An analysis prepared as part of

________________________________________________________________________

The Impact of Population Shifts

on the Food System in California
in 2030
Celeste LeCompte
Analyst, Ecotrust

Eileen Brady
Editorial assistance, Ecotrust

Analisa Gunnel,
Advisor, Ecotrust

March 2005

________________________________________________________________________

A project of Ecotrust and affiliates

Requested by the Roots of Change Council
Funded by the Roots of Change Fund

To learn more, visit

www.VividPicture.net
 The Impact of Population Shifts on the Food System in California in 2030

Background and Summary

In the spring of 2004, the Roots of Change Council and Fund contracted Ecotrust to
create a roadmap that will enable California to navigate a 25-year journey toward a
sustainable agricultural economy. Our final deliverable, due in the summer of 2005, will
include a report that describes the Vivid Picture, including:
• a vivid picture of a sustainable food system for California for 2030
• the landscape and population givens for 2030
• principles for a sustainable food system
• sustainability indicators
• an outline of an agenda for change

This submission represents the population portion of the second of the five major
sections, a discussion of expected population shifts in the next twenty-five years and the
impacts on food and farming related parts of the food system.

Identifying California’s Eaters

This paper seeks to identify what we know about eaters in the California food system at
present and what, given this information, we can reasonably assume about California’s
eaters in 2030. The baseline population for this analysis is the California population in
July of 2000 as reported with revisions in 2002 by the California Department of
Finance. For the purposes of this paper, eaters are divided into four age groups—under 5,
5 – 19, 20 – 64, and 65+—and among four racial groups—white, black, Hispanic, and
other. Rather than focusing on income ranges, this paper selects income distribution as a
relevant demographic criteria, highlighting the spending patterns of individuals based on
relative purchasing power. Income distribution data, as reported by the U.S. Department
of Agriculture Economic Research Service, is divided into quintiles. These categories are,
however, somewhat limited in the portrait that they paint of demographic change in
California over the next 25 years. Therefore, throughout this analysis, the interaction of
these categories, as well as other groups and subgroups, will be discussed when relevant.

Present statewide demographics

According to the California Department of Finance, California’s current population totals
over 34 million across the entire state. Roughly two-thirds of this population lives in
Southern California—here defined as south of the Tehachapi Mountains and west of the
San Jacinto Mountains.1 Statistically, the state’s population is 47.0% white, 32.5%
Hispanic, 6.5% black, and 13.8% other.2 Across all racial groups, 59.2% of the population
is between the ages of 20 and 64, 7.3% are under the age of 5, 22.8% are between the
ages of 5 and 19, and 8.6% of the population is 65 or older. The largest of the sixteen
demographic categories is white 20 to 64 year-olds, comprising 28.9% of the total state
population.

7.1
 The Impact of Population Shifts on the Food System in California in 2030

Population Statistics for July 2000

White Hispanic Black Other Total
0-4 800,269 1,186,175 162,171 333,331 2,481,946
5-19 2,837,133 3,295,939 570,469 1,071,375 7,775,846
20-64 9,863,519 6,118,707 1,306,816 2,870,010 20,158,052
65 + 2,547,068 482,164 183,360 414,692 2,922,384
Total 16,047,989 11,082,985 2,222,816 4,689,408 34,043198
Source: California Department of Finance, Demographic Research Unit. Population Projections by Race/Ethnicity, Gender
and Age, Report 03 P-3. May 2004.

Immigration has played an enormous role in shaping California’s population over the
last several decades, with 37% of foreign-born Californians entering the United States
since 1990. In 2000, the U.S. Census identified 8.9 million foreign-born individuals
living in California, 26% of the state’s total population, up from 21.7% in 1990.3
California ranks first in terms of absolute number and percentage of foreign-born
residents among all U.S. states. 55.6% of the foreign-born population emigrated from
Latin America, the bulk of these (44.3%) coming from Mexico.

At present, California exhibits a higher degree of income inequality than the national
average, with a greater share of individuals earning wages in the 10th percentile and the
90th percentile.4 In part, research indicates that this growing gap has resulted from high
immigration rates, particularly of low-wage earning Hispanics and refugees from
Southeast Asia. Foreign-born Hispanics now make up 41% of the California population
living below the federal poverty level.5 Additionally, a rapid increase in the value of
educational attainment over the last 20 years has had significant impact on income
inequality. Wages for workers with less than a high school diploma declined in real terms
from 1969 to 1999. Income distribution is also highly regional, with poverty rates in
California’s eight largest metropolitan areas ranging from 7% in the San Francisco Bay
Area to 22% in the San Joaquin Valley.6 All in all, however, California’s increasing
income inequality is not well understood. Accounting for education, age, race and
ethnicity, and industry of work, less than 10% of income inequality is explained.7

Projected population demographics

The California Department of Finance creates 50-year projections of population and

demographic statistics at the state-wide and county level. These projections are based on
a number of factors that impact the size and composition of the population: (1) survival
of the present population, (2) race and age-specific fertility rates by county, (3) county
level information about present and future migration, and (4) race-specific mortality
rates. The Department of Finance assumes that current trends in all categories will
remain constant at present levels. Therefore, projections to 2030 assume that for the
next 25 years, all groups will maintain their current life expectancy and birth rates, that
annual migration patterns and demographic distribution will remain constant, 8 and that
there will be no major natural or political catastrophes which would otherwise alter the
population composition.

Under these conditions, current projections suggest striking change over the next 25

7.2
 The Impact of Population Shifts on the Food System in California in 2030

years. California’s population will likely increase to approximately 48 million—an over

41% increase from 2000 levels. Several studies indicate that population projections are
most accurate through 2020, yet most experts agree that, given the momentum of
current trends in immigration and fertility rates, it is likely that California’s population
will undergo this dramatic increase.9 The projected population is also characterized by
significant increases in the ethnic diversity and average age of the population.

Population Projections for July 2030

White Hispanic Black Other Total
0–4 644,779 2,043,685 3,192,662 422,926 3,315,619
5 – 19 2,100,260 5,472,483 671,491 1,350,616 9,594,850
20 –
7,494,759 12,722,809 1,852,494 4,828,366 26,898,428
64
65 + 3,942,302 2,281,652 464,448 1,613,372 8,301,774
Total 14,182,100 22,520,629 3,192,662 8,215,280 48,110,671
Source: California Department of Finance, Demographic Research Unit. Population Projections by Race/Ethnicity, Gender
and Age, Report 03 P-3. May 2004.

As the baby boomers continue to age over the next 25 years, California’s population over
age 65 more than triples in size to 17.3% of the population, up from just 8.6% in 2000.
Simultaneously, the school-age population (children ages 5 – 19) will grow more slowly
than the population as a whole, increasing just 23% from 2000 levels during the
projection period. This aging pattern also
reflects the changing ethnic composition of
the population, with Hispanics accounting
for 43% of the population under age 20 and
whites accounting for 87.1% of the over-65
population. Despite holding the lion’s share
of the state’s retirees, the white population
is projected to decline in both relative and
absolute numbers from 16,047,989 to
14,182,100—accounting for just 29.5% of
the total 2030 population. At the same
time, the Hispanic population is expected
to more than double to become 47% of the
population - the largest ethnically defined
group in the state.10 John Landis and
Michael Reilly’s analysis of probable urban
growth scenarios for California indicates
that development will tend to occur
throughout current metropolitan areas, along existing transportation routes. Much of the
growth will be concentrated in Southern California, particularly around Los Angeles and
in the San Joaquin Valley.

Some critical studies indicate, however, that these projections are too heavily influenced
by the effects of immigrant population fertility rates. Currently, fertility rates for the
Hispanic population in California range from 2.8 to 1.68, the highest rates for any racial
group in the state. However, research done by analysts Laura Hill and Hans Johnson at
the Public Policy Institute of California (PPPIC) shows that as immigrant communities
become established in the United States, their fertility rates tend to drop, regardless of
ethnicity, as a result of a variety of cultural factors. In the 1990s, fertility rates declined
across all California’s ethnic groups. The birth rate among foreign-born Hispanic women

7.3
 The Impact of Population Shifts on the Food System in California in 2030

dropped from 4.4 to 3.3, while among U.S.-born Hispanic women fertility rates reached
just 2.3.11 The PPIC study also indicates that generation of U.S. residency likely serves as
a proxy for group characteristics such as higher educational attainment, lower marriage
rates, and lower poverty rates, all of which drastically decrease fertility rates.12 As a
result, Hill and Johnson recommend that population projections be revised downward.13
Therefore, while the more detailed data created by the Department of Finance serves as a
valuable starting point for envisioning the California of 2030, and the ways in which we
might accommodate the needs of the future population, it is with caution that the Vivid
Picture Project accepts the Hispanic population increases from the Department of
Finance.

Income projections for the state of California are speculative at best, most published
during the mid-1990s, with reference to the rapid income growth since the 1980s.
However, current economic trends indicate that these rosy projections are increasingly
outdated. Therefore, more recent studies consulted for this analysis typically assume an
annual real income increase of just 1%, a conservative estimate as compared with real
income growth of 1.8% during the 1970s and 1.2% during the 1980s. Regardless of the
rate of increase, however, it is generally believed that real income will continue its
upward climb, particularly for the wealthiest Californians. According to research done by
the U.S. Census Bureau, California has one of the fastest growing income gaps in the
United States, with the poorest fifth of Californians experiencing a 5% decline in real
income from the 1970s to the 1990s while richest fifth saw a 50% increase in real income
over the same period (see graph above) 14.

A related demographic trend is increasing educational attainment. Researchers at the

U.S. Census Bureau have demonstrated that, in two separate scenarios accounting for
current trends by race, ethnicity, sex, and immigration status, all groups are expected to
see growth in educational attainment levels through 2025.15 Historically, racial and
ethnic division have marked educational attainment data, with white adults completing
more education than non-white and foreign-born adults. However, according to the
Census Bureau research, these differences will have a declining or negligible impact over
the twenty-year projection period. Rather, a division will emerge between high-growth in
attainment levels for females and low-growth in attainment levels for males.

Food Expenditures and Demographic Trends

The U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that, on average,
consumers in the Western United States spend a weekly per capita average of $41.04 on
food, 42% of which ($17.50) is spent on food consumed away from home—more in both
cases than consumers in all other regions except the Northeast.16 The remaining $23.54
is divided among the food groups as follows: 8.1% on cereals and bakery products; 14.7%
on meats, poultry, fish, and eggs; 6.3% on dairy products; 10.4% on fruits and
vegetables; and 17.8% on other items. The amount of food consumed away from home
has been increasing steadily over the past several decades.17

According to the USDA ERS, income is one of the most significant factors in
determining per capita food expenditures. Not only do individuals with higher incomes
spend more on food, but they make markedly different food choices than individuals
with lower incomes.18 At the national level, people with higher incomes are more likely to
purchase fresh fruits, vegetables, and prepared foods than lower-income Americans.

7.4
 The Impact of Population Shifts on the Food System in California in 2030

They are also more likely to choose food items based on their quality and convenience,
rather than their price, substituting higher-valued items for more standard choices
within food groups (for example, red meat consumers may choose steak instead of
hamburger). Higher incomes are also correlated with greater “away-from-home” food
expenditures.

According to USDA ERS data, income increases are correlated with improved diet-health
knowledge. However, it is likely that an existing correlation between education and
income is the basis of this relationship. This is reinforced by USDA ERS data which
indicates that educational attainment levels have a significant positive influence on diet-
health knowledge.19 As stated above, educational attainment levels are projected to
increase across all population groups throughout the timeline of the Vivid Picture. The
high-growth attainment level for females could weigh more heavily on food expenditures
than overall educational attainment levels, as it is estimated that women grocery shop
75% more than men across all racial and ethnic groups. 20 The USDA ERS proposes that
increases in diet-health knowledge are linked to increased food budget allowances for
items such as fish, fruits, and vegetables, and a decline in the consumption of pork and
beef products.

Food expenditure is also influenced by ethnic and racial preferences. The U.S. Bureau of
Labor Statistic’s Consumer Expenditure Survey (CES) reveals that in 2003, Hispanic
consumers spent more money, on average, on food at home than any other demographic
group- no small fact, given that overall annual expenditures in Hispanic or Latino
households during 2003 totaled $34,575, as compared with $28,667 for Black
households and $43,459 for White, Asian, and all other households.21

According to the CES, Black and Hispanic consumers spend the largest portion of their
food at home budgets on meats (33.2% and 29.4% respectively), particularly on beef and
pork, a greater share of at home food budgets than White, Asian, and all other
households.22 Hispanic consumers also spend proportionally more of their food at home
budget on fresh fruits and vegetables than other groups (19.1%). White, Asian and all
other households spend 33.1% of their at-home food budgets—the greatest portion of
their at-home food budget—on fats, oils, sugars, beverages, and other miscellaneous food
items.

Food expenditure data, as it may be clear at this point, is heavily influenced by a variety
of factors. The relationship between these effects has yet to be explored in current
literature. A preliminary analysis of CES data on income expenditures and percentage of
at home food budget indicates that lower income households spend more on meats,
while higher income households spend more on the fats, oils, and miscellaneous items
category.23 However, the degree to which differences in food expenditure among racial
and ethnic groups are a product of income or educational differences (or vice-versa) has
yet to be explored. More research is necessary in this area before any conclusions can be
drawn about consumer preferences from the consumer expenditure data. Qualitative
research, including consumer surveys, market research, and studies of ethnic consumers
may provide other avenues for understanding the different patterns see in ethnic groups
purchasing habits. These topics will be discussed later in the paper.24

7.5
 The Impact of Population Shifts on the Food System in California in 2030

Health and Demographic Trends

The earlier noted trend towards increased consumption of food-away-from-home may be

linked to important health characteristics of the California population. Numerous studies
show that the nutritional quality of food consumed away from home has increased more
slowly than that of food consumed at home. In particular, a 1999 report by the USDA
ERS indicates that foods away from home are higher in fat and saturated fat, have higher
sodium contents, and are often lower in fiber and calcium. In 1995, for example, 29% of
meals were consumed away from home and these meals provided an average of 34% of
individuals’ caloric intake.25

The 2001 California Health Interview Survey (CHIS), conducted by researchers at UCLA,
compiled data on a variety of health related characteristics of the population, including
Body Mass Index (BMI), a proportional measure of height and weight. The results of the
survey determined that, among Californians over the age of 18, 35.5% are overweight and
an additional 18.9% are obese. Black Californians have the highest combined rate, with
66.8% of the survey population classified as either overweight or obese.

Among children, obesity is rapidly becoming a serious public health concern. According
to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the percentage of overweight
children and adolescents in the nation has more than doubled since the 1970s. 26 In
California alone, 26.5% of students are considered to be overweight and an additional
39.6% are considered to be “unfit.”27 Obesity is a problem that spans urban and rural
areas alike; Los Angeles County and the Central Valley have the highest percentages of
obesity across the state.28

The effects of obesity are wide-ranging, from a direct state-level cost of $7.7 billion for
obesity and overweight-attributable medical expenditures and an estimated overall state
economic burden of $25 billion dollars in 2000, to increased rates of diabetes, asthma,
depression, and a host of other physical and mental illnesses.29

Current cultural trends indicate that Americans, particularly in the Western United
States, are recognizing the obesity epidemic as a public health crisis. While the reasons
for rising rates of obesity—and particularly childhood obesity—are not fully known,
several factors are cited by health professionals and the general public. Broadly, factors
influencing daily food choice, such as aggressive advertising of food and beverage
products to children, increasing availability of cheap fast food, poor quality school-
subsidized meals, and inadequate federal school-lunch standards, are seen as some of
the most important factors.30 Therefore, the USDA, which regulates the federal school
food programs, and various community groups have begun to work on the reform of
school lunch programs.

A second (and often related) problem faced by many Californians is hunger and food
insecurity. According to a 2002 report by the Food Research and Action Center, 11.8% of
California households face some sort of food insecurity, and 29.2% of those households
(3.3% statewide) face hunger.31 Both percentages are slightly higher than the national
averages of 10.4% (insecurity) and 3.1% (hunger). A study of food insecurity and obesity
in California women, conducted by a team of researchers based at the University of
Colorado, found that food insecurity with hunger is associated with increased risk of
obesity for Asian, Black, and Hispanic women.32 In all cases, food insecurity, either with
or without hunger, is associated with increased likelihood of obesity. The California WIC

7.6
 The Impact of Population Shifts on the Food System in California in 2030

Association explains that, “by definition, food insecurity means that households have
limited access to food that is nutritionally adequate or acceptable. Even with episodic
hunger, all household members do not necessarily curtail calories.”33 The Association
report continues, listing specific factors that may exacerbate obesity in food-insecure
families:
1. Healthier items such as fruits, fresh vegetables, lean meats and low-fat dairy
products are often difficult to find and/or more expensive in low-income
neighborhoods.
2. Food-insecure households often have easier access to—or rely on the convenience
of—starchy, inexpensive, high-fat, high-calorie, and nutrient-poor items such as
processed snacks, fast foods and soft drinks.
3. Erratic eating patterns, especially when exacerbated by an inactive lifestyle and
stressful environment, can contribute to malnutrition and obesity.34

Consumer Preference for Sustainable Foods and Demographic Trends

The relatively recent addition of organic food sales to grocery scanner data has enabled
researchers to pinpoint trends in the organic foods market more precisely than with
other sustainable food purchasing habits. Farm stands, roadside vendors, farmers
markets, CSAs, and other venues provide sustainable food chain possibilities outside the
organic market, yet accurate up-to-date information on the organics market is more
readily available. Therefore, consumer demand for organic foods serves as a proxy for
interest in organic and sustainably produced foods. As the sustainable food market
continues to grow—and with it specific forms of labeling and point-of-sale data
collection—more data on other types of supply chains may become available.

Numerous marketing research studies indicate that health and safety are important
factors influencing food consumers purchasing decisions. Hartman Group research from
2000 suggests that one of the primary factors leading consumers to purchase organic
foods was health and nutrition, with 66% of respondents naming it as their top reasons
for purchasing organic foods.35 Other research by the Food Marketing Institute (2001),
produce industry newspaper The Packer (2001), and Colorado-based organic food
producer Walnut Acres (2001) corroborate this analysis. The Food Marketing Institute
survey indicated that 37% of shoppers surveyed purchase organic foods for health
reasons, while 63% of consumers surveyed by Walnut Acres believed that organic food
and beverages were either healthier or better for them than the same non-organically
produced items.36

One of the factors nearly every study encountered in purchasing decisions was the
importance of price in consumers purchasing decisions. 68% of participants in the
Walnut Acres survey chose price as their top reason for not purchasing organic food.37
Similarly, econometric analysis of check-out data indicates a high degree of price
elasticity for organic items such as milk, baby food, and frozen vegetables. An interesting
feature of the data around price and organics is that higher income is not typically
associated with a greater willingness to pay price premiums for organics. 38 In fact,
several studies cited by Gary Thompson of the University of Arizona at Phoenix indicate
that consumers with incomes less that $25,000 are more likely to purchase organics
than their peers with incomes between $25,000 and $55,000.

7.7
 The Impact of Population Shifts on the Food System in California in 2030

Income differences have yet to be fully explained; it has been suggested that income may
be a proxy for other features of the lower-income group—such as race, age, or family
composition. Families with small children are more likely than families without children
to purchase organic produce. Growing public awareness of environmental racism and the
growth of the environmental justice movement has also heightened minority
communities level of concern about chemical and pesticide residues in food, potentially
prompting an increase in organic food purchasing. Older Americans as well are
increasingly concerned about their health—with interest ranging from fresh foods with
higher levels of antioxidants to safer foods free of potentially carcinogenic or otherwise
toxic pesticide residues. The validity of these suggestions however, has yet to be tested
through market research.

Some evidence also suggests that income is less predictive than food outlet type.
Consumers utilizing community food coops were less likely to be dissuaded by high
prices than consumers purchasing produce at natural food markets and conventional
grocery stores. One exception is upscale grocery store markets, where income is
positively correlated with organic purchasing patterns. A similarly complicated factor
seems to be consumer age. Individuals aged 18 – 29 and those 40 – 49 are most likely to
purchase organics, according to the Fresh Trends survey. This data mirrors that gathered
by The Hartman Group as well. Therefore, younger baby boomers and their descendents
are the two groups most likely by age to purchase organics.

While some studies show that families in which women are responsible for grocery
shopping are more likely to purchase organic food, gender seems to have relatively little
impact on organic food purchasing habits.39 Similarly, while the USDA has indicated that
educational attainment is a significant factor in increasing fresh produce purchases,
studies of California consumers in particular indicate that educational attainment levels
have no statistical relevance for predicting consumers’ likelihood to choose organic
produce over conventional produce.40 As it becomes clear from these studies, the organic
consumer market is far more diverse than is frequently envisioned by the mainstream
media. Rather than being largely supported by upscale, white, educated consumers, the
organic market is heavily from a range of consumers who put a high value on health and
family safety, ranging from well-to-do baby boomers to low-income families.

Food Outlet Choice and Demographic Trends

Changing demographics will also have an impact on the places were consumers choose to
shop. Trends in the food marketing industry demonstrate that consumers are still heavily
focused on convenience and price as key determinants of where they shop. However,
some consumers have begun to transition away from one-stop-shopping and discount
stores such as WalMart in favor of small markets, direct sales options, farmers markets,
and specialty grocery stores.

Community farmers markets in particular have seen an enormous upswing in consumer

interest, which is predicted to continue in the coming decade. According to the USDA’s
Agricultural Marketing Service, farmers markets have increased 47% since 1994.41
California is no exception. The USDA listed only two California markets in 1997—the
state now boasts 443 certified farmers markets. With increased support from

7.8
 The Impact of Population Shifts on the Food System in California in 2030

communities interested in purchasing fresh fruits and vegetables, as well as support

from federal programs such as the Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program (FMNP)
administered through the Special Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children
(WIC), farmers markets have begun to attract a broader segment of the population.
California saw significant expansion of the FMNP throughout the 1990s, serving
582,000 participants in 2000. However, federal budget cutbacks beginning in 2001 have
limited participation numbers in recent years. Revitalizing programs such as these could
increase revenues for farmers as well as provide much-needed access to fresh fruits and
vegetables for low-income families. Hispanic and Asian immigrants, as well as their third
generation decendents, are highly likely to choose local open marketplaces, such as
farmers markets and public markets, particularly for culturally coded meals and special
occasions.42

The Hispanic market experienced a 45.5% increase in purchasing power from 1990 to
2002. Combined with current and predicted growth of the Hispanic population, this
trend has produced aggressive advertising campaigns by the grocery industry.43 Market
research has warned many manufacturers, however, that as Hispanic and Asian
populations continue to grow in the United States, advertising and marketing strategies
will have to keep pace with the increasingly sophisticated cultural identities of these
populations. As overall population increases, subpopulations could become increasingly
differentiated; whether trends toward assimilation will prevail, or whether ethnic group
identity formation will win out, is yet to be determined.

On the whole however, the Food Marketing Institute reported that Hispanic consumers
demonstrate preference for grocery stores with a diverse selection of fresh, high quality
perishables—fruits, vegetables, and meats; in which Hispanic products are readily
available; with bilingual staff who are knowledgeable about Hispanic products; and
which advertise in Hispanic or Spanish-language media.44 Location and convenience are
also important factors for Hispanic consumers. In addition to grocery store outlets,
Hispanic consumers often visit specialty stores such as panaderías (bakeries) and
carnicerías (butcher shops) to find culturally preferred items. According to the FMI
survey, Hispanics make an average of 4.3 trips to the grocery store per month, and 3.4
and 2.4 trips to panaderías and carnicerías each month. Current research also shows that
across subpopulations, Latino consumers exhibit a high degree of name recognition and
brand loyalty as consumers.

Another important aspect of the ethnic market in many cases is the high concentration of
Latino and Asian employees in agricultural and food industry professions, according to
the Bureau of Labor Statistics. While the implications of these could be substantial, there
is a lack of publicly accessible research on these topics. Whether these industries are
simply the most open to newly immigrated individuals, whether as low-paying wage
labor or as entrepreneurs, or if they represent culturally appropriate employment for
many individuals has not been analyzed sufficiently. Similarly, the propensities of
different populations to participate in community gardening activities, plant home food
gardens, and other activities which could contribute to the overall diet of a family in the
Vivid Picture have not yet been identified.

The current conclusion of much research on consumption patterns by race and ethnicity,
however, focuses on one central fact: ethnic consumption habits depend on the
individual and group degrees of consumer acculturation. Time of residence, ethnic
identification, political affiliations, employment status, religion, and language all play an

7.9
 The Impact of Population Shifts on the Food System in California in 2030

important role in determining ethnic consumers’ orientation towards the various food
and consumer marketplaces. It is important to note that consumer acculturation is
varied depending on the marketing to which individuals are exposed, the cultural and
political climate in which decisions are made, and personal as well as national economic
status.

Opportunities and Recommendations

While this analysis is inconclusive, it provides a context for the Vivid Picture as a whole.
Strategies undertaken at present could have significant impacts on the way in which both
immigrants and long-term Californians are acculturated as consumers in the coming
years. This analysis suggests that there are several ways in which demographic change in
California could be leveraged to build a sustainable agricultural economy for the state
over the next 25 years. Ethnic consumers, particularly Hispanics, and baby boomers are
natural constituencies of the Vivid Picture. Building the capacity of these groups and
encouraging the inclusion of those who are not natural constituencies should drive
future policy and program development. Identified below are some of the major trends
identified in this paper and the opportunities they present.

• A growing and geographically expanding population As the California

population increases, the sheer numbers will have a significant impact on the
food system in California. If consumer spending on food remained at its current
levels, there would be $102 billion spent on food in 2030. The increased volume
alone will provide many new opportunities for market entry and development. In
addition, population growth on this scale will require the construction of new
communities, even with infill development and other smart growth strategies.
The planning and development associated with this growth is an opportunity to
create neighborhoods where a sustainable food system is encouraged. Planning
for new outdoor markets, new shops and other food outlets, as well as community
and urban gardens, and processing facilities will encourage a thriving sustainable
food system.

• The Majority-Minority Hispanic Population The long-projected majority-

minority trend presents numerous opportunities for the development of a
sustainable food economy in California. Hispanic consumers spend a greater
percentage of their food dollars on food at home. These groceries represent a
diverse product mix, with a strong preference for fresh fruits and vegetables.
Market research often focuses on the acculturation of various ethnic groups and
the effect of their assimilation into American culture on their food consumption.
Rather than seeking to market “mainstream” American foods to Hispanic
consumers, food marketing strategies could focus on validation of Hispanic
consumers’ existing habits. For example, capitalizing on Hispanic consumers’
preference for strong branding, local origin and other food labels could help
create regional brand loyalty among Hispanic consumers and others, while
validating a preference for fresh foods.

• An ever-more-educated population Research indicates that consumers who are

familiar with sustainable farming methods and environmental concerns are more
likely to choose organic items at their local grocery counter.45 As an increasing
number of individuals achieve higher levels of education, using schools and

7.10
 The Impact of Population Shifts on the Food System in California in 2030

educational institutions to teach individuals about sustainable food systems can

bolster the goals of the Vivid Picture. Working to make sure that eaters have
reliable, authentic, and diverse sources of information about their food system
could encourage non-natural constituencies to engage in more sustainable eating
and consumption habits. This trend could present a greater number of
opportunities to reach students. For example, a greater number of “Farm-to-
School” programs instituted from the primary grades through university could
have a great impact on educating younger generations of eaters about the
regional food economy.

• “The Graying of the Golden State” As the baby boomers reach their retirement
years, their higher education levels and a special emphasis on health could
continue to boost consumer interest in organic and fresh foods. While an
expansion of this market will help to bring prices in line with conventional
products, this trend will in many ways depend on affordable access to healthy
foods, as many seniors have fixed incomes. Therefore, while this group presents a
demand opportunity, it is also a caveat. A truly sustainable food system will
provide healthy fresh foods to all consumers—even those with limited budgets.

• Income Disparity As discussed, studies indicate that California’s income gap will
continue to widen over the coming years. While the growing wealth in California
could, in many sense, present an opportunity for the Vivid Picture, it is the gulf
between rich and poor and the sizeable underclass it could creates, that provides
perhaps a crucial impetus for change. Low-income populations experience food
insecurity and the associated health risks—including obesity and hunger—in the
highest numbers. The development of a sustainable food system presents an
opportunity to address, and reverse, this trend over the next 30 years. Supporting
small business development for low-income and minority food entrepreneurs,
developing community markets, and stabilizing rural economies are all potential
development activities within the Vivid Picture—all of these could help to
broaden the middle class and lessen the food insecurity of low income
populations.

Conclusions
The future demands of California’s population on the state food system will be
significant. Demographic trends discussed in this paper have a wide range of potential
effects on the development of a sustainable food system. Greater ethnic diversity
provides an opportunity for food retailers and growers to diversify their products in
grocery stores, farmers markets, and specialty markets. Increased educational
attainment will likely have positive impacts on diet-health knowledge, helping to
improve eaters’ diets regardless of income or ethnicity. An aging population may
demand more organic foods, fresher produce, and spend more time selecting foods for
healthy diets. Continued income inequality presents a vulnerability for the food system—
as well as an opportunity. A regional food economy should create family wage jobs for a
greater diversity of Californians while providing all eaters with access to safe, fresh
foods—regardless of income. Identifying these trends is a key step towards the
development of the Vivid Picture.

7.11
 The Impact of Population Shifts on the Food System in California in 2030

Endnotes

1
John Landis and Michael Reilly. ”How We Will Grow: Baseline Projections of the Growth of California’s
Urban Footprint through the Year 2100.” Institute of Urban and Regional Development, Working Paper
2003—04. University of California, Berkeley, 7.
2
These and all other population statistics unless otherwise noted are taken from California Department
of Finance, Demographic Research Unit . Population Projections by Race/Ethnicity, Gender and Age, Report
03 P-3. May 2004.
3
Migration Information Source. “California Fact Sheet.” Migration Policy Institute. Available online at:
www.migrationinformation.org/USFocus/statemap.cfm#.
4
Deborah Reed. “Recent Trends in Income and Poverty” California Counts: Population Trends and
Profiles. Vol. 5 (3), February 2004, 10. Available online at: www.ppic.org/content/pubs/CC_204DRCC.pdf
5
Reed, “Recent Trends,” 10.
6
Reed, “Recent Trends,” 11.
7
The USDA ERS study was unable to take into account the complex effect of local costs of living in their
study of income inequality. This data could go a long way toward explaining California’s income gap. For
example, the low poverty rates reported in the San Francisco Bay Area do not take into account the
notoriously inflated housing costs of the area, which certainly dampen the effects of higher wages for
lower- and middle-income households.
8
The Department of Finance details migration projections as follows: “Migration proportions were
developed for the decade of the 1990s by a survived population method. The 1990 population was aged
forward in time to 2000 by adding recorded births to form new cohorts and subtracting deaths from
existing cohorts. The survived 1990 population was compared to the 2000 population and differences
were assumed to be migration. The ten-year migration was annualized and divided by the total to derive a
proportion. Then a three-year moving average was used to smooth the migration proportions.” Available
online at: www.dof.ca.gov/HTML/DEMOGRAP/DRU_Publications/Projections/P1.htm
9
Landis and Reilly, “How we will grow,” 7.
10
California Department of Finance, Demographic Research Unit. Population Projections by Race/Ethnicity,
Gender and Age, Report 03 P-3. May 2004.
11
Laura Hill and Hans Johnson, Understanding the Future of Californians’ Fertility: The Role of
Immigrants. San Francisco: The Public Policy Institute of California, 2002, 27. Available online at:
www.ppic.org/content/pubs/R_402LHR.pdf
12
Hill and Johnson, 33—57.
13
The Hill and Johnson study provides two alternate scenarios for population projections and comments
on the implications of these predictions. Those interested in such alternate scenarios may find it useful to
read the full study.
14
Economic Policy Institute/Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Pulling Apart: A State-by-State Analysis
of Income Trends, April 2002. Available online at: www.cbpp.org/4-23-02sfp-ca.pdf.
15
Jennifer Cheesman Day and Kurt J. Bauman. “Have We Reached the Top? Educational Attainment
Projections of the U.S. Population.” Population Division, U.S. Census Bureau. Working Paper No. 43.
Available online at: www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0043/twps0043.pdf.
16
U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Consumer Expenditures in 2001. “Table 8.
Region of residence: Average annual expenditures and characteristics.” Available online at:
http://stats.bls.gov/cex/csxann01.pdf.
17
Food away from home refers to food purchased at other outlets than grocery and convenience stores,
although the growing prevalence of take-out food means that some of “food away from home” may be
consumed physically in the home. The category refers largely to schools, cafeterias, restaurant and
prepared foods over which the consumer has less control of and knowledge about ingredients and
preparation.
18
Noel Blissard, Biing-Hwan Lin, John Cromartie, Nicole Ballenger. “America’s Changing Appetite: Food
Consumption and Spending to 2020.” Food Review Vol. 25 (1) May 2002. Available online at:

7.12
 The Impact of Population Shifts on the Food System in California in 2030

www.ers.usda.gov/publications/foodreview/may2002/frvol25i1a.pdf. The entire volume contains valuable

information on a variety of demographic trends that will impact consumer food choice and links agricultural
practice to these trends. Complete issue available at:
www.ers.usda.gov/publications/foodreview/may2002/
19
Blissard, et al., “Changing Appetite,” 6.
20
Brian Taylor, “Beyond The Gender Gap.” Institute of Transportation Studies Review, Vol 20 No. 2.
Berkeley, CA: U of California, 1997, p. 4.
21
Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Table 2200. Hispanic or Latino origin of reference person: Average annual expenditures and
characteristics,” Consumer Expenditure Survey, 2003. U.S. Department of Labor.
22
The CES provides data for Hispanic or Latino origin households as compared with two categories: Black
or African American and White, Asian, and All Other Races. Detailed data for White and Asian households
incorporates data for White and Asian familes of Hispanic origin. Therefore, given that the Hispanic and
Latino population statistics are among the most relevant for this paper, I have chosen to use the
standard table given by Hispanic or Latino origin of the head of household. (CES 2003, Table 2200).
23
Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Table 2. Income before taxes: Average annual expenditures and
characteristics,” Consumer Expenditure Survey, 2003. U.S. Department of Labor.
24
Other relevant features of food expenditure data may include topics outside the scope of this paper,
such as access to grocery store type food outlets by minority ethnic groups, as opposed to convenience
stories or small high-priced corner markets. While not discussed here, they are likely to have relevance for
this data.
25
Biing-Hwan Lin, Joanne Guthrie, Elizabeth Frazão. “Chapter 12: Nutrient Contribution of Food Away from
Home.” America's Eating Habits: Changes and Consequences. Agriculture Information Bulletin No. 750.
May 1999. Available online at: www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aib750/
26
Laura Lund, Sharon Sugerman, and Susan Foerster. “Prevalence of Obesity and Healthy Weight in
California Counties.” Available online at:
www.dhs.ca.gov/org/hisp/chs/OHIR/Publication/CoHlthFacts/HealthyWgt01.pdf.
27
California Department of Health Services. “The Obesity Problem.” California Obesity Prevention
Initiative. Available online at: www.dhs.ca.gov/ps/cdic/copi/html/problem.htm.
28
Lund, “Prevalence of Obesity.”
29
The CDC study cited here explains: “Medical costs associated with overweight and obesity may involve
direct and indirect costs (Wolf and Colditz, 1998; Wolf, 1998). Direct medical costs may include preventive,
diagnostic, and treatment services related to obesity. Indirect costs relate to morbidity and mortality
costs. Morbidity costs are defined as the value of income lost from decreased productivity, restricted
activity, absenteeism, and bed days. Mortality costs are the value of future income lost by premature
death.” National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion . “Overweight and Obesity:
Economic Consequences.” Nutrition and Physical Activity Division. Available online at:
www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/obesity/economic_consequences.htm#State-
level%20Estimated%20Costs%20of%20Obesity; California Department of Health Services. “The Obesity
Problem.” California Obesity Prevention Initiative. Available online at:
www.dhs.ca.gov/ps/cdic/copi/html/problem.htm; Elizabth Frazão. “Chapter One: High Costs of Poor
Eating Patterns in the United State.” America's Eating Habits: Changes and Consequences. Agriculture
Information Bulletin No. 750. May 1999. Available online at:
www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aib750/aib750a.pdf
30
CDHS, “The Obesity Problem.”; Kim Severson. “Worries about kids’ obesity growing.” San Francisco
Chronicle. March 31, 2004.
31
Food Research and Action Center. “State of the States: A Profile of Food and Nutrition Programs Across
the Nation.” February 2003. Available online at:
www.frac.org/html/news/State%20of%20the%20States.2004.pdf.
32
Elizabeth Adams, Laurence Grummer-Strawn, Gilberto Chavez. “Food Insecurity Is Associated with
Increased Risk of Obesity in California Women.” The Journal of Nutrition. 133:1070-1074, April 2003.
Available online at: www.nutrition.org/cgi/content/full/133/4/1070.
33
California WIC Association. “Hunger and Obesity in California WIC Families.” White paper. Available
online at: www.calwic.org/images/hunger_obesity.pdf

7.13
 The Impact of Population Shifts on the Food System in California in 2030

34
California WIC Association, “Hunger and Obesity in California WIC Families.”
35
Carolyn Dimitri and Catherine Greene. “Recent Growth Patterns in the U.S. Organic Foods Market.”
Agriculture Information Bulletin Number 777. Washington DC: USDA Economic Research Service, Market
and Trade Economics Division and Resource Economics Divison, 2002. Available online at:
www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aib777/aib777.pdf.
36
Ibid 6.
37
Ibid 6.
38
Gary D. Thompson. “Consumer Demand for Organic Foods.” Paper for presentation at the Annual
Meeting of the American Agricultural Economics Association. Salt Lake City, 1998. 4. Available online at:
http://agecon.lib.umn.edu/cgi-bin/pdf_view.pl?paperid=911.
39
Thompson, 4; Dimitri and Greene, 9.
40
Thompson, 7.
41 41
USDA AMS Farmers Markets. “Chart: Operating Markets.” Farmers Market Growth.
www.ams.usda.gov/farmersmarkets/FarmersMarketGrowth.htm.
42
Lisa Peñaloza, “Atravesando Fronteras/Border Crossings: A Critical Ethnographic Exploration of the
Consumer Acculturation of Mexican Immigrants.” Journal of Consumer Research, June 1994, vol. 21, 32-
54.
43
Barbard Robles, “Latino Families: Consumption and Purchasing Power.” LBJ School of Public Affairs,
University of Texas. Paper prepared for the Annie E. Casey Foundation, July 2003, 1.
44
Food Marketing Institute, “Executive Summary,” U.S. Hispanics. Washington DC, 2002, 3.
45
Thompson, 4.

7.14