News 
 National Rural News 
 Agribusiness and General 
 Finance 
 Study highlights food price 'elasticity' 

Study highlights food price 'elasticity'

24 Oct, 2011 09:03 AM
A NEW study from the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation has revealed the foods that consumers are willing to pay more for in order to keep them as a part of their diet.

The study looked at ‘demand elasticities’ in Australia for 15 food categories and is the most comprehensive ever done in the field. The degree to which a product’s demand or supply reacts to a change in price is known as its ‘elasticity’.

The study found that milk, bread, fresh fruit and fresh vegetables face an inelastic demand, meaning that consumers are more likely to absorb a price increase to continue purchasing these products. All meat types, rice, margarine and preserved vegetables had elastic demand, meaning consumers aren’t as willing to pay an increased price to keep these goods in their fridge or kitchen cupboard.

Normally, sales increase with a drop in prices and decrease with a rise in prices, however elasticity varies among foods because some may be more essential to the consumer.

RIRDC Managing Director, Craig Burns said that in order to calculate the demand elasticities for the 15 key food groups a comprehensive analysis of food prices between 1998/99 and 2003/04 was conducted, and it showed a major increase in food prices over that five year period.

“Across the 15 food categories that were looked at, average food prices in Australia rose by 26 percent, which is well above the 17 percent increase in the CPI over the same five year period. The largest increase in food prices was seen in mutton and lamb, with a 64 percent increase, while the lowest increase in prices was in sugar and jam with a 3.6 percent increase,” Mr Burns said.

“The study also found that when compared to other nations our inelastic demand for bread, milk and especially fresh vegetables was close to that seen in the USA, Canada and Japan. However, Australian meat demand appeared to be uniformly more elastic than that seen in other countries, meaning people overseas are more likely than Aussies to keep buying a particular type of meat if its price rises - Aussies are more likely to reduce the amount of meat purchased or substitute one meat type for another if the price of their preferred choice goes up.”

As a result of the research there is now a thorough and well defined reference source that will allow market and policy analysts to make better informed strategic decisions.

“Because food expenditure is such a crucial part of total household expenditure, being able to evaluate a consumer’s response to policies that impact on the financial wellbeing of their household is important. This research will help greatly in determining the impact of food-related policies on average Australians,” Mr Burns said.

“Up till now this detailed level of information hasn’t been available, so those that set R&D priorities, forecast future market conditions and assess proposals for industry or commodity-based levies now have a reliable set of figures to help guide their decision making process.”

The study, conducted for RIRDC by Deakin University, used data from the most recent Australian Bureau of Statistics Household Expenditure Surveys and involved the latest estimation techniques.

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size

RELATED COVERAGE

comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
Good research is always good, although there are no surprises whatsoever in these findings,
Posted by Bushie Bill, 24/10/2011 11:22:29 AM
Well there you have it. The demand curve for milk is inelastic, ie dead flat. The central claim of the Coles executives who started the price war with the claim that lower prices would mean more milk sales is revealed to be absolute bull.

As if little Billy will suddenly drink two glasses with his Vegemite, or double the amount he pours on his weeties, because the price went down.

So there you have it. The second largest food retailer in the country is led by a pack of lying spivs who will say just about anything to justify their predatory marketing.

Posted by Ian Mott, 24/10/2011 3:44:37 PM
Ian Mott ,that is not what the article says.

It says people will continue to buy milk at higher prices.

The fact is milk sales have increased since discounting began unfortunately to the detriment of farmers.

Problem is that branded milk sales, that farmers rely on for their profits, have fallen. Meanwhile home brand, contracted at the lowest price a processor is prepared to sell for, makes up the difference, totally unprofitable to the farmer.

Your support is appreciated even if, typical of your posts, somewhat misgiuded.

Posted by Cow Cocky, 24/10/2011 5:59:07 PM
They didnt mention the most inelastic product of all, booze.
Posted by Ned the Wino, 24/10/2011 6:42:53 PM
Lift your game, CC, they are two parts of the one demand curve. Continuing to buy milk at higher prices also means that lower prices don't produce additional sales. Its basic high school economics.

The problem is that products with inelastic demand curves also tend to be used as indicator products by consumers. They buy it all the time so they know exactly what the price has been and when that price drops they think they are getting a bargain on everything else they buy.

It is entirely symbolic, with the lost margins on the milk being more than recovered by other products.

Posted by Ian Mott, 25/10/2011 10:02:51 AM
26% increase in five years - Well if they want to encourage a new generation into farming before the current generation starts to die and retire (in about 10 years) then farm gate prices are going to have to increase by about 400%. We compete directly with the mining industry for employees and the current rate is around the $2000 a week mark. So a young person looking for a career, can go into agriculture at $500 - $1000 a week or go into mining at $2000 a week plus.
Posted by Qlander, 25/10/2011 11:11:47 AM
That price increase will come, the only question is how quickly. Will it occur gradually over a period of years, or suddenly in about 10 years after the supply of food drops dramatically below demand?
Posted by Qlander, 25/10/2011 11:13:59 AM
I fully understand what your saying Ian but, the fact is that white milk sales have increased, according to our processor, since the discounting began.

This is not a good thing unless people get used to using more milk & keep consumption up if & when the discounting nonsense ends.

Posted by Cow Cocky, 25/10/2011 1:35:18 PM
“Up till now this detailed level of information hasn’t been available, so those that set R&D priorities, forecast future market conditions and assess proposals for industry or commodity-based levies now have a reliable set of figures to help guide their decision making process.”

Hmmm. I'm wondering HOW this particular study by RIRDC will be used? Do you put more R&D into inelastic or elastic products?

I would warn against assuming that such a study does not have an ulterior motive.

Posted by Pro Freedom, 25/10/2011 2:29:47 PM
The question is, CC, by how much? With an inelastic demand curve a drop in price of 10% may only produce a 1% increase in volume sales which will not produce a larger pie, as it were, for all parts of the value chain.

And guess who's part suffered most of the deficit?

Posted by Ian Mott, 25/10/2011 4:49:45 PM

post a comment


Screen name  *
Email address  *
Remember me?
Comment  *
 
We invite and encourage our readers to post comments. Comments are moderated and will appear as soon as our editor has approved them. When posting comments you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions.
Related Coverage
ARTICLES
POLL
Q: Do you believe the NBN will bring positive changes for you and your community when access is secured in your region?

Yes
(22.4%)

No
(60.6%)

It already has
(0.6%)

There will be some benefits, but it has flaws
(16.5%)

Total Votes: 545
Poll Date: 17 October, 2011

Most popular articles




Stock & Land







Weather brought to you by:

Weatherzone

Classifieds

Front Page

Current Issue
Privacy Policy | Conditions of Use | Advertising Terms | Copyright © 2012. Fairfax Media.
 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...