IMMEDIATE RESPONSE REQUIRED et al 2007.pdfin the food industry. The global market for organic...

TH E A T R I U M, S O U T H E R N G A T E, C H I C H E S T E R, W E S T S U S S E X P019 8SQ

***IMMEDIATE RESPONSE REQUIRED***

Your article may be published online via Wiley's EarlyView® service (http://www.interscience.wiley.com/) shortly after receipt of corrections. EarlyView® is Wiley's online publication of individual articles in full-text HTML and/or pdf format before release of the compiled print issue of the journal. Articles posted online in EarlyView® are peer-reviewed, copy-edited, author-corrected, and fully citable via the article DOI (for further information, visit www.doi.org). EarlyView® means you benefit from the best of two worlds - fast online availability as well as traditional, issue-based archiving.

Please follow these instructions to avoid delay of publication READ PROOFS CAREFULLY

• This will be your only chance to review these proofs. Please note that once your corrected article is posted online, it is considered legally published, and cannot be removed from the Web site for further corrections.

• Please note that the volume and page numbers shown on the proofs are for position only.

ANSWER ALL QUERIES ON PROOFS (Queries for you to answer are attached as the last page of your proof.) • List all corrections and send back via e-mail to the production contact as detailed in the covering e-mail, or mark all corrections directly

on the proofs and send the scanned copy via e-mail. Please do not send corrections by fax or in the post.

CHECK FIGURES AND TABLES CAREFULLY • Check size, numbering, and orientation of figures. • All images in the PDF are downsampled (reduced to lower resolution and file size) to facilitate Internet delivery. These images will appear

at higher resolution and sharpness in the printed article. • Review figure legends to ensure that they are complete. • Check all tables. Review layout, title, and footnotes.

COMPLETE CTA (if you have not already signed one)

• Please send a scanned copy with your proofs. We cannot publish your paper until we receive the signed form.

OFFPRINTS

• 25 complimentary offprints of your article will be dispatched on publication. Please ensure that the correspondence address on your

proofs is correct for despatch of the offprints. If your delivery address has changed, please inform the production contact for the journal - details in the covering e-mail. Please allow six weeks for delivery.

Additional reprint and journal issue purchases

• Additional paper reprints (minimum quantity 100 copies) are available on publication to contributors. Quotations may be requested from mailto:[email protected]. Orders for additional paper reprints may be placed in advance in order to ensure that they are fulfilled in a timely manner on publication of the article in question. Please note that offprints and reprints will be dispatched under separate cover.

• PDF files of individual articles may be purchased for personal use for $25 via Wiley’s Pay-Per-View service (see http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/aboutus/ppv-articleselect.html).

• Please note that regardless of the form in which they are acquired, reprints should not be resold, nor further disseminated in electronic or print form, nor deployed in part or in whole in any marketing, promotional or educational contexts without further discussion with Wiley. Permissions requests should be directed to mailto:[email protected]

• Lead authors are cordially invited to remind their co-authors that the reprint opportunities detailed above are also available to them.

• If you wish to purchase print copies of the issue in which your article appears, please contact our Journals Fulfilment Department mailto:[email protected] when you receive your complimentary offprints or when your article is published online in an issue. Please quote the Volume/Issue in which your article appears.

http://www.interscience.wiley.com/

mailto:[email protected]

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/aboutus/ppv-articleselect.html



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

Journal of Consumer BehaviourJ. Consumer Behav. 6: 1–17 (2007)Published online in Wiley InterScience
(www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/cb.210
Q1
ROOFSWho are organic food consumers?A compilation and review of whypeople purchase organic foodRenee Shaw Hughner*, Pierre McDonagh, Andrea Prothero,Clifford J. Shultz II and Julie StantonMorrison School of Agribusiness
Q1and Resource Management, Arizona State University, 7001 E.

Williams Field Rd., Wanner Hall, Mesa, AZ 85212, USA

� T

*CorSchoArizoWanFax:E-ma

Cop

ECTED Phis paper integrates and synthesizes the findings of published research on organic food con-

sumption. We identify several themes that reflect the various rationales used by con-

sumers when deciding to purchase organic food. The literature clearly indicates that the word

‘‘organic’’ has many meanings, that consumers of organic foods are not homogeneous in

demographics or in beliefs, and that further research could help better describe the various

constituencies that are often lumped together as ‘‘organic food consumers’’. The organic

and broader food industries must better understand the variety of motivations, percep-

tions, and attitudes consumers hold regarding organic foods and their consumption if

their own long-term interests, as well as those of other stakeholders of foodmarketing, are

to be best served. We conclude with implications and suggestions for further research.
RCopyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. R
UNCOIntroduction

Interest in organic food has grown remarkablyas consumers and marketers react to popularmedia about health and environmental effectsof pesticides, genetically-modified organisms,and food safety. This gradual evolution ofattitudes toward the origins of the food we eathas not been sufficiently captured in most ofthe published literature about food-purchasingbehavior. Indeed, the rising popularity oforganic foods – a multi-billion dollar global

respondence to: Renee Shaw Hughner, Morrisonol of Agribusiness and Resource Management,na State University, 7001 E. Williams Field Rd.,

ner Hall, Mesa, AZ 85212, USA. Tel: 480-727-1570.480-727-1961.il: [email protected]

yright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

industry with accelerating growth – raisesimportant questions of interest to govern-ments, growers, distributors, retailers, industryplanners, and marketers. Among those ques-tions are: (1) Who is the organic foodconsumer? (2) What are the forces and factorsdriving organic food consumption? (3) Whatwill the organic market look like in the future?(4) What, if any, policies should be imple-mented to abet this market and consumerwelfare? The purpose of this paper is tosynthesize the findings of published studiesand thereby to begin answering these ques-tions.

Answering such questions requires recog-nition of the complexity and diversity ofconsumer decision-making vis-a-vis organics.One must first understand that individuals

Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Month 2007

DOI: 10.1002/cb

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

Q2

Q3

Q4

2 Renee Shaw Hughner et al.

UNCORRECT

interpret the term organic in a variety of waysand in a multitude of contexts. Consumerpurchase decisions are based on subjectiveexperiences and perceptions of organic foods.Therefore, in this paper we compile findingsfrom extant studies to extract the themes thatcan serve as the foundation for more in-depthresearch on organic food consumption. Weidentify several themes that reveal individuals’perceptions of organic food. We also identifyspecific advances needed in our understandingof the topic to provide a guide for futurestudies. Our goal is to provide lessons aboutorganic food consumers to the various stake-holders – growers, retailers/marketers, policy-makers, and special interest groups – such thattheir strategies better reflect consumer inter-ests and perceptions.

The global organic market

Published findings have produced commonal-ities and contradictions and so it is difficult tosay with confidence what the size of the globalorganic market actually is. It is possible,however, to make a number of observations.Firstly, and perhaps most importantly, theorganic market is growing; it has increasedconsiderably in recent years and is frequentlyregarded as one of the biggest growth marketsin the food industry. The global market fororganic food was estimated at US$ 20 billion in2002 (Fitzpatrick, 2002). In the United King-dom, the organic food market increased four-fold between 1988 and 1993 (DrummondQ2,1995), and doubled again between 1996 and1999 (DataMonitor in Murphy, 1999). Demandfor organic food was up 40 per cent in 1999and 55 per cent in 2000 and sales reportedlyincreased from £100 million in 1994 to £605million in 2000 (Palmer, 2001). The marketlikely will be worth £1.47 billion in 2005(BoxallQ3, 2000), thus supporting claims thatthe UK organic food market can now beclassified as mainstream rather than a nichemarket (Palmer, 2001). In Europe, morebroadly, it has been estimated that sales oforganic food will increase at a rate of 20 percent per annum.

Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

ED PROOFS

The U.S. market has grown similarly. Salesincreased from $78 million in 1980 toapproximately $6 billion in 2000 (e.g., McDo-nald, 2000; Miller, 1996), with an averageannual increase of 24 per cent during the1990s (Organic TradeQ4 Association, 2001).These trends suggest sales in the market willexceed $20 billion by 2005 (Organic TradeAssociation, 2001; Soil Association, 2003).

Despite this global growth in consumerdemand and sales, the organic food market isstill relatively small. Organic farming globallyconstitutes a very small percentage of overallfarming, as little as one per cent of farming inmost OECD countries. However, organicfarming is generally on the rise. In the UnitedStates, while conventional farming is decreas-ing, organic farming is increasing by 12 percent annually. Organic farmers are also begin-ning to receive more government aid – a trendthat is expected to increase in the future(McDonald, 2000). Given the rapid andaccelerating growth of the organic foodmarket, an assessment of organic food con-sumers seems imperative.

Procedures

The focus of this research is twofold: one, toreview and synthesize the research concernedwith identifying organic consumers and two,to identify the reasons why consumers pur-chase and fail to purchase organic food. Thevolume of research in recent years pertainingto understanding organic consumers andconsumer attitudes toward organic food hasbeen immense. As organic food continues topermeate the grocery landscape, it is import-ant that researchers are mindful of what hasbeen learned, as well as the areas that have yetto be understood.

Several steps were used in selecting theliterature to be reviewed. First, we conducted abroad, interdisciplinary search for researchrelated to organic food published in the last 20years (1985–2005). Databases such as ABIInform Global Edition, AGRICOLA, Sociologi-cal Abstracts, PsychInfo, and EBSCO provided


DOI: 10.1002/cb

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

Q5

Who are organic food consumers? 3

hundreds of citations published since 1985,most since 1990. Following Hart’s (1998)review guidelines, we then narrowed thefocus to include only empirical studies identi-fying consumers’ beliefs about and/or beha-viors toward organic food. This means weeliminated all non-empirical – conceptual andeditorial – articles. We also eliminated researchfocused on associated topics (e.g., GMO foods,animal welfare), as well as research related toorganic farming and production methods.Although conclusions vary substantially acrossthe sample of studies identified (see Table 1for an overview), we sought common themesthat transcended study method or populationsampled. Fifteen themes that related to con-sumers’ opinions, feelings, intentions, and/orconsumption behavior concerning organicfood were identified. Table 2 provides anoverview of the themes identified.

UNCORRECTOrganic food consumers

Considerable confusion surrounding the term‘organic’ still exists (Chryssochoidis 2000).While many consumers have heard of the termand are aware of its central features – namely,that it is chemical-free – most are unfamiliarwith organic farming standards and practices(Davies et al., 1995; Harper and Makatouni,2002; Hill and Lynchehaun, 2002). Further-more, variables such as the level of marketdevelopment, the use of other positivelyassociated food terms (e.g., ‘cage-free’ and‘natural’) and the product category (e.g.,farmed salmon) can serve to heighten con-sumer confusion (Hutchins and Greenhalgh,1995; Fotopoulos and Krystallis, 2002; Aarsetet al., 2004).

While findings across research studies usingdemographic profiling are sometimes contra-dictory, there have been some consistentresults that have emerged across studies. Ingeneral, consumers of organic food are female(Davies et al., 1995; Food Marketing Institute,2001), have children living in the household(Thompson and Kidwell, 1998) and are older


ED PROOFS

(Roddy et al., 1996; Schifferstein and Ophuis1998; Cicia et al., 2002). Interestingly, youngerconsumers have been found to hold morepositive attitudes toward organically grownfood (Magnusson et al., 2001), yet olderconsumers are more likely to be purchasers.One explanation is that the price premiums onorganic food may be more affordable by olderrespondents. Hill and LynchehaunQ5 (2001)note that families are often introduced toorganic food with the arrival of a baby.‘‘Parents take a huge interest in the food theybuy for their family and increasingly many newparents are buying organic baby food. This isdramatically changing family eating habits’’ (p.530).

Attempts to classify organic food purchasersby income and education have been mixed.Studies have found both negative and positiverelationships between these demographicvariables and organic food preference (Wilkinsand Hillers, 1994; Chinnici et al., 2002;O’Donovan and McCarthy, 2002). In otherresearch, results have been inconclusive (Jolly,1991).

Research has also focused on identifying amore comprehensive, psychographic profile ofthe regular consumer of organic foods (RCOF).For RCOFs, ‘‘organic food consumption is partof a way of life. It results from an ideology,connected to a particular value system, thataffects personality measures, attitudes, andconsumption behavior’’ (Schifferstein andOphuis, 1998, p.119). The values of altruism(relationship with others), ecology (harmonywith the universe and sustainable future),universalism (protection of the welfare of allpeople and nature), benevolence (enhancingthe welfare of people with whom one is infrequent personal contact), spirituality (inner-harmony and unity with nature), and self-direction (independent thought and action)have all been connected to regular consumersof organic foods (Grunert and Juhl, 1995;Makatouni, 2002; Zanoli and Naspetti, 2002;Fotopoulos, Krystallis and Ness, 2003).

Consequently, organic food consumption isoften related to an alternative lifestyle thatincludes active environmentalism, vegetarianism,


DOI: 10.1002/cb

UNCORRECTED PROOFS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

Table

1.

Illu

stra

tive

rese

arch

pert

ain

ing

toco

nsu

mers

and

org

anic

foo

d

Refe

ren

ces

Co

un

try

of

rese

arch

Meth

od

and

fin

din

gs

Aar

setetal.

(20

04

)G

erm

any

No

rway

UK

Fra

nce

Spai

nG

rou

pp

anel

dis

cu

ssio

ns—

ex

plo

red

co

nsu

mers

’p

erc

ep

tio

ns

of

‘org

anic

’,‘o

rgan

icsa

lmo

n’,

and

the

role

of

regu

lato

ryau

tho

riti

es.

Fo

un

dco

nsi

dera

ble

co

nfu

sio

nas

tow

hat

co

nst

itu

tes

org

anic

salm

on

and

dif

fere

nces

ino

pin

ion

wit

hre

spect

toth

ero

lere

gu

lato

ryag

en

cie

ssh

ou

ldp

lay.

Fo

top

ou

losetal.

(20

03

)G

reece

Qu

alit

ativ

ein

terv

iew

s—

rela

ted

win

ech

oic

eto

co

nsu

mers

’val

ue

stru

ctu

res.

Fo

rb

uye

rso

fo

rgan

icw

ine,

attr

ibu

tes

led

toval

ues

of

sear

ch

ing

for

ple

asu

rein

life

,h

eal

thin

ess

-lon

gli

fe,

and

the

pu

rsu

ito

fq

ual

ity.

Oth

er

pro

du

ct

attr

ibu

tes

sati

sfied

need

sfo

rin

form

atio

nan

deth

no

cen

tris

m.

Heal

thin

ess

,q

ual

ity,

info

rmat

ion

,at

trac

tiven

ess

,an

dgo

od

tast

ew

ere

the

mai

nm

oti

vat

ion

alb

en

efi

tso

fw

ine

pu

rch

ase;

dis

tin

cti

on

betw

een

org

anic

and

no

n-b

uye

rsis

ino

rder

of

imp

ort

ance.

Mag

nu

sso

netal.

(20

03

)Sw

ed

en

Mai

lQ

uest

ion

nai

re—

self

-rep

ort

pu

rch

ase

of

org

anic

foo

ds

was

mo

stst

ron

gly

rela

ted

top

erc

eiv

ed

ben

efi

tfo

rh

um

anh

eal

th.

Perf

orm

ance

of

en

vir

on

men

tally

frie

nd

lyb

eh

avio

rsw

ere

go

od

pre

dic

tors

of

pu

rch

ase

freq

uen

cy.

Ego

isti

cm

oti

ves

are

bett

er

pre

dic

tors

of

the

pu

rch

ase

of

org

anic

foo

ds

than

are

altr

uis

tic

mo

tives.

Can

avar

ietal.

(20

02

)It

aly

Surv

ey

—ex

amin

ed

atti

tud

es

tow

ard

so

rgan

icap

ple

san

dco

nsu

mer

WT

P.

Mo

stw

illi

ng

top

aya

pre

miu

mto

eli

min

ate

pest

icid

es;

tho

sen

ot

cit

ed

skep

ticis

mo

ver

abil

ity

toeli

min

ate

pest

icid

es

or

beli

eved

co

nsu

mers

sho

uld

no

th

ave

top

ayfo

rfo

od

safe

ty.

Th

ree

co

var

iate

sim

pac

tW

TP

:h

igh

er

ed

ucat

ion

,am

ou

nt

of

fru

itco

nsu

med

,an

dp

erc

eiv

ed

en

vir

on

men

tal

eff

ect

of

org

anic

agri

cu

ltu

re.

Ch

inn

icietal.

(20

02

)It

aly

Qu

est

ion

nai

re—

reas

on

sco

nsu

mers

try

org

anic

foo

d:

heal

th,

cu

rio

sity

,an

den

vir

on

men

t.Fo

ur

segm

en

tso

fo

rgan

icco

nsu

mers

:‘p

ion

eers

’(p

urc

has

eat

the

sup

erm

ark

et

ou

to

fcu

rio

sity

);‘n

ost

algic

’(a

sso

cia

teo

rgan

icp

rod

uce

wit

hth

ep

ast)

;‘h

eal

thco

nsc

iou

s’(r

egu

larl

yp

urc

has

eo

rgan

icp

rod

uce

du

eto

heal

thco

ncern

s;p

refe

rsp

ecia

lize

dre

tail

ers

and

ex

pect

top

aya

pre

miu

m),

and

‘pra

gm

atis

t’(a

rek

no

wle

dgeab

le,

bu

tp

rice-s

en

siti

ve).

Cic

iaetal.

(20

02

)It

aly

Surv

ey

qu

est

ion

nai

re—

RC

OF

are

par

to

fa

ho

mo

gen

eo

us

segm

en

t,o

ften

rela

ted

toal

tern

ativ

eli

fest

yle.

Inclu

de

acti

ve

en

vir

on

men

tali

sts,

vegeta

rian

s,an

dal

tern

ativ

em

ed

icin

ep

racti

tio

ners

.O

ther

fin

din

gs:

org

anic

foo

db

ou

gh

tin

specia

lty

sho

ps,

mo

stw

illi

ng

top

ayp

rice

pre

miu

ms,

and

cert

ificat

ion

bo

ard

sar

en

ot

eq

ual

lytr

ust

ed

.Fo

top

ou

losetal.

(20

02

)G

reece

Qu

est

ion

nai

re—

ex

amin

ed

atti

tud

es

and

beh

avio

rso

fb

uye

rsan

dn

on

-bu

yers

of

org

anic

foo

d.

Fo

un

dth

ree

co

nsu

mer

gro

up

s:th

eU

naw

are;

the

Aw

are

no

n-b

uye

rs;

and

Bu

yers

of

org

anic

foo

d.

Psy

ch

ogra

ph

icp

atte

rns

were

iden

tifi

ed

for

these

segm

en

ts.

Org

anic

bu

yers

were

furt

her

segm

en

ted

into

fou

rgro

up

s:th

e‘‘

Ex

plo

rers

’’,

‘‘G

reen

s’’,

‘‘M

oti

vat

ed

s’’,

and

‘‘P

rice

sen

siti

ves’

’.

(Continues)

Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Month 2007

DOI: 10.1002/cb


UNCORRECTED PROOFS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

Table

1.

(Co

nti

nu

ed

)

Refe

ren

ces

Co

un

try

of

rese

arch

Meth

od

and

fin

din

gs

Sole

retal.

(20

02

)Sp

ain

Ex

peri

men

tal

aucti

on

mar

ket—

ex

amin

ed

co

nsu

mers

’w

illi

ngn

ess

top

ayfo

ro

rgan

ico

live

oil

.Fo

rmat

of

info

rmat

ion

(pers

on

ally

co

mm

un

icat

ed

vs.

wri

tten

)af

fecte

dW

TP

.D

ecis

ion

tob

uy

org

anic

rest

su

po

ntw

ost

ep

s:o

ne,

ind

ivid

ual

s’en

vir

on

men

tal

or

foo

dsa

fety

co

ncern

san

dtw

o,

amo

un

tto

pay

was

asso

cia

ted

wit

hso

cio

-eco

no

mic

var

iab

les.

Mak

ato

un

i(2

00

2)

U.K

.In

terv

iew

s—

RC

OFs

perc

eiv

eo

rgan

icfo

od

asa

mean

so

fac

hie

vin

gin

div

idu

alan

dso

cia

lval

ues.

Mo

stsi

gn

ifican

tm

oti

ve

for

ch

oo

sin

go

rgan

icis

cen

tere

do

nth

eh

eal

thfa

cto

r.V

alu

es

cen

tere

do

nth

een

vir

on

men

tan

dan

imal

welf

are

also

imp

ort

ant.

Har

per

and

Mak

ato

un

i(2

00

2)

U.K

.Fo

cu

sgro

up

—co

nsu

mers

ten

dto

co

nfu

seo

rgan

ican

dfr

ee-r

ange

pro

du

cts

.H

eal

than

dfo

od

safe

tyco

ncern

sar

eth

em

ain

mo

tives

for

pu

rch

asin

go

rgan

icfo

od

.A

nim

alw

elf

are

isu

sed

asan

ind

icat

or

of

oth

er

pro

du

ct

attr

ibu

tes,

such

assa

fety

and

heal

th.

Hil

lan

dLyn

ch

eh

aun

(20

02

)U

.K.

Fo

cu

sgro

up

san

dse

co

nd

ary

dat

a—

develo

ped

am

od

el

that

po

sits

the

pu

rch

ase

of

org

anic

mil

k.

Pu

rch

ase

dep

en

ds

up

on

avar

iety

of

facto

rs:

kn

ow

led

ge

facto

rs,

pers

on

alfa

cto

rs,

intr

insi

cfa

cto

rscu

ltu

ral

and

socia

lfa

cto

rs,

un

co

ntr

oll

able

facto

rs,

and

ex

trin

sic

facto

rs.

Can

avar

ietal.

(20

02

)It

aly

Mai

lsu

rvey

and

inte

rvie

wq

uest

ion

nai

re—

ex

plo

red

co

nsu

mer

atti

tud

es

tow

ard

so

rgan

icap

ple

sb

yan

alyz

ing

the

pri

ce-q

uan

tity

-qu

alit

yre

lati

on

ship

.T

he

firs

tin

ase

ries

of

rese

arch

tob

eco

nd

ucte

d;

fin

ds

furt

her

rese

arch

need

ed

.Z

ano

lian

dN

asp

ett

i(2

00

2)

Ital

yIn

terv

iew

s—

use

dm

ean

s-en

dch

ain

mo

dels

toli

nk

pro

du

ct

attr

ibu

tes

toco

nsu

mer

need

s.O

ccas

ion

alco

nsu

mers

attr

acte

db

yp

ers

on

alsa

tisf

acti

on

;im

po

rtan

tval

ues

are

‘‘ac

co

mp

lish

men

tan

dp

leas

ure

’’an

d‘‘

toget

the

mo

stfr

om

life

’’.

RC

OFs

are

gu

ided

by

the

val

ues

of

‘‘al

tru

ism

/rela

tio

nsh

ipw

ith

oth

ers

’’an

d‘‘

eco

logy,

har

mo

ny

wit

hth

eu

niv

ers

ean

dsu

stai

nab

lefu

ture

’’.

O’D

on

ovan

,an

dM

cC

arth

y(2

00

2)

Irela

nd

Inte

rvie

wq

uest

ion

nai

re—

ex

amin

ed

Iris

hco

nsu

mers

’p

erc

ep

tio

ns

of

org

anic

meat

.O

rgan

icm

eat

pu

rch

asers

pla

ced

mo

reim

po

rtan

ce

on

foo

dsa

fety

and

heal

than

db

eli

eved

org

anic

meat

sup

eri

or

inte

rms

of

qu

alit

y,sa

fety

,la

beli

ng,

pro

du

cti

on

meth

od

s,an

dval

ue.

Avai

lab

ilit

yan

dp

rice

were

iden

tifi

ed

asd

ete

rren

ts;

hig

her

socio

-eco

no

mic

gro

up

sm

ore

wil

lin

gto

pu

rch

ase.

To

rju

senetal.

(20

01

)N

orw

aySu

rvey

—fo

od

qu

alit

ytr

aits

such

asfr

esh

ness

and

tast

e,

term

ed

‘‘o

bse

rvat

ion

trai

ts’’

,w

ere

imp

ort

ant

toal

lco

nsu

mers

.O

rgan

icfo

od

pu

rch

asers

were

mo

reco

ncern

ed

abo

ut

eth

ical

,en

vir

on

men

tal,

and

heal

this

sues,

term

ed

‘‘re

flecti

on

trai

ts’’

.T

hre

eco

nsu

mer

ori

en

tati

on

sw

ere

iden

tifi

ed

:p

racti

cal

,lo

cal

,an

dso

cia

l.Sq

uir

es

et

al.

(20

01

)D

en

mar

kN

ew

Zeal

and

Acro

ss-c

ult

ura

lst

ud

yo

fo

rgan

icfo

od

co

nsu

mp

tio

n.

Rela

tio

nsh

ips

betw

een

heal

than

dd

iet

co

ncern

,en

vir

on

men

tal

co

ncern

,co

nfi

den

ce

inth

efo

od

ind

ust

ry,

dem

ogra

ph

icch

arac

teri

stic

s,an

din

ten

sity

of

org

anic

foo

dco

nsu

mp

tio

no

fco

nsu

mers

fro

mm

atu

rean

dn

ovic

eo

rgan

icfo

od

ind

ust

ries

were

invest

igat

ed

.C

on

cep

tual

fram

ew

ork

seval

uat

ed

top

red

ict

pri

ori

tyo

fco

ncern

sre

late

dto

the

level

of

org

anic

mar

ket

develo

pm

en

t

(Continues)


DOI: 10.1002/c


7

b

UNCORRECTED PROOFS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

Table

1.

(Co

nti

nu

ed

)

Refe

ren

ces

Co

un

try

of

rese

arch

Meth

od

and

fin

din

gs

Mag

nu

sso

netal.

(20

01

)Sw

ed

en

Mai

lsu

rvey

—m

ost

resp

on

den

tsh

eld

po

siti

ve

atti

tud

es

tow

ard

org

anic

,b

ut

rare

lyp

urc

has

ed

.M

ost

imp

ort

ant

cri

teri

on

,‘‘

go

od

tast

e’’

;le

ast

imp

ort

ant,

‘‘o

rgan

ical

lyp

rod

uced

’’.

Org

anic

foo

ds

perc

eiv

ed

tob

em

ore

ex

pen

sive

and

heal

thie

rth

anco

nven

tio

nal

lyp

rod

uced

foo

d,

bu

th

igh

pri

ce

ad

ete

rren

t.Lo

ure

iroetal.

(20

01

)U

nit

ed

Stat

es

Surv

ey

—lo

ok

ed

atco

nsu

mers

’ap

ple

ch

oic

es.

Fin

ds

the

pre

sen

ce

of

ch

ild

ren

un

der

18

inth

eh

ou

seh

old

,h

igh

er

foo

dsa

fety

,an

den

vir

on

men

tal

co

ncern

sin

cre

ase

the

lik

eli

ho

od

aco

nsu

mer

wil

lch

oo

seo

rgan

icap

ple

.C

hry

sso

ch

oid

is(2

00

0)

Gre

ece

Qu

est

ion

nai

re—

ex

plo

red

atti

tud

es

tow

ard

org

anic

foo

dp

rod

ucts

.V

aria

ble

snot

sign

ifican

tin

org

anic

pu

rch

ase

inte

nti

on

:eco

logic

alco

nsc

iou

sness

,p

urc

has

ing

ina

tho

ugh

tfu

lm

ann

er,

foo

d’s

app

ear

ance,

and

resp

on

den

tag

ean

din

co

me.

Resp

on

den

tsth

ink

there

are

dif

fere

nces

betw

een

org

anic

and

co

nven

tio

nal

pro

du

cts

,b

ut

co

nsi

der

the

actu

ald

iffe

ren

ces

tob

ein

sign

ifican

t.T

ho

mp

son

and

Kid

well

(19

98

)U

nit

ed

Stat

es

Actu

alch

oic

es

insp

ecia

lty

and

co

-op

reta

ilo

utl

ets

.‘S

tore

ch

oic

e’

affe

cts

the

pro

bab

ilit

yo

fp

urc

has

ing

org

anic

.‘P

rop

en

sity

top

urc

has

eo

rgan

ic’

and

‘level

of

inco

me’

pre

dic

ted

sto

rech

oic

e.

Hig

her

inco

me

ho

use

ho

lds

mo

reli

kely

toch

oo

sesp

ecia

lty

gro

cer

(less

lik

ely

top

urc

has

eo

rgan

ic).

Ho

use

ho

lds

wit

hch

ild

ren

mo

reli

kely

,h

igh

er-

ed

ucat

ed

co

nsu

mers

less

likely

,to

pu

rch

ase

org

anic

.Sc

hif

fers

tein

and

Op

hu

is(1

99

8)

Neth

erl

and

sW

ritt

en

surv

ey

—co

mp

ared

org

anic

foo

db

uye

rsto

gen

era

lp

op

ula

tio

n.

Org

anic

bu

yers

beli

eved

them

selv

es

mo

rere

spo

nsi

ble

for

their

heal

than

dw

ere

mo

reli

kely

tou

nd

ert

ake

pre

ven

tive

heal

thac

tio

n.

Reas

on

so

rgan

icfo

od

sp

urc

has

ed

inclu

ded

:w

ho

leso

men

ess

,ab

sen

ce

of

ch

em

ical

s,en

vir

on

men

tal

frie

nd

lin

ess

and

tast

e.

Suggest

so

rgan

icfo

od

co

nsu

mp

tio

nis

par

to

fa

way

of

life

.H

uan

g(1

99

6)

U.S

.G

eo

rgia

Mai

lsu

rvey

—co

nsu

mers

wh

oar

en

utr

itio

nal

lyco

nsc

iou

san

dco

ncern

ed

abo

ut

pest

icid

eu

seh

ave

ah

igh

er

pro

pen

sity

top

refe

ro

rgan

ical

lygro

wn

pro

du

ce.

Test

ing

and

cert

ificat

ion

,se

nso

ryq

ual

itie

san

dco

mp

eti

tive

pri

cin

gar

em

ost

imp

ort

ant

inen

han

cin

gm

ark

eti

ng

po

ten

tial

.R

od

dyetal.

(19

96

)Ir

ela

nd

Wri

tten

surv

ey

—id

en

tifi

ed

nin

ese

gm

en

tso

fco

nsu

mers

bas

ed

on

their

foo

dat

titu

des.

Fiv

egro

up

sp

oss

ess

ed

po

siti

ve

atti

tud

es

too

rgan

icfo

od

;p

rop

en

sity

top

urc

has

eo

rgan

icfo

od

refl

ecte

din

on

lytw

ogro

up

s.P

osi

tive

atti

tud

es

rela

ted

toth

eq

ual

ity,

safe

ty,

heal

th,

tast

ean

den

vir

on

men

t.N

eu

tral

or

negat

ive

atti

tud

es

du

eto

:sa

tisf

acti

on

wit

hcu

rren

tfo

od

,ex

pen

se,

and

lack

of

perc

eiv

ed

en

vir

on

men

tal

ben

efi

t.D

avie

setal.

(19

95

)Ir

ela

nd

Inte

rvie

ws

and

surv

ey

—ex

amin

ed

actu

alb

eh

avio

r.M

ain

reas

on

sfo

rp

urc

has

ing

org

anic

foo

ds:

heal

th,

en

vir

on

men

tan

dta

ste,

resp

ecti

vely

.P

red

om

inan

tre

aso

ns

for

no

tp

urc

has

ing:

avai

lab

ilit

yan

dp

rice.

Gen

der

(fem

ale),

level

of

dis

po

sab

lein

co

me,

and

pre

sen

ce

of

ch

ild

ren

ind

icat

eh

igh

er

lik

eli

ho

od

of

org

anic

foo

dp

urc

has

e.

En

vir

on

men

tal

co

ncern

do

es

no

tn

ecess

aril

yin

form

org

anic

pu

rch

asin

gb

eh

avio

r.

(Continues)


DOI: 10.1002/c


7

b

UNCORRECTED PROOFS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

Table

1.

(Co

nti

nu

ed

)

Refe

ren

ces

Co

un

try

of

rese

arch

Meth

od

and

fin

din

gs

Hu

tch

ins

and

Gre

en

hal

gh

(19

95

)U

nit

ed

Kin

gd

om

Surv

ey

—co

nsi

dera

ble

co

nfu

sio

nex

iste

dco

ncern

ing

org

anic

.am

on

go

rgan

icp

urc

has

ers

,h

eal

th,

and

ch

ild

ren

were

mo

stim

po

rtan

tre

aso

ns.

All

resp

on

den

tsd

esi

red

org

anic

foo

dto

be

avai

lab

lein

sup

erm

ark

ets

.R

esp

on

den

ts’

wil

lin

gto

pay

hig

her

pre

miu

ms

for

org

anic

meat

than

for

pro

du

ce

Gru

nert

and

Juh

l(1

99

5)

Den

mar

kW

ritt

en

surv

ey

—re

spo

nd

en

tsw

ith

stro

ng

en

vir

on

men

tal

atti

tud

es

were

mo

reli

kely

tob

uy

org

anic

foo

ds.

Th

eto

pval

ues

for

resp

on

den

tsh

old

ing

stro

ng

en

vir

on

men

tal

atti

tud

es

were

:p

rote

cti

ng

the

en

vir

on

men

t,u

nit

yw

ith

nat

ure

and

mat

ure

love.

Ro

dd

yetal.

(19

94

)Ir

ela

nd

Fo

cu

sgro

up

—n

on

eo

fth

ep

arti

cip

ants

had

bo

ugh

to

rgan

icfo

od

;b

ut

held

favo

rab

leb

eliefs

abo

ut

org

anic

foo

ds’

attr

ibu

tes.

Negat

ive

atti

tud

es

aro

sew

ith

regar

dto

pri

ce,

avai

lab

ilit

y,p

rom

oti

on

and

pac

kag

ing.

Th

en

eed

for

mo

rem

arketi

ng

and

pro

mo

tio

nto

incre

ase

awar

en

ess

was

ex

pre

ssed

.W

ilk

ins

and

Hil

lers

(19

94

)W

ash

ingto

n,

U.S

.Q

uest

ion

nai

re—

co

mp

ared

togen

era

lp

op

ula

tio

n,

mem

bers

of

afo

od

co

-op

had

stro

nger

atti

tud

es

abo

ut

foo

dan

den

vir

on

men

tal

issu

es,

and

ah

igh

er

pre

fere

nce

for,

and

mo

refr

eq

uen

tco

nsu

mp

tio

no

f,o

rgan

icfo

od

.P

est

icid

ere

sid

ue

co

ncern

was

anex

pla

nat

ory

var

iab

lefo

ro

rgan

icfo

od

pre

fere

nce

inb

oth

gro

up

s;h

ow

ever,

en

vir

on

men

tal

co

ncern

was

no

tan

ex

pla

nat

ory

var

iab

lefo

reit

her

gro

up

.T

regear

etal.

(19

94

)U

nit

ed

Kin

gd

om

Mai

lan

dte

lep

ho

ne

surv

eys

—o

rgan

icp

rod

uce

perc

eiv

ed

tob

eh

eal

thy,

en

vir

on

men

tall

yfr

ien

dly

,an

db

ett

er

tast

ing

than

co

nven

tio

nal

.A

pp

ear

ance

no

ta

dis

incen

tive

top

urc

has

e;

ex

pen

sew

as.

Byr

ne

et

al.

(19

92

)U

.S.

Dela

war

eSu

rvey

—fr

esh

ness

,fl

avo

r,an

dn

utr

itio

nw

ere

mo

stin

flu

en

tial

inco

nsu

mer

foo

dp

urc

has

ed

ecis

ion

s.R

eveal

ed

co

nsu

mers

’co

nfu

sio

np

ert

ain

ing

too

rgan

icp

rod

uce.

Maj

ori

tyo

fco

nsu

mers

sati

sfied

wit

hco

nven

tio

nal

fresh

pro

du

ce.

Ed

ucat

ion

was

invers

ely

co

rrela

ted

wit

ho

rgan

icp

urc

has

es;

fem

ales

mo

reli

kely

top

urc

has

eo

rgan

icp

rod

uce

and

;av

aila

bil

ity

was

top

dete

rren

t.G

old

man

and

Cla

ncy

(19

91

)U

.S.

New

Yo

rkSu

rveye

dfo

od

co

-op

sho

pp

ers

—ex

plo

red

rela

tio

nsh

ipb

etw

een

org

anic

pro

du

ce

pu

rch

ases

and

atti

tud

es

rela

ted

top

est

icid

eu

sean

dfo

od

co

sts.

Regu

lar

pu

rch

asers

of

org

anic

pro

du

ce

had

hig

her

levels

of

co

ncern

abo

ut

foo

dsa

fety

and

were

less

co

ncern

ed

abo

ut

pri

ce,

inse

cts

,an

dsu

rfac

eb

lem

ish

es.

No

rela

tio

nsh

ipb

etw

een

inco

me

and

freq

uen

cy

of

org

anic

pu

rch

ases

fou

nd

.O

tt(1

99

0)

U.S

.Q

uest

ion

nai

resu

rvey

—su

rveye

dal

lco

nsu

mers

;h

alf

ex

pre

ssed

co

ncern

abo

ut

pest

icid

eu

se.

Tw

o-t

hir

ds

were

WT

Ph

igh

er

pri

ces

too

bta

incert

ified

pest

icid

e-fre

ep

rod

uce,

bu

tw

ere

un

wil

lin

gto

accep

tco

smeti

cd

efe

cts

.Sh

op

pers

pre

ferr

ed

cert

ificat

ion

by

ind

ep

en

den

tla

bo

rato

ries.

Wh

ite,

co

llege-e

du

cat

ed

,m

idd

le-t

o-h

igh

er

inco

me

sho

pp

ers

iden

tifi

ed

asp

ote

nti

alta

rget

mar

ket.

Joll

y(1

99

1)

U.S

.C

alif

orn

iaM

ail

surv

ey

—fo

un

dsa

fety

,fr

esh

ness

,gen

era

lh

eal

thb

en

efi

ts,

nu

trit

ion

alval

ue,

en

vir

on

men

tal

eff

ect,

flav

or,

and

app

ear

ance

of

pro

du

ct

were

imp

ort

ant

inch

oo

sin

go

rgan

icfo

od

s


DOI: 10.1002/cb


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

Table 2. Themes identified among buyers andnon-buyers of organic food

I. Consumers’ purchasing motivesTheme 1. Health and nutritional concernTheme 2. Superior tasteTheme 3. Concern for the environmentTheme 4. Food safety, lack of confidence

in the conventional food industryTheme 5. Concern over animal welfareTheme 6. Support of local economyTheme 7. More wholesomeTheme 8. NostalgiaTheme 9. Fashionable/Curiosity

II. DeterrentsTheme 10. High price premiumsTheme 11. Lack of organic food availability,

poor merchandisingTheme 12. Skepticism of certification boards

and organic labelsTheme 13. Insufficient marketingTheme 14. Satisfaction with current food sourceTheme 15. Sensory defects

Q6


UNCORRECTand/or alternative medicine (Cicia et al., 2002).Research has found that RCOFs are highinternal locus of control individuals whobelieve in self-responsibility for health andare more likely to undertake preventativehealth action (Makatouni, 2002). In general,RCOFs strongly associate health with diet,believe that eating healthily is more effectivethan medication in managing illness, and striveto stay abreast of the latest advancements inhealth and nutrition research (Schifferstein andOphuis, 1998; Squires et al., 2001). Zanoli andNaspetti (2002) found health to be the mostimportant motive in the purchase of organicfoods among both regular and occasionalconsumers of organic food. For regularpurchasers, health attributes were found tobe associated with the transcendental values ofaltruism and ecology; occasional consumers, incontrast, were motivated by personal goals of‘pleasure’ and ‘getting the most from life’.

In addition, RCOFs are characterized byenvironmental and animal welfare concerns(Schifferstein and Ophuis, 1998), hold positiveattitudes towards cooking and grocery shop-ping, and have a tendency to be less religious(Wilkins and Hillers, 1994).


S

Motives for the purchase andnon-purchase of organic food

Fifteen themes integrate the results of studiesexplaining consumer attitudes toward organicfood. These themes are classified into twobroad areas: consumers’ purchasing motivesand hindrances to purchasing.

ED PROOF

Consumers’ motives

Theme 1: Is healthier

The overwhelming majority of studies find‘health’ to be the primary reason consumersbuy organic foods (Tregear et al., 1994; Huang,1996; Hutchins and GreenhalghQ6, 1997;Schifferstein and Ophuis, 1998; Chinniciet al., 2002; Zanoli and Naspetti, 2002).Consumers buy organic because of their desireto avoid the chemicals used in conventionalfood production (Ott, 1990; Jolly, 1991;Wilkins and Hillers, 1994). The use ofpesticides is perceived to be associated withlong-term and unknown effects on health(Hammit, 1990). Perceived healthiness oforganic food is a parameter of quality formany consumers (Wandel and Bugge, 1997;Magnusson et al., 2001). Some studies havefound that consumers believe organic food tobe more nutritious (Jolly, 1991; Hill andLynchehaun, 2002). Noteworthy, to date therehas not been conclusive evidence that organicfood is more nutritious (Williams, 2002).Magnusson et al. (2003) find that healthconcern is a better predictor of the purchaseof organic food than concern for the environ-ment, and conclude that egoistic motives arebetter predictors of the purchase of organicfoods than are altruistic motives.

Theme 2: Tastes better

Several studies have found ‘taste’ to be amongthe most important criteria in organic foodpurchases (Roddy et al., 1996; Schiffersteinand Ophuis, 1998; Magnusson et al., 2001).Hill and Lynchehaun (2002) suggest thatbecause of the high prices associated with


DOI: 10.1002/cb

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56


organic food, consumers perceive organic foodto be higher quality than conventionally grownfood, which informs their perceptions of taste.Interestingly, Fillion and Arazi (2002) con-ducted a series of blind taste-tests betweenorganic and non-organic orange juice and milk.They found that organic orange juice wasperceived as tasting better than conventionalorange juice; however, no differences werefound between organic and conventional milk.The authors concluded that the global claim‘organic food tastes better’ is thus not valid forall organic food categories. Nonetheless, con-sumers of organic food do perceive tasteadvantages over conventional alternatives.

UNCORRECTTheme 3: Environmental concern

Many studies have found environmental con-cern to be a factor in consumers’ attitudestowards organic foods (Roddy et al., 1996;Wandel and Bugge, 1997; Squires et al., 2001;Soler et al., 2002). Organic consumers view thechemicals and pesticides used in conventionalfood products as being environmentally harm-ful, while organic foods are perceived as beingenvironmentally friendly (Ott, 1990; Jolly,1991; Wilkins and Hillers, 1994). Thoughenvironmental concern has been demon-strated to have a favorable influence onconsumer attitudes, many studies have foundthat it is not a driving factor of organic foodpurchase. Rather, perceptions of good health,nutrients, and taste are more important in thepurchase of organic food (Mitsostergios andSkiadas, 1994; Tregear et al., 1994; Shiffersteinand Ophuis, 1998; Zanoli and Naspetti, 2002;Magnusson et al., 2003).

Theme 4: Concern over food safety

Concern about food safety has also beenidentified as a reason for the purchase oforganically-produced food (Jolly, 1991; Schif-ferstein and Ophuis, 1998; Soler et al., 2002).Recent food scares such as BSE (mad cowdisease), foot and mouth, salmonella, andEscherichia coli 0157 outbreaks have con-


OOFS

tributed to increasing concerns about conven-tional food production methods. One studyeven found that after the September 11terrorist attacks in the United States, Americanrespondents reported increased intention topurchase organic food (Organic ConsumersAssociation, 2001). Some research hassuggested that consumers view organic farm-ing methods to be safer than conventionalintensive farming (Lacy, 1992; Kouba, 2003).Of note, many studies did not clearly define the‘food safety’ construct (e.g., Squires et al.,2001), leaving it to the respondent to developtheir own interpretations.

ED PR

Theme 5: Concern over animal welfare

Expectations of better animal welfare inorganic production systems also motivateorganic buyers, though to a lesser extent thando health and environmental concerns (Hilland Lynchehaun, 2002; Aarset et al., 2004).Animal welfare is a multi-level construct whichcontains both nutritional and social com-ponents; it is used by respondents as anindicator of food quality, food safety, andhumane treatment of livestock (Torjusen et al.

2001; Harper and Makatouni, 2002).

Theme 6: Supports local economy

and helps to sustain traditional cooking

Some research has found that people havefavorable attitudes toward and/or buy organicfood because they believe it supports the localeconomy. This most probably reflects a beliefthat organic food is locally grown, perhaps bysmaller, family-owned farms. Somewhatrelated, Fotopoulos and Krystallis (2002) notethat Greek organic food buyers have strongethnocentric tendencies in food-related mat-ters and use this as a purchase criterion.

Themes 7 through 9: Is wholesome,

reminiscent of the past, and fashionable

Themes 7 through 9 are discussed briefly inone paragraph since these findings have either


DOI: 10.1002/cb

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56


NCORRECT

not been widely found and/or elucidated.Schifferstein and Ophuis (1998) found thatconsumers perceived organic food to be morewholesome. It is unclear, however, whatrespondents meant by ‘wholesome’. Hill andLynchehaun (2002) suggest that some peoplenow perceive organic food to be fashionablebecause of the considerable coverage in themedia it has received, the recent promotionalcampaigns and the high prices associated withorganic food. Chinnici et al. (2002) found onesegment of consumers whose purchase oforganic food is motivated mainly by curiosity.Lastly, Chinnici et al. (2002) identified a‘‘nostalgic’’ segment of respondents who‘‘associate the consumption of organic pro-duce with the genuineness and tastes of thepast’’ (p. 194).

The rankings of the aforementioned reasonsconsumers buy organic foods may differamong countries and may change over time(Davies et al., 1995). Squires et al. (2001, p. 9)note that appropriate ranking ‘‘requires anunderstanding of macroenvironmentalelements such as health care and publiceducational programs, as well as marketcharacteristics’’. While this may be, thefindings of the dozens of research studiesreviewed for this paper revealed that healthwas consumers’ primary reason for thepurchase of organic food. Taste (quality) andenvironmental concerns usually followed astop-ranked reasons. Denmark is a notableexception to this finding, where one’s environ-mental concern seems to be the primarymotivator among respondents.

UClosing in on the attitude-behavior

gap—deterrents to purchase

Despite the generally favorable attitudes con-sumers hold, research has illustrated a dis-crepancy between consumer attitudes towardsorganic food and actual purchase behavior(Roddy et al., 1996). As an example, Magnus-son et al. (2001) found that between 46 and67 per cent of the population, depending uponthe food category, held positive attitudes


toward organic food; however, only four toten per cent of the same consumers indicatedan intention to purchase those foods. Thefollowing section is a synthesis of the factorswhich dissuade consumers from purchasingorganic foods.

ED PROOFS

Theme 10: Rejection of high prices

The high price of organic food has been foundto be the main obstacle in its purchase (Byrneet al., 1992; Tregear et al., 1994; Roddy et al.,1996; Magnusson et al., 2001; Zanoli andNaspetti, 2002). As a result, willingness to pay(WTP) has been the focus of several studies.Research has found that consumers are willing,at least hypothetically, to pay a premium fororganically grown food; however, many arenot willing to pay as much as the currentmarket price premiums (Millock 2002).

Few studies have looked at the factors thatinfluence WTP. Soler et al. (2002) found thatWTP increases when consumers are presentedwith information on reference prices for theirconventionally produced counterparts. Theyalso found that when consumers were giveninformation about organic products verbally,as opposed to in a written leaflet format, WTPincreased. WTP a premium price for organicproducts has been found to decrease with ageand increase with strongly held attitudestowards the environment, food safety, andthe presence of younger children in thehousehold (Canavari et al., 2002; Soler et al.,2002).

The high price premiums associated withorganically produced food result in ambiguousconsumer signals. While consumers indicatethe high price of organic food to be prohibitivein their purchasing behaviors, they use price toform opinions about the quality and taste oforganic food items. Hill and Lynchehaun(2002) suggest that the mixed opinions theyfound about whether organic milk tasteddifferent from conventionally produced milkwas based on consumers’ perceptions thathigh price meant better quality, which cuedthem to believe this should lead to a difference


DOI: 10.1002/cb

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56


in taste. While WTP research has mainlyfocused on consumers’ WTP higher retailprices, Canavari et al. (2002) found that 30per cent of consumers surveyed in a conven-tional Italian supermarket favored paying pricepremiums directly to farmers.

Theme 11: Lack of availability

The lack of availability and/or inconvenienceassociated with purchasing organic food pre-sents a further obstacle to its purchase (Zanoliand Naspetti, 2002).

D
CT
Theme 12: Skepticism of certification

boards and organic labels

Another setback in the purchase of organicfood is the level of consumer skepticismsurrounding organic food labels. Some Euro-pean studies have found that consumers tendto distrust certification bodies, leading them toquestion the genuineness of organic products(Ott, 1990; Canavari et al., 2002; Aarset et al.,2004).
E
UNCORRTheme 13: Insufficient marketing

Several studies seem to indicate that organicfood has been insufficiently promoted andmerchandized. Consumers’ lack of organicfood knowledge, the dearth of organic foodpromotion, and ineffective retailing strategies(merchandising and displays) have negativelyinfluenced consumers (Roddy et al. 1996;Chryssochoidis 2000). Interestingly, Hill andLynchehaun (2002) found that location oforganic milk was very important to bothregular and infrequent organic food purcha-sers. ‘‘All of the consumers agreed that theywould prefer organic milk to be positionedbeside standard organic milk – reasons includefor making price comparisons, habitual shop-ping behavior’’ (p.537). Respondents alsostated that they found organic milk packagingto be subdued and liked the more ‘‘bright,modern, and colorful’’ packaging (p.537).Finally, the finding that some consumers fail


to perceive any benefits or value to purchasingorganic food may point to the paucity and/orineffectiveness of organic food promotion(Latacz-Lohmann and Foster, 1997).

PROOFSTheme 14: Satisfaction with current

food source

Roddy et al. (1994) found consumer satisfac-tion with conventional food to be a key reasonfor not purchasing organic food. Further,Magnusson et al. (2001) found that Swedishconsumers’ most important purchase criterionfor food was ‘taste’ and that ‘organic’ was theleast important criterion. Byrne et al. (1992)also found that organic criteria and criteriarelated to food safety, were not among the topfactors influencing consumers’ food purchas-ing decisions.

ETheme 15: Cosmetic defects

Some researchers have found that consumersare unwilling to accept the blemishes orimperfections often present in organic pro-duce. Such cosmetic defects tend to deterconsumers from purchasing organic produce(Ott, 1990; Thompson and Kidwell, 1998).

Discussion

The preceding literature review sheds light onseveral key issues and elucidates our currentstate of knowledge pertaining to consumerattitudes and buying behavior towards organicfood. In addition, it points to gaps in ourunderstanding. In the following section, adiscussion of the key issues that arise from thethemes identified is presented.

Future research needs

The OCOF—occasional consumer

of organic food

Much research has examined the demographiccharacteristics of organic food purchasers; farfewer studies have investigated the psycho-graphic characteristics of these consumers.


DOI: 10.1002/cb

P

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56


CORRECT

Demographically, there have been mixedfindings. In addition, consumers vary in theemphases they place on attributes of organicfood, production methods, and in their viewon market factors, such as price premiums. Amore psychographic approach focusing onvalues, attitudes, and lifestyles could revealprofiles of organic food consumers that areable to be more widely generalized.

A few studies have attempted to developprofiles and descriptions of the regular

consumer of organic food; those ‘hard core’consumers who shop mainly from local foodco-operatives and account for a relatively smallpercentage of organic food purchases. Yet,many organic products have become common-place in conventional supermarkets. Littleknowledge exists pertaining to the motivationsand characteristics of the occasional organicfood consumer—those consumers who pur-chase select categories of organic foods (suchas milk) or occasionally purchase organicproducts from large grocery chain retailers.

That there is no single description of anorganic food consumer and his/her motiv-ations could be a partial explanation for whyconsumers express everything from confusionabout organic food to frustration aboutproduct availability. With the provision of agreater understanding of both current andincipient purchasers and their motivations, theindustry could begin to address consumerneeds more effectively and one could theorizemore meaningfully about how people useorganic food in their daily lives.

UNThe distinction between consumers

and purchasers

Of the many studies selected for review, notone differentiated between purchasers andconsumers of organic products. Consumersliving in households with young children havea higher likelihood of purchasing organicproducts. Is the organic food purchased onlyfor their children or is it bought for the entirefamily’s consumption? Are there identifiablepatterns that reflect the adoption process of


organic food by various households members?Certainly, these answers are of importance tomarketers.

ROOFSInformation sources

Very little research has examined the sourcesof information that inform consumers’ organicfood knowledge. The current environmentpresents the potential to inform consumers in avariety of ways—internet, print advertising,television, word-of-mouth, retail outlets, etc.Are there differences or similarities amongregular, occasional, and infrequent organicfood purchasers in the information sourcesthey seek and/or consider credible?

ED Methodological perspectives

Survey methods characterize most of thestudies reviewed here. While such methodsfacilitate the collection of data from largersample sizes and enable greater predictivecapability, they are not sufficient in under-standing the complexity inherent in consu-mers’ organic food beliefs and consumptionbehaviors. Traditional survey questionnairesare too simplistic to fully understand theconnections between value systems andaction. More psychographic or holisticresearch could reveal greater depth andmeaning and thereby better describe consu-mer motivations. For example, ‘‘food safety’’was a construct found to be a motivator in thepurchase of organic food. However, in mostcases, we were unclear as to the meaningconsumers attributed to this term. Do con-sumers believe organic food to be safer due tothe absence of chemicals, the perception thatorganic food it is not mass-produced, or theactual security measures governing the grow-ing of the crops? Without careful considerationof how the term is understood, it is impossiblefor researchers to understand the underlyingmotives driving the decision making process.

Future research needs to incorporate moreinterpretative types of research methods inorder to provide richer insight into consumer


DOI: 10.1002/cb

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56


motivations and interpretations of the organicfood purchase and consumption experiences.At the beginning of this paper we quoteSchifferstein and Ophuis (1998) who talkabout buying organic food as being ‘‘a wayof life’’ for RCOFs. However, we have no realsense of what this way of life actually involves.Thus, interpretative research which considersthe lived experience of organic consumers isneeded to further our knowledge and under-standing of organic food consumption and theorganic food consumer.

ED

UNCORRECT

Move to the mainstream—the business

of organic food

For years, organics were the exclusive pro-vince of small independent farmers. In the lastdecade, however, many large food companieshave entered the organic marketplace. Somehave overtly created their own brands oforganic foods (e.g., Frito-Lay’s Naturals pro-duct line; Tesco’s organic range in the UK andIreland), while others have been considerablymore discreet (e.g., Odwalla, makers of organicorange juice, is owned by Minute Maid, adivision of Coca Cola). The entrance of massorganic-food producers and retailers carrieswith it an inherent tension between theprinciples of sustainable farming and theimperatives of big business. Noteworthy, isthe paucity of research that has dealt with theabove described move to the mainstream.From farming to retailing practices, organicfood production, and marketing processes arerapidly changing. It is logical to believe that forsome consumers this information wouldinfluence their attitudes and subsequentbehavior toward organic food. The questionis how, and to what extent.

Solving the paradoxes

Two paradoxes become apparent: the healthparadox and the price paradox. Consumersbuy organic food primarily due to its perceivedhealth benefits. This is interesting, as there hasbeen no evidence that organic food is actually


PROOFS

healthier (Williams, 2002). Does the growth ofthe organic food market hinge upon healthclaims? Will there be repercussions should itbe proven that there is no health advantage toorganic food?

Additionally, to many consumers the highprices characteristic of organic food constitutea deterrent to its purchase; they do not believethe value of organic food to be worth the highpremiums often times charged. Yet, researchhas noted that when organic food is pricedlower, consumers tend to infer the low-er-priced organic food is of lower quality andhas fewer benefits. If quality translates to‘health’, then the lowering of prices reducesorganic food’s differentiating feature – per-ceived healthfulness. Striking the balancebetween these two forces is an importantchallenge for the industry.

Implications

The themes identified in this review suggestthat the stakeholders of organic foods havemuch to do if the industry is to grow and toserve the varied consumer interests. Even thebasic understanding of what ‘organic’ means isnot universal. If consumers cannot distinguishorganic from conventional food on reasonablecriteria, it is not surprising that they do notpurchase organics at greater rates. It isincumbent on marketers, retailers, and produ-cers to better convey relevant information toconsumers. Appropriate educational materialsthat could broaden the organic food consumerbase need to be developed. Marketers need toinclude information pertaining to productionmethods, environmental benefits, positivecontributions to local economies, etc. By notengaging in proactive, strategic marketing, theindustry has left consumers to figure it out ontheir own.

The themes also revealed that some con-sumers are concerned about food safety, have atendency to distrust government agencies, andyet are not fully educated about organic food.As a result, it is imperative that growers


DOI: 10.1002/cb

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56


recognize their own stake in the image oforganic food as the image is generated byothers in the value chain. As large corporationsextend their own offerings to include organiclines – along with conventional foods – eveneducated consumers may begin to doubt theauthenticity of the ‘organic’ label. Growersmust remain active participants in the valuechain through which their products move inorder to protect the investment they havemade.

UNCORRECT

Concluding thoughts

Our study shows the need for further researchto better understand the organic consumer,whilst also recognizing that current consu-mers, both regular and occasional, are con-fused on many fronts. As the global productionof organic food is expected to grow substan-tially, what appears clear from our research isthat marketing academics have an importantrole to play in generating further insights intounderstanding the organic consumer and themarketing system in which they must makepurchase decisions and consume organicproducts. This information may then beutilized to aid consumers, the food industry(growers and retailers alike), policy makers,and special interest groups. Such research alsowill be useful in helping consumers, retailers,and producers better understand what organicmeans in the public sphere and the impact ofmedia in its representation. Research can alsoinform the industry and policy makers on whatmarketing strategies will be useful in educatingand informing the public on the one hand;whilst also providing tactical advice on packa-ging, communications, pricing strategies, andso forth. To this end, marketers might helpproduce a ‘convergence of interests’ strategyfor all interested parties in the production andconsumption of organic food, as well as adviseon policy which elucidates rather than obfus-cates the organic question.

A recent special issue on ‘‘the representa-tion of food in everyday life’’ (McDonagh andProthero, 2005) recognized that the study of


ED PROOFS

food in the 21st century ‘‘is filled withparadoxes, confusion, and dilemmas’’. At thesame time a recent review of 20 years ofconsumer research (Arnold and Thompson,2005) found that studies which have led to ‘‘adistinctive body of theoretical knowledgeabout consumption and marketplace beha-viors’’ have been largely sociocultural, experi-ential, symbolic, or ideological in nature. Thus,it seems consumer research into organic foodconsumption, by focusing primarily on demo-graphic issues, is in its infancy theoretically.Future research in the area is now needed tomove beyond what we have seen over the past20 years and embrace some of the themesbeing identified in the consumer research fieldgenerally, and the food consumption field,specifically. Consequently, consumer resear-chers, producers, retailers, and policy makerswill then benefit from a richer understandingof the organic food consumer, than that whichhas been offered to date. Thus, the nextresearch question for researchers in this field,we would argue, should ask, not who is theorganic food consumer; but moreover how doorganic food consumers use the products intheir everyday lives? What are her/his livedexperiences and how can our understanding ofthese experiences aid consumption knowl-edge to facilitate a richer understanding ofconsumption and marketplace behavior?

Biographical notes

Renee Shaw Hughner, PhD, is an Assistant Pro-fessor of marketing at Arizona State University.In addition to the organic food industry, herresearch focuses on policy issues related to themarketing of children’s food products. She hasalso published research on the understandingof lay health behaviors. She received her doc-torate at the Arizona State University andtaught in the Food Marketing Department atSt. Joseph’s University before joining the Mor-rison School of Agribusiness at Arizona StateUniversity.Pierre McDonagh (PhD Cardiff University, Wales)is Lecturer in Marketing at Dublin City Univer-


DOI: 10.1002/cb

FS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56


UNCORRECT

sity Business School. He has published exten-sively on social issues in marketing, includingediting Green Management: A Reader (ITBP,1997), a special issue of the European Journalof Marketing on Societal Marketing (2002) anda special issue of Consumption Markets &Culture on Food, Markets & Culture (2004).Current projects include guest editing theJournal of Strategic Marketing’s Special Issueon Fair Trade and he is joint Global Policy andEnvironment Editor for the Journal of Macro-marketing (with Andy Prothero and Bill Kil-bourne) and European Editor of the Academyof Marketing Science Review.Andrea Prothero is Senior Lecturer in Marketingat University College Dublin. Andy graduatedwith a BSc in Business Administration and aPhD from the University of Cardiff. She joinedthe marketing department of UCD in 1999. Herresearch activity falls into the key area ofmacromarketing; where the main focus is anassessment of the impact of marketing activi-ties upon society. The key research areas she iscurrently associated with are Sustainable Con-sumption, Organic Food Consumption,Families & Consumption and Advertising toChildren. She has published widely in theseareas, has secured a number of research grants,and sits on several editorial review boards.Clifford J. Shultz, II, holds a PhD from ColumbiaUniversity, and is Professor and Marley Founda-tion Chair at Arizona State University. Hisprimary research focus is marketing and devel-opment in recovering economies, for example,the Balkans and Southeast Asia. He has over100 publications in diverse academic outletsand currently serves as Editor of the Journal

of Macromarketing. He has won severalawards for his scholarship, including Fulbrightgrants (Vietnam; Croatia), and currently man-ages funded projects in various recoveringeconomies.Julie Stanton (PhD, University of Maryland) is anassistant professor of marketing at SaintJoseph’s University in Philadelphia and waspreviously on the faculty at the MorrisonSchool of Agribusiness at Arizona State Univer-sity. Her research has focused on improvingmarket opportunities for smaller farmers,


particularly in developing countries. Inaddition to analysis of the organic food indus-try, her current research includes mapping ofU.S.–Mexican food distribution channels, andevaluating prospects for alternative crops andfunctional foods. She also spent 10 years withthe World Bank.

ED PROOReferences

Aarset B, Beckmann S, Bigne E, Beveridge M, Bjorn-

dal T, Bunting J, McDonagh P, Mariojouls C, Muir

J, Prothero A, Reisch L, Smith A, Tveteras R,

Young J. 2004. The European consumers’ under-

standing and perceptions of the ‘‘organic’’ food

regime: the case of aquaculture. British Food

Journal 106(2): 93–105.

Arnold EJ, Thompson CJ. 2005. Consumer culture

theory (CCT): twenty years of research. Journal

of Consumer Research 31(3): 868–882.

Byrne PJ, Toensmeyer UC, German CL, Muller HR.

1992. Evaluation of consumer attitudes towards

organic produce in Delaware and the Delmarva

region. Journal of Food Distribution Research

23(1): 29–44.

Canavari M, Bazzani GM, Spadoni R, Regazzi D.

2002. Food safety and organic fruit demand in

Italy: a survey. British Food Journal 104(3/4/5):

220–232.

Chinnici G, D’Amico M, Pecorino B. 2002.

A multivariate statistical analysis on the consu-

mers of organic products. British Food Journal

104(3/4/5). 187–199.

Chryssochoidis G. 2000. Repercussions of consu-

mer confusion for late introduced differentiated

products. European Journal of Marketing 34(5/

6): 705–722.

Cicia G, Del Giudice T, Scarpa R. 2002. Consumers’

perception of quality in organic food: a random

utility model under preference heterogeneity

and choice correlation from rank-orderings. Brit-

ish Food Journal 104(3/4/5): 200–213.

Davies A, Titterington A, Cochrane C. 1995. Who

buys organic food? A profile of the purchasers of

organic food in Northern Ireland. British Food

Journal 97(10): 17–23.

Fillion L, Arazi S. 2002. Does organic food taste

better? A claim substantiation approach. Nutri-

tion and Food Science 32(2): 153–157.


DOI: 10.1002/cb

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

Q7


UNCORRECT

Fitzpatrick M. 2002. Food scares drive organic sales

in Japan. Food Traceability Report 2(3): 11.

Food Marketing Institute. 2001. Organic shoppers

may not be who you think they are. Washing-

ton, DC: The Food Marketing Institute Report.

Latacz-Lohmann U, Foster C. 1997. From ‘‘niche’’ to

‘‘mainstream’’—strategies for marketing organic

food in Germany and the UK. British Food Jour-

nal 99(8): 275–283.

Fotopoulos C, Krystallis A. 2002. Organic product

avoidance: reasons for rejection and potential

buyers’ identification in a countrywide survey.

British Food Journal 104(3/4/5): 233–260.

Fotopoulos C, Krystallis A, Ness M. 2003. Wine

produced by organic grapes in Greece: using

means-end chains analysis to reveal organic

buyers’ purchasing motives in comparison to

the non-buyers. Food Quality and Preference

14(7): 549–566.

Goldman BJ, Clancy KL. 1991. A survey of organic

produce purchases and related attitudes of food

cooperative shoppers. American Journal of

Alternative Agriculture 6(2): 89–95.

Grunert SC, Juhl HJ. 1995. Values, environmental

attitudes, and buying of organic foods. Journal of

Economic Psychology 16(1): 39–62.

Hammit JK. 1990. Risk perception and food choice:

an exploratory analysis of organic versus conven-

tional produce buyers. Risk Analysis 10(3):

367–374.

Harper GC, Makatouni A. 2002. Consumer percep-

tion of organic food production and farm animal

welfare. British Food Journal 104(3/4/5):

287–299.

Hart C. 1998. Doing a literature review: releasing

the social science research imagination, Sage

Publications: London.

Hill H, Lynchehaun F. 2002. Organic milk: attitudes

and consumption patterns. British Food Journal

104(7): 526–542.

Huang CL. 1996. Consumer preferences and atti-

tudes towards organically grown produce. Euro-

pean Review of Agricultural Economics

23(3–4): 331–342.

Hutchins RK, Greenhalgh LA. 1995. November/

December Organic confusion: sustaining com-

petitive advantage. Nutrition & Food Science

6: 11–14.

Jolly DA. 1991. Determinants of organic horticul-

tural products consumption based on a sample of


ED PROOFS

California consumers. Acta Horticulture 295:

41–148.

Kouba M. 2003. March. Quality of organic animal

products. Livestock Production Science 80(1–2):

33–40.

Lacy R. 1992. Scares and the British Food System.

British Food Journal 94(7): 26–30.

Loureiro ML, McCluskey JL, Mittelhammer RC.

2001. Assessing consumer preferences for

organic, eco-labeled, and regular apples. Journal

of Agricultural and Resource Economics 26(2):

404–416.

Magnusson MK, Arvola A, Hursti U, Aberg L, Sjoden

P. 2001. Attitudes towards organic foods among

Swedish consumers. British Food Journal

103(3): 209–227.

Magnusson MK, Arvola A, Hursti U, Aberg L, Sjoden

P. 2003. Choice of organic food is related to

perceived consequences for human health and

to environmentally friendly behaviour. Appetite

40(2): 109–117.

Makatouni A. 2002. What motivates consumers to

buy organic food in the UK? Results from a

qualitative study. British Food Journal 104(3/

4/5): 345–352.

McDonagh P, Prothero A. 2005. Food, markets and

culture: the representation of food in everyday

life. Consumption, Markets, and Culture 8(1):

1–5.

McDonald D. 2000. Organic products defined.

Farm Industry News, April.

Miller C. 1996. Challenge to fat-free: sales of organic

food nearly double in five years. Marketing News

30(22): 1–3.

MillockQ7 2002. Willingness to pay for organic

foods: a comparison between survey data and

panel data from Denmark’’, Second World Con-

gress of Environmental and Resource Econom-

ists, Monterey, USA, June.

Mitsostergios T, Skiadas CH. 1994. Attitudes and

perceptions of fresh pasteurized milk consu-

mers: a qualitative and quantitative survey. Brit-

ish Food Journal 96(7): 4–10.

Murphy C. 1999. April Organic sector moves into

the mainstream. Marketing 29: 14–15.

O’Donovan P, McCarthy M. 2002. Irish consumer

preference for organic meat. British Food Jour-

nal 104(3/4/5): 353–370.

Organic Consumers Association. 2001. Since 9/11

Americans’ food safety concerns and organic


DOI: 10.1002/cb

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56


ECT

food buying have increased. November 27, 2001,

Available at: http://www.organicconsumers.org/

Organic/foodsafety112801.cfm.

Ott SL. 1990. Supermarkets shoppers’ pesticide

concerns and willingness to purchase certified

pesticide residue-free fresh produce. Agribusi-

ness 6(6): 593–602.

Palmer A. 2001. Organic food. Economic Review

19(1): 2–11.

Roddy G, Cowan C, Hutchinson G. 1994. Organic

food: a description of the Irish market. British

Food Journal 96(4): 3–10.

Roddy G, Cowan C, Hutchinson G. 1996. Irish

Market. British Food Journal 96(4): 3–10.

Schifferstein HNJ, Oude Ophuis PAM. 1998. Health-

related determinants of organic food consump-

tion in the Netherlands. Food Quality and Pre-

ference 9(3): 119–133.

Soil Association. 2003. The Organic Food and Farm-

ing Report 2003. Soil Association, UK.

Soler F, Gil JM, Sanchez M. 2002. Consumers’

acceptability of organic food in Spain: results

from an experimental auction market. British

Food Journal 104(8). 670–687.

Squires L, Juric B, Bettina Cornwell T. 2001. Level of

market development and intensity of organic

food consumption: cross-cultural study of Danish

and New Zealand consumers. Journal of Con-

sumer Marketing 18(5): 392–409.

UNCOR


ED PROOFS

Thompson GD, Kidwell J. 1998. May. Explaining

the choice of organic produce: cosmetic defects

prices, and consumer preferences. American

Journal of Agricultural Economics 80(2):

277–287.

Torjusen H, Lieblein G, Wandel M, Francis CA.

2001. Food system orientation and quality per-

ception among consumers an producers of

organic food in Hedmark County, Norway. Food

Quality and Preference 12: 207–216.

Tregear A, Dent JB, McGregor MJ. 1994. The

demand for organically grown produce. British

Food Journal 96(4): 21–25.

Wandel M, Bugge A. 1997. Environmental concern

in consumer evaluation of food quality. Food

Quality and Preference 8(1): 19–26.

Wilkins JL, Hillers VN. 1994. Influences of pesticide

residue and environmental concerns on organic

food preference among food cooperative

members and non-members in Washington

state. Journal of Nutrition Education 26(1):

26–33.

Williams CM. 2002. February. Nutritional quality of

organic food: shades of grey or shades of

green? Proceedings of the Nutrition Society

61(1): 19.

Zanoli R, Naspetti S. 2002. Consumer Motivations

in the Purchase of Organic Food. British Food

Journal 104(8): 643–653.
R

DOI: 10.1002/cb

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

Author Query Form (CB/210)

Special Instructions: Author please write responses to queries directly on Galley proofs

and then fax back.

ROOFSQ1: Author: Please check the affiliation of all the authors.

Q2: Author: Please provide the reference in the reference list.





Q7: Author: Please provide the first name of the author.

UNCORRECTED P

Date post:	02-Jun-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

***IMMEDIATE RESPONSE REQUIRED*** et al 2007.pdfin the food industry. The global market for organic...

Documents

IMMEDIATE RESPONSE REQUIRED et al 2007.pdfin the food industry. The global market for organic...