Small and medium-sized vegetable farms face unique challenges balancing profitability with sustainable production practices and food safety requirements. To better understand how these farmers navigate complex decision-making processes, the Soil to Market Team—comprising Maria Marshall, Renee Wiatt, Petrus Langenhoven, Betty Feng, and Nathan Shoaf—conducted a comprehensive survey of 500 small and medium-sized farmers across the United States during 2024-2025. This research, funded by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Institute of Food and Agriculture, focuses on holistic farmer decision-making processes.
This article series presents key findings from the survey, offering insights that can help both growers and Extension educators better understand the interconnected nature of farm planning. These findings aim to support more profitable and sustainable vegetable farming operations by examining the relationship between strategic planning and farm performance.
Do Consumers Really Pay for Food Safety? Insights from a National Survey on Produce and Farm Size
Consumer Willingness to Pay for Food Safety
Consumers often say they value food safety and prefer purchasing from small farms—but do these preferences influence how much they are willing to spend? To explore this, we conducted a nationwide survey with over 900 participants, examining whether food safety labels and farm size affect consumers’ willingness to pay (WTP) a premium for safer produce.
Only a Small Premium for Food Safety
Although many consumers ranked food safety as a top priority, they were only willing to pay about 10% more for produce labeled with a “food safety guarantee.” Interestingly, there was little difference in consumer preference between food safety-labeled produce from small versus large farms.
These findings suggest that consumers view food safety as a baseline expectation, not a value-added feature. In other words, most believe that all food should be safe, and are therefore reluctant to pay extra for something they assume is already guaranteed.
The Role of Organic Labels
The perception of organic produce painted a more nuanced picture. A majority of organic consumers perceived it as safer (70%) and less likely to cause foodborne illness (67%) compared to conventional alternatives.
Notably, those who purchase organic produce were more likely to pay a premium for small farm produce without food safety labels and for large farm produce with such labels. This suggests that the organic label itself may be more influential than explicit food safety claims, reflecting broader consumer priorities tied to health, environmental, and ethical considerations.
Recommendations for Extension and Technical Support
For Small-Scale Farmers
We recommend caution when promoting food safety investments as a path to higher profits. Given consumers’ limited willingness to pay a premium for food safety, it may be more effective to focus messaging on risk mitigation, brand protection, and long-term sustainability. Educating producers about the potential consequences of food safety incidents—such as market loss, legal risks, and reputational damage—can be a more compelling motivator than financial incentives alone.
For Consumers
This study highlights the need for consumer education around food labels. Many consumers mistakenly equate organic certification with food safety. Providing clear, accessible information about the meaning of food safety labels, how safety practices are implemented on farms, and the real risks involved can help consumers make more informed choices.
Additionally, increasing awareness about the costs and labor required to implement food safety protocols—especially on small farms—can help bridge the gap between consumer expectations and actual purchasing behavior.
Funding Acknowledgement
This work is supported by the Agriculture Food Research Initiative-Small and Medium Sized Farms Program, project award no. 2021-68006-33893, from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Institute of Food and Agriculture.
Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and should not be construed to represent any official USDA or U.S. Government determination or policy.