Does Consumer Awareness of Neonicotinoid Insecticides Influence Their Preferences for Plants
Consumer awareness of neonicotinoid (neonic) insecticides is growing (in part) due to increased publicity and media attention. Environmental groups want neonic insecticides to be banned because of their perceived potential negative consequences on nontarget species (especially bees and other pollinator insects) Several retail outlets and governmental agencies are now requiring the ornamental horticulture industry (hereafter, green industry) to label plants grown using neonic insecticides. Although the scientific value of the mandatory labeling policies are debatable, neonic labeling may negatively influence consumers' demand for plants. Research on consumers' awareness of neonic insecticides is limited, and the extent to which awareness influences preferences and shopping behavior is less understood. This manuscript addresses these research gaps by investigating correlations between awareness of neonic insecticides, knowledge about related topics (e.g. gardening and pollinator insect health) and purchase likelihood, using an online survey of 921 U.S. consumers. Results indicate that only 24% of surveyed plant purchasers are aware of neonic insecticides. Consumers who are aware of neonic insecticides are more knowledgeable about plants that improve pollinator health and entomology than those who are not aware. Labels with 'neonic free' wording were the least preferred and influential pollinator related in store promotion. However, awareness of neonic insecticides was positively correlated with consumers' purchase likelihood for 'neonic free' plants. Overall, awareness influences consumers' shopping behavior, which could necessitate altering green industry pest management strategies as consumers' awareness of neonic insecticides increases due to the negative publicity surrounding it. Recently, research on pollinator insects has escalated due to reports on declining pollinator populations. Previous studies on pollinator insects and their services have focused on the impacts of insecticides (Fairbrother et al. 2014; Goulson, 2013; Pimentel, 2005; US EPA, 2013) economic impacts of pollination (Gallai et al. 2009; Hanley et al. 2015; Pilling et al. 2013) environmental consequences and benefits (Frankie et al. 2005; McIntyre and Hostetler, 2001;Wratten et al. 2012) and natural resource conservation measures (Breeze et al. 2015; Diffendorfer et al. 2014; Mwebaze et al. 2010) One topic that has been at the forefront of discussions on pollinator insect declines is insecticide use. However, research findings on the effects of insecticide use on pollinator insects' health are inconclusive (Fairbrother et al. 2014; Goulson, 2013; Pilling et al. 2013) Nevertheless, insecticide usage has been linked to declines in honeybee and pollination services reaching $284 million/year in the United States (Pimentel, 2005) This has global economic implications, given pollinator insects' estimated annual contribution of V153 billion/year for food crops worldwide (Gallai et al. 2009) Research has shown consumers value pollinator services and conservation efforts (Breeze et al. 2015; Diffendorfer et al. 2014; Mwebaze et al. 2010) For instance, UK consumers are willing to pay PS379 million (PS13.4 per taxpayer) in taxes to aid pollinators (Breeze et al. 2015) Similarly, Mwebaze et al. (2010) found UK households are willing to pay PS1.37 per week for bee protection policies, which equates to PS1.77 billion per year. In the United States, consumers are willing to pay $4.78 6.64 billion (in a total onetime payment) toward purchasing monarch friendly plants and donating to conservation organizations (Diffendorfer et al. 2014) Although consumers want to aid pollinator insects through conservation measures, very few studies address consumer behavior toward pollinator insects or their interactions with neonic insecticides. Neonic insecticides are of particular interest due to controversial research findings and negative publicity (US EPA, 2013) Neonics provide systemic protection to plants from a variety of insect pests (S anchez Bayo et al. 2013) Systemic protection means the insecticide is present within plant tissues that are readily consumed by many insect pests, which has led to concerns about potential negative impacts on nontarget species (i.e. insect pollinators, pets, and humans) that come in contact with and/or consume portions of treated plants. However, Fairbrother et al. (2014) determined that neonics do not play a significant role in declining bee health when compared with parasites, diseases, habitat loss, queen failure, and poor nutrition. Furthermore, when applied according to the label, neonics appear to have minimal risks to pollinator insects (Pilling et al. 2013) Other studies argue that neonic insecticides impact bees health more subtly, by decreasing bee homing and foraging ability, colony growth, learning, disease resistance, and hive hygiene, which are detrimental to colony health (Goulson, 2013; van der Sluijs et al. 2013) However, Blacqui ere et al. (2012) states neonics' lethal and sublethal effects on pollinators only occur in laboratory experiments, not in the field setting. Despite the lack of consensus on neonic insecticides' impact on pollinator insects' health, environmental groups urge retail outlets and green industry stakeholders (i.e. plant growers and retailers) to supply consumers with plants grown without using neonics. This is concerning for the green industry because neonic insecticides are effective against a wide range of pests, have low mammalian toxicity, and are less expensive compared with many alternatives (Goulson, 2013; S anchez Bayo et al. 2013; Zalom et al. 2005) In addition, they help to minimize plant damage, which improves plant salability, margins, and profits (Sadof and Raupp, 1987; S anchez Bayo et al. 2013) In response, several retailers (including Home Depot) and governmental organizations (i.e. UK Parliament) now selectively purchase neonic free plants and/or require mandatory labeling (US EPA, 2013) Mandatory labeling can affect the marketplace, product availability, production costs, the competitive environment, and profits (Bonroy and Constantoatos, 2014) Furthermore, labeling and other promotional efforts can influence consumer behavior. For instance, Anella et al. (2001) determined the Oklahoma Proven Plant Campaign (promoted through labels/tags, posters, billboards, and pot stakes) increased plant sales by 81% In turn, this leads to the question of how does 'neonic free' labeling influence consumer behavior toward plants? Currently, there is insufficient quantitative evidence to provide a definitive answer to this question. Although environmental groups are pushing for the regulation (and banning) of neonic pesticide use on plants, to date, very few studies actually assess consumer (i.e. end users) awareness of neonic insecticides and the influence of 'neonic free' labels on their purchasing behavior. Wollaeger et al. (2015) reported that nearly 57% of consumers do not understand the term 'neonic free' and 70% indicated low knowledge of 'neonic free' production methods. This low awareness and Received for publication 30 Oct. 2015. Accepted for publication 9 Feb. 2016. Corresponding author. E mail: hayk@ufl.edu. 388 HORTSCIENCE VOL. 51(4) APRIL 2016 confusion about the effects of neonic insecticides has implications for the green industry as it has been shown to influence consumers' purchasing decisions (Chi et al. 2009; Krystallis and Chrysochou, 2011) Specifically, awareness increases consumers' purchase likelihood (Krystallis and Chrysochou, 2011) unless the consumer is already loyal to an existing brand or had preexisting perceptions of superior quality for another brand (Chi et al. 2009) Since awareness impacts consumer behavior for other products, how does consumer awareness of neonic insecticides influence their preferences for plants? Furthermore, are consumers even aware of neonic insecticides and how does that affect their behavior? Given low levels of awareness of neonics among the general public (Wollaeger et al. 2015) should the green industry produce and promote plants as 'neonic free' and educate consumers about neonic insecticides or not? At the center of these uncertainties is the question of what influence would 'neonic free' labeling have on consumer preferences and demand for plants? To address these questions, we conducted an online survey of U.S. consumers. With the overall goal to identify how consumers' awareness of neonic insecticides affects their purchasing behavior, the following hypotheses were tested: 1. Consumers' knowledge of pollinatorrelated topics (i.e. gardening/landscaping, pollinator insect health, and entomology) is positively correlated with their awareness of neonic insecticides. 2. Consumers who are aware of neonic insecticides are more likely to purchase plants with 'neonic free' labels than those who are not aware of neonics. Materials and Methods An online survey was used to assess U.S. consumers' preferences for 'neonicfree' plant labels. Survey questions were designed based on relevant literature, visiting retail outlets, and consulting industry professionals. Survey questions consisted of consumers' past purchasing behavior, awareness of neonic insecticides, general knowledge, attitude toward attracting pollinator insects, purchase intentions, pollinator promotion wording, and six standard sociodemographic questions (i.e. age, gender, income, education, household, and relationship status) The survey and experimental protocol were approved by the institution review board. The survey was conducted in Jan. 2015 using a third party contractor (Qualtrics Online Survey Software; Qualtrics, LLC, Provo, UT) An online survey was used to most efficiently reach a broad demographic of participants across the United States (McDaniel and Gates, 2010) Participants were com