Â鶹ÒùÔº

Stress levels due to grocery prices are mixed, and most consumers are at least somewhat familiar with the concept of tariffs, according to the of the Consumer Food Insights Report (CFI).

The survey-based report out of Purdue University's Center for Food Demand Analysis and Sustainability(CFDAS) assesses food spending, consumer satisfaction and values, support of agricultural and food policies, and trust in information sources. Purdue experts conducted and evaluated the survey, which included 1,200 consumers across the U.S.

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 report's lead author, Joseph Balagtas, professor of at Purdue and director of CFDAS.

New questions in the latest survey included a section that gauged consumer understanding of tariff policy. This included what they see as the costs and benefits of such policy and how they think tariffs affect food prices.

"The average rating among all consumers is 6.9 on a 0–10 scale, meaning consumers believe the government has moderate influence over the price of food," Balagtas said. Further exploration of partisan differences in responses to this scale found that this belief is largely bipartisan.

CFDAS researchers gauged consumer understanding of the proposed tariffs as a policy tool and allowed them to express their opinion on the benefits and costs of such a policy. 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."

This month's CFI Report includes a new section reporting on monthly consumer diet quality based on a nine-question diet assessment known as the . The questions asked consumers to report on consumption frequency of 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 there's 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.

He points out, however, that from the U.S. Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service found that many of those receiving SNAP benefits self-select into the program once they reach severe levels of food insecurity.

"So, while SNAP benefits are crucial for households in need, the positive effect on the food insecurity rate is likely not able to fully overcome the gap between SNAP and non-SNAP households," Bryant said.

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.

Consumer estimates of food inflation over the past 12 months dropped to 5.2%, following a downward trend since late 2022. Expectations about future food inflation also dropped to 2.6%, just above the consumer price index food inflation rate of 2.5%. The USDA Economic Research Service recently updated its forecast for 2025 food inflation from the original 2.5% to 2.2%.

The Center for Food Demand Analysis and Sustainability is part of Purdue's Next Moves in agriculture and food systems and uses innovative data analysis shared through user-friendly platforms to improve the food system. In addition to the Consumer Food Insights Report, the center offers a portfolio of online dashboards.