from 0 (worst possible diet) to 10 (best possible diet).
Consumers in households on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) rate their diet well-being comparably to those in non-SNAP households, Bryant said. However, a larger share of SNAP consumers put themselves in the suffering category (0-4 out of 10) on the diet well-being index.
Food insecurity is higher among SNAP households compared to non-SNAP households. The gap is striking since SNAP benefits help alleviate food insecurity for low-income households, Bryant said.
Eating right isn't a snap
On a scale from never (1) to always (5), consumers in SNAP households choose generic over name-brand food items more often (3.6) than non-SNAP consumers (3.2) when shopping for food. They also report checking labels more often.
Since most of those receiving SNAP benefits are in low-income households, finding affordable food options such as generic and store brands can be crucial in ensuring that they get the proper amount of foods they need, Bryant said.
Posted: 2025-02-12 19:39:35
