Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Public concern about climate change impacts on food choices: The interplay of knowledge and politics

  • Published:
Agriculture and Human Values Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

As scientists warn that climate change threatens to disrupt global agricultural systems, there is a need to better understand how the public thinks about the impacts of climate change on food. Building on prior research demonstrating interactive effects of knowledge (e.g., issue understanding and educational attainment) and political party identification in public concern about climate change, we analyze data from 816 respondents drawn from a national probability survey of U.S. adults (fielded September 4–December 10, 2018) to examine whether these factors would similarly predict concern about climate change impacts on food choice, specifically. Indeed, we find that knowledge variables more strongly predict concern among Democrats than Republicans. These general patterns persist in models featuring political ideology (liberalism-conservatism) instead of party identification, and when we control for belief in climate change and other demographic variables (age, gender). Results shed light on the dynamics underlying public concern about projected consequences of anthropogenic climate change that carry widespread implications for food security, public health, and nutrition around the globe.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The key outcome variable in these surveys read, “Do you think that global warming will pose a serious threat to you or your way of life in your lifetime, or not?” and the subjective knowledge item read, “Next, thinking about the issue of global warming, sometimes called the ‘greenhouse effect,’ how well do you feel you understand this issue—would you say very well, fairly well, not very well, or not at all?”.

References

  • American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR). 2019. Margin of sampling error/credibility interval. https://www.aapor.org/AAPOR_Main/media/MainSiteFiles/Margin-of-Sampling-Error_1.pdf. Accessed 1 Oct 2019.

  • Bail, C.A., L.P. Argyle, T.W. Brown, J.P. Bumpus, H. Chen, M.B.F. Hunzaker, J. Lee, M. Mann, F. Merhout, and A. Volfovsky. 2018. Exposure to opposing views on social media can increase political polarization. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115 (37): 9216–9221.

    Google Scholar 

  • Block, L.G., S.A. Grier, T.L. Childers, B. Davis, J.E.J. Ebert, S. Kumanyika, R.N. Laczniak, J.E. Machin, C.M. Motley, L. Peracchio, S. Pettigrew, M. Scott, and M.N.G.G. Bieshaar. 2011. From nutrients to nurturance: A conceptual introduction to food well-being. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing 30 (1): 5–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bolin, J., and L. Hamilton. 2018. The news you choose: News media preferences amplify views on climate change. Environmental Politics 27 (3): 455–476.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brügger, A., S. Dessai, P. Devine-Wright, T.A. Morton, and N.F. Pidgeon. 2015. Psychological responses to the proximity of climate change. Nature Climate Change 5 (12): 1031–1037.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cairns, K., and J. Johnston. 2018. On (not) knowing where your food comes from: Meat, mothering and ethical eating. Agriculture and Human Values 35 (3): 569–580.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chong, D., and J.N. Druckman. 2007. Framing theory. Annual Review of Political Science 10: 103–126.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidson, A.R., and J.J. Jaccard. 1979. Variables that moderate the attitude–behavior relation: Results of a longitudinal survey. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 37 (8): 1364–1376.

    Google Scholar 

  • Douglas, M. 2014. Food in the social order. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Druckman, J.N., and M.C. McGrath. 2019. The evidence for motivated reasoning in climate change preference formation. Nature Climate Change 9 (2): 111–119.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunlap, R.E., A.M. Mccright, and J.H. Yarosh. 2016. The political divide on climate change: Partisan polarization widens in the US. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development 58 (5): 4–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feldman, L. 2016. Effects of TV and cable news viewing on climate change opinion, knowledge, and behavior. In Oxford encyclopedia of climate change communication, ed. M. Nisbet. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frohlich, X. 2017. The informational turn in food politics: The US FDA’s nutrition label as information infrastructure. Social Studies of Science 47 (2): 145–171.

    Google Scholar 

  • Funk, C., and B. Kennedy. 2016. The politics of climate. Pew Research Center. https://climateaccess.org/sites/default/files/Pew_Politics%20of%20Climate.pdf. Accessed 22 April 2019.

  • Gay, C., F. Estrada, C. Conde, H. Eakin, and L. Villers. 2006. Potential impacts of climate change on agriculture: A case of study of coffee production in Veracruz Mexico. Climatic Change 79 (3–4): 259–288.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gifford, R., and R. Sussman. 2012. Environmental attitudes. In Oxford handbook of environmental and conservation psychology, ed. S.D. Clayton, 65–80. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gross, M. 2014. Coffee and chocolate in danger. Current Biology 24 (11): R503–506.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haaland, R. 2007. Porridge and pot, bread and oven: Food ways and symbolism in Africa and the Near East from the Neolithic to the present. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 17 (2): 165–182.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, L. 2011. Education, politics and opinions about climate change: Evidence for interaction effects. Climatic Change 104 (2): 231–242.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, L. 2018. Self-assessed understanding of climate change. Climatic Change 151 (2): 349–362.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hannah, L., P.R. Roehrdanz, M. Ikegami, A.V. Shepard, M.R. Shaw, G. Tabor, L. Zhi, P.A. Marquet, and R.J. Hijmans. 2013. Climate change, wine, and conservation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110 (17): 6907–6912.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heberlein, T.A., and J.S. Black. 1976. Attitudinal specificity and the prediction of behavior in a field setting. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 33 (4): 474–479.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hestres, L.E. 2014. Preaching to the choir: Internet-mediated advocacy, issue public mobilization, and climate change. New Media & Society 16 (2): 323–339.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoek, A.C., D. Pearson, S.W. James, M.A. Lawrence, S. Friel, and S. 2017. Shrinking the food-print: A qualitative study into consumer perceptions, experiences and attitudes towards healthy and environmentally friendly food behaviours. Appetite 108: 117–131.

    Google Scholar 

  • IPCC. 2018. Summary for policymakers. In Global warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty, ed. V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, H.-O. Pörtner, D. Roberts, J. Skea, P.R. Shukla, A. Pirani, W. Moufouma-Okia, C. Péan, R. Pidcock, S. Connors, J.B.R. Matthews, Y. Chen, X. Zhou, M.I. Gomis, E. Lonnoy, T. Maycock, M. Tignor, and T. Waterfield. Geneva: IPCC.

  • Kunda, Z. 1990. The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin 108 (3): 480–498.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loureiro, M.L., and J. Lotade. 2005. Do fair trade and eco-labels in coffee wake up the consumer conscience? Ecological Economics 53 (1): 129–138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maibach, E.W., N. Nisbet, P. Baldwin, K. Akerlof, and G. Diao. 2010. Reframing climate change as a public health issue: An exploratory study of public reactions. BMC Public Health 10 (1): 299–309.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malka, A., J.A. Krosnick, and G. Langer. 2009. The association of knowledge with concern about global warming: Trusted information sources shape public thinking. Risk Analysis 29 (5): 633–647.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCright, A.M., and R.E. Dunlap. 2011. The politicization of climate change and polarization in the American public's views of global warming, 2001–2010. The Sociological Quarterly 52 (2): 155–194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Müller, C., W. Cramer, W.L. Hare, and H. Lotze-Campen. 2011. Climate change risks for African agriculture. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108 (11): 4313–4315.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newman, T.P., E.C. Nisbet, and M.C. Nisbet. 2018. Climate change, cultural cognition, and media effects: Worldviews drive news selectivity, biased processing, and polarized attitudes. Public Understanding of Science 27 (8): 985–1002.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nisbet, M.C. 2009. Communicating climate change: Why frames matter for public engagement. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development 51 (2): 12–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prentice, C. 2018. Americans are drinking a daily cup of coffee at the highest level in six years: Survey. Reuters, March 17. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-coffee-conference-survey/americans-are-drinking-a-daily-cup-of-coffee-at-the-highest-level-in-six-years-survey-idUSKCN1GT0KU. Accessed 16 Sept 2019.

  • Roff, R.J. 2007. Shopping for change? Neoliberalizing activism and the limits to eating non-GMO. Agriculture and Human Values 24 (4): 511–522.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidhuber, J., and F.N. Tubiello. 2007. Global food security under climate change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104 (50): 19703–19708.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schuldt, J.P., and N. Schwarz. 2010. The “organic” path to obesity? Organic claims influence calorie judgments and exercise recommendations. Judgment and Decision Making 5 (3): 144–150.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schuldt, J.P., P.K. Enns, and V. Cavaliere. 2017. Does the label really matter? Evidence that the US public continues to doubt “global warming” more than “climate change”. Climatic Change 143 (1–2): 271–280.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, N. 2014. Cognition and communication: Judgmental biases, research methods, and the logic of conversation. London: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simmons, D. 2019. A brief guide to the impacts of climate change on food production. Yale Climate Connections, September 18. https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2019/09/a-brief-guide-to-the-impacts-of-climate-change-on-food-production/. Accessed 1 Oct 2019.

  • Sörqvist, P., A. Haga, L. Langeborg, M. Holmgren, M. Wallinder, A. Nöstl, P.B. Seager, and J.E. Marsh. 2015. The green halo: Mechanisms and limits of the eco-label effect. Food Quality and Preference 43: 1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sturgis, P., and N. Allum. 2004. Science in society: Re-evaluating the deficit model of public attitudes. Public Understanding of Science 13 (1): 55–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • van der Linden, S., A.A. Leiserowitz, and E.W. Maibach. 2019. The gateway belief model: A large-scale replication. Journal of Environmental Psychology 62: 49–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vermeulen, S.J., B.M. Campbell, and J.S. Ingram. 2012. Climate change and food systems. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 37: 195–222.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallendorf, M., and E.J. Arnould. 1991. “We gather together”: Consumption rituals of thanksgiving day. Journal of Consumer Research 18 (1): 13–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wänke, M. 2007. What is said and what is meant: Conversational implicatures in natural conversations, research settings, media and advertising. In Social Communication, ed. K. Fiedler, 223–256. London: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Washburn, A.N., and L.J. Skitka. 2018. Science denial across the political divide: Liberals and conservatives are similarly motivated to deny attitude-inconsistent science. Social Psychological and Personality Science 9 (8): 972–980.

    Google Scholar 

  • Xie, W., W. Xiong, J. Pan, T. Ali, Q. Cui, D. Guan, J. Meng, N.D. Mueller, E. Lin, and S.J. Davis. 2018. Decreases in global beer supply due to extreme drought and heat. Nature Plants 4 (11): 964–973.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yeo, S.K., M.A. Xenos, D. Brossard, and D.A. Scheufele. 2015. Selecting our own science: How communication contexts and individual traits shape information seeking. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 658 (1): 172–191.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Communication, Cornell University, 465 Mann Library Building, Ithaca, NY, 14853, USA

    Jonathon P. Schuldt

  2. Department of Communication, Cornell University, 459 Mann Library Building, Ithaca, NY, 14853, USA

    Danielle L. Eiseman

  3. Department of Entomology, Cornell University, 105A Rice Hall, Ithaca, NY, 14853, USA

    Michael P. Hoffmann

Authors
  1. Jonathon P. Schuldt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Danielle L. Eiseman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Michael P. Hoffmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jonathon P. Schuldt.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Schuldt, J.P., Eiseman, D.L. & Hoffmann, M.P. Public concern about climate change impacts on food choices: The interplay of knowledge and politics. Agric Hum Values 37, 885–893 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-020-10019-7

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-020-10019-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation