You are on page 1of 20

See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227643117

Who Are Organic Food Consumers? A


Compilation and Review of Why People
Purchase Organic Food

Article in Journal of Consumer Behaviour March 2007


DOI: 10.1002/cb.210

CITATIONS READS

429 19,665

5 authors, including:

Rene Shaw Hughner Pierre Mcdonagh


Arizona State University University of Bath
20 PUBLICATIONS 730 CITATIONS 42 PUBLICATIONS 1,143 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Andrea Prothero Clifford J. Shultz II


University College Dublin Loyola University Chicago
57 PUBLICATIONS 1,704 CITATIONS 98 PUBLICATIONS 1,690 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate, Available from: Andrea Prothero
letting you access and read them immediately. Retrieved on: 24 October 2016
THE ATRIUM, SOUTHERN GATE, CHICHESTER, WEST SUSSEX 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:author_reprints@wiley.co.uk. 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 Wileys 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:permreq@wiley.co.uk
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:cs-journals@wiley.co.uk 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.
1
2
3 Journal of Consumer Behaviour
4 J. Consumer Behav. 6: 117 (2007)
Published online in Wiley InterScience
5 (www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/cb.210
6
7
8
9
10
11 Who are organic food consumers?

FS
12
13
14
A compilation and review of why
people purchase organic food

O
15
16

O
17
18 Renee Shaw Hughner*, Pierre McDonagh, Andrea Prothero,
19 Clifford J. Shultz II and Julie Stanton

PR
20 Morrison School of AgribusinessQ1 and Resource Management, Arizona State University, 7001 E. Q1
21 Williams Field Rd., Wanner Hall, Mesa, AZ 85212, USA
22
23  This paper integrates and synthesizes the findings of published research on organic food con-
D
24
sumption. We identify several themes that reflect the various rationales used by con-
25
sumers when deciding to purchase organic food. The literature clearly indicates that the word
TE
26
27 organic has many meanings, that consumers of organic foods are not homogeneous in
28 demographics or in beliefs, and that further research could help better describe the various
29 constituencies that are often lumped together as organic food consumers. The organic
EC

30 and broader food industries must better understand the variety of motivations, percep-
31
tions, and attitudes consumers hold regarding organic foods and their consumption if
32
33 their own long-term interests, as well as those of other stakeholders of food marketing, are
R

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

36
37
O

38
39 Introduction industry with accelerating growth raises
important questions of interest to govern-
C

40 Interest in organic food has grown remarkably


41 ments, growers, distributors, retailers, industry
as consumers and marketers react to popular planners, and marketers. Among those ques-
N

42
media about health and environmental effects
43 tions are: (1) Who is the organic food
of pesticides, genetically-modified organisms,
U

44 consumer? (2) What are the forces and factors


45 and food safety. This gradual evolution of
driving organic food consumption? (3) What
46 attitudes toward the origins of the food we eat
will the organic market look like in the future?
47 has not been sufficiently captured in most of (4) What, if any, policies should be imple-
48 the published literature about food-purchasing
mented to abet this market and consumer
49 behavior. Indeed, the rising popularity of welfare? The purpose of this paper is to
50 organic foods a multi-billion dollar global
51 synthesize the findings of published studies
52 and thereby to begin answering these ques-
53 *Correspondence to: Renee Shaw Hughner, Morrison tions.
54 School of Agribusiness and Resource Management, Answering such questions requires recog-
Arizona State University, 7001 E. Williams Field Rd., nition of the complexity and diversity of
55
Wanner Hall, Mesa, AZ 85212, USA. Tel: 480-727-1570.
56 Fax: 480-727-1961. consumer decision-making vis-a-vis organics.
E-mail: renee.hughner@asu.edu One must first understand that individuals

Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Month 2007
DOI: 10.1002/cb
1
2
3 2 Renee Shaw Hughner et al.
4
5 interpret the term organic in a variety of ways The U.S. market has grown similarly. Sales
6 and in a multitude of contexts. Consumer increased from $78 million in 1980 to
7 purchase decisions are based on subjective approximately $6 billion in 2000 (e.g., McDo-
8 experiences and perceptions of organic foods. nald, 2000; Miller, 1996), with an average
9
Therefore, in this paper we compile findings annual increase of 24 per cent during the
10
from extant studies to extract the themes that 1990s (Organic TradeQ4 Association, 2001). Q4
11

FS
12 can serve as the foundation for more in-depth These trends suggest sales in the market will
13 research on organic food consumption. We exceed $20 billion by 2005 (Organic Trade
14 identify several themes that reveal individuals Association, 2001; Soil Association, 2003).

O
15 perceptions of organic food. We also identify Despite this global growth in consumer
16 specific advances needed in our understanding demand and sales, the organic food market is
of the topic to provide a guide for future still relatively small. Organic farming globally

O
17
18 studies. Our goal is to provide lessons about constitutes a very small percentage of overall
19 organic food consumers to the various stake- farming, as little as one per cent of farming in

PR
20 holders growers, retailers/marketers, policy- most OECD countries. However, organic
21 makers, and special interest groups such that farming is generally on the rise. In the United
22
their strategies better reflect consumer inter- States, while conventional farming is decreas-
23
ests and perceptions. ing, organic farming is increasing by 12 per
D
24
25 cent annually. Organic farmers are also begin-
ning to receive more government aid a trend
TE
26 The global organic market
27 that is expected to increase in the future
28 Published findings have produced commonal- (McDonald, 2000). Given the rapid and
29 ities and contradictions and so it is difficult to accelerating growth of the organic food
EC

30 say with confidence what the size of the global market, an assessment of organic food con-
31 organic market actually is. It is possible, sumers seems imperative.
32 however, to make a number of observations.
33 Firstly, and perhaps most importantly, the
R

34 organic market is growing; it has increased


35 Procedures
considerably in recent years and is frequently
R

36
regarded as one of the biggest growth markets The focus of this research is twofold: one, to
37
in the food industry. The global market for review and synthesize the research concerned
O

38
39 organic food was estimated at US$ 20 billion in with identifying organic consumers and two,
2002 (Fitzpatrick, 2002). In the United King- to identify the reasons why consumers pur-
C

40
41 dom, the organic food market increased four- chase and fail to purchase organic food. The
fold between 1988 and 1993 (DrummondQ2, volume of research in recent years pertaining
N

42 Q2
43 1995), and doubled again between 1996 and to understanding organic consumers and
U

44 1999 (DataMonitor in Murphy, 1999). Demand consumer attitudes toward organic food has
45 for organic food was up 40 per cent in 1999 been immense. As organic food continues to
46 and 55 per cent in 2000 and sales reportedly permeate the grocery landscape, it is import-
47 increased from 100 million in 1994 to 605 ant that researchers are mindful of what has
48
million in 2000 (Palmer, 2001). The market been learned, as well as the areas that have yet
49
likely will be worth 1.47 billion in 2005 to be understood.
50
51 (BoxallQ3, 2000), thus supporting claims that Several steps were used in selecting the Q3
52 the UK organic food market can now be literature to be reviewed. First, we conducted a
53 classified as mainstream rather than a niche broad, interdisciplinary search for research
54 market (Palmer, 2001). In Europe, more related to organic food published in the last 20
55 broadly, it has been estimated that sales of years (19852005). Databases such as ABI
56 organic food will increase at a rate of 20 per Inform Global Edition, AGRICOLA, Sociologi-
cent per annum. cal Abstracts, PsychInfo, and EBSCO provided

Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Month 2007
DOI: 10.1002/cb
1
2
3 Who are organic food consumers? 3
4
5 hundreds of citations published since 1985, (Roddy et al., 1996; Schifferstein and Ophuis
6 most since 1990. Following Harts (1998) 1998; Cicia et al., 2002). Interestingly, younger
7 review guidelines, we then narrowed the consumers have been found to hold more
8 focus to include only empirical studies identi- positive attitudes toward organically grown
9
fying consumers beliefs about and/or beha- food (Magnusson et al., 2001), yet older
10
viors toward organic food. This means we consumers are more likely to be purchasers.
11

FS
12 eliminated all non-empirical conceptual and One explanation is that the price premiums on
13 editorial articles. We also eliminated research organic food may be more affordable by older
14 focused on associated topics (e.g., GMO foods, respondents. Hill and LynchehaunQ5 (2001) Q5

O
15 animal welfare), as well as research related to note that families are often introduced to
16 organic farming and production methods. organic food with the arrival of a baby.
Although conclusions vary substantially across Parents take a huge interest in the food they

O
17
18 the sample of studies identified (see Table 1 buy for their family and increasingly many new
19 for an overview), we sought common themes parents are buying organic baby food. This is

PR
20 that transcended study method or population dramatically changing family eating habits (p.
21 sampled. Fifteen themes that related to con- 530).
22
sumers opinions, feelings, intentions, and/or Attempts to classify organic food purchasers
23
consumption behavior concerning organic D by income and education have been mixed.
24
25 food were identified. Table 2 provides an Studies have found both negative and positive
overview of the themes identified. relationships between these demographic
TE
26
27 variables and organic food preference (Wilkins
28 and Hillers, 1994; Chinnici et al., 2002;
29 ODonovan and McCarthy, 2002). In other
EC

30 research, results have been inconclusive (Jolly,


31
Organic food consumers
1991).
32 Considerable confusion surrounding the term Research has also focused on identifying a
33 organic still exists (Chryssochoidis 2000). more comprehensive, psychographic profile of
R

34 While many consumers have heard of the term the regular consumer of organic foods (RCOF).
35
and are aware of its central features namely, For RCOFs, organic food consumption is part
R

36
that it is chemical-free most are unfamiliar of a way of life. It results from an ideology,
37
with organic farming standards and practices connected to a particular value system, that
O

38
39 (Davies et al., 1995; Harper and Makatouni, affects personality measures, attitudes, and
2002; Hill and Lynchehaun, 2002). Further- consumption behavior (Schifferstein and
C

40
41 more, variables such as the level of market Ophuis, 1998, p.119). The values of altruism
development, the use of other positively (relationship with others), ecology (harmony
N

42
43 associated food terms (e.g., cage-free and with the universe and sustainable future),
U

44 natural) and the product category (e.g., universalism (protection of the welfare of all
45 farmed salmon) can serve to heighten con- people and nature), benevolence (enhancing
46 sumer confusion (Hutchins and Greenhalgh, the welfare of people with whom one is in
47 1995; Fotopoulos and Krystallis, 2002; Aarset frequent personal contact), spirituality (inner-
48
et al., 2004). harmony and unity with nature), and self-
49
While findings across research studies using direction (independent thought and action)
50
51 demographic profiling are sometimes contra- have all been connected to regular consumers
52 dictory, there have been some consistent of organic foods (Grunert and Juhl, 1995;
53 results that have emerged across studies. In Makatouni, 2002; Zanoli and Naspetti, 2002;
54 general, consumers of organic food are female Fotopoulos, Krystallis and Ness, 2003).
55 (Davies et al., 1995; Food Marketing Institute, Consequently, organic food consumption is
56 2001), have children living in the household often related to an alternative lifestyle that
(Thompson and Kidwell, 1998) and are older includes active environmentalism, vegetarianism,

Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Month 2007
DOI: 10.1002/cb
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1

56
55
54
53
52
51
50
49
48
47
46
45
44
43
42
41
40
39
38
37
36
35
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
4
Table 1. Illustrative research pertaining to consumers and organic food
U
References Country of research Method and findings

Copyright
N

#
Aarset et al. (2004) Germany Norway UK
C Group panel discussionsexplored consumers perceptions of organic, organic salmon,
France Spain and the role of regulatory authorities. Found considerable confusion as to what constitutes
organic salmon and differences in opinion with respect to the role regulatory agencies
should play.
Fotopoulos et al. (2003) Greece
O Qualitative interviewsrelated wine choice to consumers value structures. For buyers of
R organic wine, attributes led to values of searching for pleasure in life, healthiness-long life,
and the pursuit of quality. Other product attributes satisfied needs for information and
ethnocentrism. Healthiness, quality, information, attractiveness, and good taste were the
main motivational benefits of wine purchase; distinction between organic and non-buyers
R is in order of importance.
Magnusson et al. (2003) Sweden Mail Questionnaireself-report purchase of organic foods was most strongly related to
perceived benefit for human health. Performance of environmentally friendly behaviors

2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.


were good predictors of purchase frequency. Egoistic motives are better predictors of the
EC
purchase of organic foods than are altruistic motives.
Canavari et al. (2002) Italy Surveyexamined attitudes towards organic apples and consumer WTP. Most willing to
pay a premium to eliminate pesticides; those not cited skepticism over ability to eliminate
pesticides or believed consumers should not have to pay for food safety. Three covariates
impact WTP: higher education, amount of fruit consumed, and perceived environmental
TE
effect of organic agriculture.
Chinnici et al. (2002) Italy Questionnairereasons consumers try organic food: health, curiosity, and environment.
D
Four segments of organic consumers: pioneers (purchase at the supermarket out of
curiosity); nostalgic (associate organic produce with the past); health conscious
(regularly purchase organic produce due to health concerns; prefer specialized retailers
and expect to pay a premium), and pragmatist (are knowledgeable, but price-sensitive).
Cicia et al. (2002) Italy Survey questionnaireRCOF are part of a homogeneous segment, often related to
alternative lifestyle. Include active environmentalists, vegetarians, and alternative medicine
PR
practitioners. Other findings: organic food bought in specialty shops, most willing to pay
price premiums, and certification boards are not equally trusted.
O
Fotopoulos et al. (2002) Greece Questionnaireexamined attitudes and behaviors of buyers and non-buyers of organic
food. Found three consumer groups: the Unaware; the Aware non-buyers; and Buyers of
organic food. Psychographic patterns were identified for these segments. Organic buyers
O
were further segmented into four groups: the Explorers, Greens, Motivateds,
and Price sensitives.

(Continues)
FS

Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Month 2007


DOI: 10.1002/cb
Renee Shaw Hughner et al.
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1

56
55
54
53
52
51
50
49
48
47
46
45
44
43
42
41
40
39
38
37
36
35
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
Table 1. (Continued) U
References Country of research Method and findings

Copyright
N

#
Soler et al. (2002) Spain Experimental auction marketexamined consumers willingness to pay for organic
olive oil. Format of information (personally communicated vs. written) affected WTP.
C Decision to buy organic rests upon two steps: one, individuals environmental or food
O safety concerns and two, amount to pay was associated with socio-economic variables.
Makatouni (2002) U.K. InterviewsRCOFs perceive organic food as a means of achieving individual and social
values. Most significant motive for choosing organic is centered on the health factor.
Values centered on the environment and animal welfare also important.
Harper and Makatouni (2002) U.K.
R Focus groupconsumers tend to confuse organic and free-range products. Health and
R food safety concerns are the main motives for purchasing organic food. Animal welfare
is used as an indicator of other product attributes, such as safety and health.
Who are organic food consumers?

Hill and Lynchehaun (2002) U.K. Focus groups and secondary datadeveloped a model that posits the purchase of
organic milk. Purchase depends upon a variety of factors: knowledge factors, personal
factors, intrinsic factors cultural and social factors, uncontrollable factors, and extrinsic

2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.


factors.
EC
Canavari et al. (2002) Italy Mail survey and interview questionnaireexplored consumer attitudes towards organic
apples by analyzing the price-quantity-quality relationship. The first in a series of
research to be conducted; finds further research needed.
Zanoli and Naspetti (2002) Italy Interviewsused means-end chain models to link product attributes to consumer
TE
needs. Occasional consumers attracted by personal satisfaction; important values are
accomplishment and pleasure and to get the most from life. RCOFs are guided by
the values of altruism/relationship with others and ecology, harmony with the
D
universe and sustainable future.
ODonovan, and McCarthy Ireland Interview questionnaireexamined Irish consumers perceptions of organic meat.
(2002) Organic meat purchasers placed more importance on food safety and health and believed
organic meat superior in terms of quality, safety, labeling, production methods, and value.
Availability and price were identified as deterrents; higher socio-economic groups more
PR
willing to purchase.
Torjusen et al. (2001) Norway Surveyfood quality traits such as freshness and taste, termed observation traits, were
important to all consumers. Organic food purchasers were more concerned about
O
ethical, environmental, and health issues, termed reflection traits. Three consumer
orientations were identified: practical, local, and social.
O
Squires et al. (2001) Denmark New Zealand A cross-cultural study of organic food consumption. Relationships between health and
diet concern, environmental concern, confidence in the food industry, demographic
characteristics, and intensity of organic food consumption of consumers from mature and
novice organic food industries were investigated. Conceptual frameworks evaluated to
predict priority of concerns related to the level of organic market development
FS
(Continues)

Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Month 2007


DOI: 10.1002/cb
5
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1

56
55
54
53
52
51
50
49
48
47
46
45
44
43
42
41
40
39
38
37
36
35
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
Table 1. (Continued)
U 6

References Country of research Method and findings

Copyright
N

#
Magnusson et al. (2001) Sweden Mail surveymost respondents held positive attitudes toward organic, but rarely
purchased. Most important criterion, good taste; least important, organically
C produced. Organic foods perceived to be more expensive and healthier than
O conventionally produced food, but high price a deterrent.
Loureiro et al. (2001) United States Surveylooked at consumers apple choices. Finds the presence of children under 18 in
the household, higher food safety, and environmental concerns increase the likelihood
a consumer will choose organic apple.
Chryssochoidis (2000) Greece
R Questionnaireexplored attitudes toward organic food products. Variables not significant
R in organic purchase intention: ecological consciousness, purchasing in a thoughtful
manner, foods appearance, and respondent age and income. Respondents think there
are differences between organic and conventional products, but consider the actual
differences to be insignificant.
Thompson and Kidwell (1998) United States Actual choices in specialty and co-op retail outlets. Store choice affects the probability of

2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.


purchasing organic. Propensity to purchase organic and level of income predicted store
EC
choice. Higher income households more likely to choose specialty grocer (less likely to
purchase organic). Households with children more likely, higher- educated consumers
less likely, to purchase organic.
Schifferstein and Ophuis (1998) Netherlands Written surveycompared organic food buyers to general population. Organic buyers
believed themselves more responsible for their health and were more likely to undertake
TE
preventive health action. Reasons organic foods purchased included: wholesomeness,
absence of chemicals, environmental friendliness and taste. Suggests organic food
D
consumption is part of a way of life.
Huang (1996) U.S. Georgia Mail surveyconsumers who are nutritionally conscious and concerned about pesticide
use have a higher propensity to prefer organically grown produce. Testing and
certification, sensory qualities and competitive pricing are most important in enhancing
marketing potential.
Roddy et al. (1996) Ireland Written surveyidentified nine segments of consumers based on their food attitudes.
PR
Five groups possessed positive attitudes to organic food; propensity to purchase organic
food reflected in only two groups. Positive attitudes related to the quality, safety, health,
O
taste and environment. Neutral or negative attitudes due to: satisfaction with current
food, expense, and lack of perceived environmental benefit.
Davies et al. (1995) Ireland Interviews and surveyexamined actual behavior. Main reasons for purchasing organic
O
foods: health, environment and taste, respectively. Predominant reasons for not
purchasing: availability and price. Gender (female), level of disposable income, and
presence of children indicate higher likelihood of organic food purchase. Environmental
concern does not necessarily inform organic purchasing behavior.
FS
(Continues)

Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Month 2007


DOI: 10.1002/cb
Renee Shaw Hughner et al.
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1

56
55
54
53
52
51
50
49
48
47
46
45
44
43
42
41
40
39
38
37
36
35
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
Table 1. (Continued) U
References Country of research Method and findings

Copyright
N

#
Hutchins and Greenhalgh (1995) United Kingdom Surveyconsiderable confusion existed concerning organic. among organic purchasers,
health, and children were most important reasons. All respondents desired organic food
C to be available in supermarkets. Respondents willing to pay higher premiums for
O organic meat than for produce
Grunert and Juhl (1995) Denmark Written surveyrespondents with strong environmental attitudes were more likely to
buy organic foods. The top values for respondents holding strong environmental
attitudes were: protecting the environment, unity with nature and mature love.
Roddy et al. (1994) Ireland
R Focus groupnone of the participants had bought organic food; but held favorable
R beliefs about organic foods attributes. Negative attitudes arose with regard to price,
availability, promotion and packaging. The need for more marketing and promotion
Who are organic food consumers?

to increase awareness was expressed.


Wilkins and Hillers (1994) Washington, U.S. Questionnairecompared to general population, members of a food co-op had stronger
attitudes about food and environmental issues, and a higher preference for, and more

2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.


frequent consumption of, organic food. Pesticide residue concern was an explanatory
EC
variable for organic food preference in both groups; however, environmental concern
was not an explanatory variable for either group.
Tregear et al. (1994) United Kingdom Mail and telephone surveysorganic produce perceived to be healthy, environmentally
friendly, and better tasting than conventional. Appearance not a disincentive to
TE
purchase; expense was.
Byrne et al. (1992) U.S. Delaware Surveyfreshness, flavor, and nutrition were most influential in consumer food purchase
decisions. Revealed consumers confusion pertaining to organic produce. Majority of
D
consumers satisfied with conventional fresh produce. Education was inversely correlated
with organic purchases; females more likely to purchase organic produce and; availability
was top deterrent.
Goldman and Clancy (1991) U.S. New York Surveyed food co-op shoppersexplored relationship between organic produce purchases
and attitudes related to pesticide use and food costs. Regular purchasers of organic produce
PR
had higher levels of concern about food safety and were less concerned about price, insects,
and surface blemishes. No relationship between income and frequency of organic purchases
found.
Ott (1990) U.S.
O
Questionnaire surveysurveyed all consumers; half expressed concern about pesticide use.
Two-thirds were WTP higher prices to obtain certified pesticide-free produce, but were
O
unwilling to accept cosmetic defects. Shoppers preferred certification by independent
laboratories. White, college-educated, middle-to-higher income shoppers identified as
potential target market.
Jolly (1991) U.S. California Mail surveyfound safety, freshness, general health benefits, nutritional value,
environmental effect, flavor, and appearance of product were important in choosing
FS
organic foods

Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Month 2007


DOI: 10.1002/cb
7
1
2
3 8 Renee Shaw Hughner et al.
4
5 Table 2. Themes identified among buyers and Motives for the purchase and
6 non-buyers of organic food
non-purchase of organic food
7
8 I. Consumers purchasing motives Fifteen themes integrate the results of studies
9 Theme 1. Health and nutritional concern explaining consumer attitudes toward organic
Theme 2. Superior taste
10 food. These themes are classified into two
Theme 3. Concern for the environment
11

FS
Theme 4. Food safety, lack of confidence broad areas: consumers purchasing motives
12 in the conventional food industry and hindrances to purchasing.
13 Theme 5. Concern over animal welfare
14 Theme 6. Support of local economy
Theme 7. More wholesome

O
15
Theme 8. Nostalgia Consumers motives
16 Theme 9. Fashionable/Curiosity

O
17 II. Deterrents Theme 1: Is healthier
18 Theme 10. High price premiums
19 Theme 11. Lack of organic food availability, The overwhelming majority of studies find

PR
poor merchandising health to be the primary reason consumers
20
Theme 12. Skepticism of certification boards
21 and organic labels buy organic foods (Tregear et al., 1994; Huang,
22 Theme 13. Insufficient marketing 1996; Hutchins and GreenhalghQ6, 1997; Q6
23 Theme 14. Satisfaction with current food source Schifferstein and Ophuis, 1998; Chinnici
Theme 15. Sensory defects
24
25
D
et al., 2002; Zanoli and Naspetti, 2002).
Consumers buy organic because of their desire
TE
26 to avoid the chemicals used in conventional
27 food production (Ott, 1990; Jolly, 1991;
28
and/or alternative medicine (Cicia et al., 2002). Wilkins and Hillers, 1994). The use of
29
pesticides is perceived to be associated with
EC

30 Research has found that RCOFs are high


31 internal locus of control individuals who long-term and unknown effects on health
32 believe in self-responsibility for health and (Hammit, 1990). Perceived healthiness of
33 are more likely to undertake preventative organic food is a parameter of quality for
R

34 health action (Makatouni, 2002). In general, many consumers (Wandel and Bugge, 1997;
35
RCOFs strongly associate health with diet, Magnusson et al., 2001). Some studies have
R

36 found that consumers believe organic food to


believe that eating healthily is more effective
37 be more nutritious (Jolly, 1991; Hill and
than medication in managing illness, and strive
O

38 Lynchehaun, 2002). Noteworthy, to date there


39 to stay abreast of the latest advancements in
health and nutrition research (Schifferstein and has not been conclusive evidence that organic
C

40 food is more nutritious (Williams, 2002).


41 Ophuis, 1998; Squires et al., 2001). Zanoli and
Naspetti (2002) found health to be the most Magnusson et al. (2003) find that health
N

42
43 important motive in the purchase of organic concern is a better predictor of the purchase
of organic food than concern for the environ-
U

44 foods among both regular and occasional


45 consumers of organic food. For regular ment, and conclude that egoistic motives are
46 purchasers, health attributes were found to better predictors of the purchase of organic
47 be associated with the transcendental values of foods than are altruistic motives.
48
altruism and ecology; occasional consumers, in
49
contrast, were motivated by personal goals of
50 Theme 2: Tastes better
51 pleasure and getting the most from life.
52 In addition, RCOFs are characterized by Several studies have found taste to be among
53 environmental and animal welfare concerns the most important criteria in organic food
54 (Schifferstein and Ophuis, 1998), hold positive purchases (Roddy et al., 1996; Schifferstein
55 attitudes towards cooking and grocery shop- and Ophuis, 1998; Magnusson et al., 2001).
56 ping, and have a tendency to be less religious Hill and Lynchehaun (2002) suggest that
(Wilkins and Hillers, 1994). because of the high prices associated with

Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Month 2007
DOI: 10.1002/cb
1
2
3 Who are organic food consumers? 9
4
5 organic food, consumers perceive organic food tributed to increasing concerns about conven-
6 to be higher quality than conventionally grown tional food production methods. One study
7 food, which informs their perceptions of taste. even found that after the September 11
8 Interestingly, Fillion and Arazi (2002) con- terrorist attacks in the United States, American
9
ducted a series of blind taste-tests between respondents reported increased intention to
10
organic and non-organic orange juice and milk. purchase organic food (Organic Consumers
11

FS
12 They found that organic orange juice was Association, 2001). Some research has
13 perceived as tasting better than conventional suggested that consumers view organic farm-
14 orange juice; however, no differences were ing methods to be safer than conventional

O
15 found between organic and conventional milk. intensive farming (Lacy, 1992; Kouba, 2003).
16 The authors concluded that the global claim Of note, many studies did not clearly define the
organic food tastes better is thus not valid for food safety construct (e.g., Squires et al.,

O
17
18 all organic food categories. Nonetheless, con- 2001), leaving it to the respondent to develop
19 sumers of organic food do perceive taste their own interpretations.

PR
20 advantages over conventional alternatives.
21
22 Theme 5: Concern over animal welfare
23
Theme 3: Environmental concern D Expectations of better animal welfare in
24
25 Many studies have found environmental con- organic production systems also motivate
organic buyers, though to a lesser extent than
TE
26 cern to be a factor in consumers attitudes
27 towards organic foods (Roddy et al., 1996; do health and environmental concerns (Hill
28 Wandel and Bugge, 1997; Squires et al., 2001; and Lynchehaun, 2002; Aarset et al., 2004).
29 Animal welfare is a multi-level construct which
Soler et al., 2002). Organic consumers view the
EC

30 contains both nutritional and social com-


31
chemicals and pesticides used in conventional
food products as being environmentally harm- ponents; it is used by respondents as an
32
ful, while organic foods are perceived as being indicator of food quality, food safety, and
33
R

34 environmentally friendly (Ott, 1990; Jolly, humane treatment of livestock (Torjusen et al.
35 1991; Wilkins and Hillers, 1994). Though 2001; Harper and Makatouni, 2002).
R

36 environmental concern has been demon-


37 strated to have a favorable influence on
O

38 consumer attitudes, many studies have found Theme 6: Supports local economy
39 that it is not a driving factor of organic food and helps to sustain traditional cooking
C

40 purchase. Rather, perceptions of good health, Some research has found that people have
41 nutrients, and taste are more important in the favorable attitudes toward and/or buy organic
N

42
purchase of organic food (Mitsostergios and food because they believe it supports the local
43
Skiadas, 1994; Tregear et al., 1994; Shifferstein economy. This most probably reflects a belief
U

44
45 and Ophuis, 1998; Zanoli and Naspetti, 2002; that organic food is locally grown, perhaps by
46 Magnusson et al., 2003). smaller, family-owned farms. Somewhat
47 related, Fotopoulos and Krystallis (2002) note
48 that Greek organic food buyers have strong
49 Theme 4: Concern over food safety ethnocentric tendencies in food-related mat-
50 ters and use this as a purchase criterion.
51 Concern about food safety has also been
52 identified as a reason for the purchase of
53 organically-produced food (Jolly, 1991; Schif-
Themes 7 through 9: Is wholesome,
54 ferstein and Ophuis, 1998; Soler et al., 2002).
reminiscent of the past, and fashionable
55 Recent food scares such as BSE (mad cow
56 disease), foot and mouth, salmonella, and Themes 7 through 9 are discussed briefly in
Escherichia coli 0157 outbreaks have con- one paragraph since these findings have either

Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Month 2007
DOI: 10.1002/cb
1
2
3 10 Renee Shaw Hughner et al.
4
5 not been widely found and/or elucidated. toward organic food; however, only four to
6 Schifferstein and Ophuis (1998) found that ten per cent of the same consumers indicated
7 consumers perceived organic food to be more an intention to purchase those foods. The
8 wholesome. It is unclear, however, what following section is a synthesis of the factors
9
respondents meant by wholesome. Hill and which dissuade consumers from purchasing
10
Lynchehaun (2002) suggest that some people organic foods.
11

FS
12 now perceive organic food to be fashionable
13 because of the considerable coverage in the
14 media it has received, the recent promotional
Theme 10: Rejection of high prices

O
15 campaigns and the high prices associated with
16 organic food. Chinnici et al. (2002) found one The high price of organic food has been found
segment of consumers whose purchase of to be the main obstacle in its purchase (Byrne

O
17
18 organic food is motivated mainly by curiosity. et al., 1992; Tregear et al., 1994; Roddy et al.,
19 Lastly, Chinnici et al. (2002) identified a 1996; Magnusson et al., 2001; Zanoli and

PR
20 nostalgic segment of respondents who Naspetti, 2002). As a result, willingness to pay
21 associate the consumption of organic pro- (WTP) has been the focus of several studies.
22
duce with the genuineness and tastes of the Research has found that consumers are willing,
23
past (p. 194). at least hypothetically, to pay a premium for
D
24
25 The rankings of the aforementioned reasons organically grown food; however, many are
consumers buy organic foods may differ not willing to pay as much as the current
TE
26
27 among countries and may change over time market price premiums (Millock 2002).
28 (Davies et al., 1995). Squires et al. (2001, p. 9) Few studies have looked at the factors that
29 note that appropriate ranking requires an influence WTP. Soler et al. (2002) found that
EC

30 understanding of macroenvironmental WTP increases when consumers are presented


31 elements such as health care and public with information on reference prices for their
32 educational programs, as well as market conventionally produced counterparts. They
33 characteristics. While this may be, the also found that when consumers were given
R

34 findings of the dozens of research studies information about organic products verbally,
35
reviewed for this paper revealed that health as opposed to in a written leaflet format, WTP
R

36
was consumers primary reason for the increased. WTP a premium price for organic
37
purchase of organic food. Taste (quality) and products has been found to decrease with age
O

38
39 environmental concerns usually followed as and increase with strongly held attitudes
top-ranked reasons. Denmark is a notable towards the environment, food safety, and
C

40
41 exception to this finding, where ones environ- the presence of younger children in the
mental concern seems to be the primary household (Canavari et al., 2002; Soler et al.,
N

42
43 motivator among respondents. 2002).
U

44 The high price premiums associated with


45 organically produced food result in ambiguous
46 consumer signals. While consumers indicate
47 Closing in on the attitude-behavior
the high price of organic food to be prohibitive
48 gapdeterrents to purchase
in their purchasing behaviors, they use price to
49
Despite the generally favorable attitudes con- form opinions about the quality and taste of
50
51 sumers hold, research has illustrated a dis- organic food items. Hill and Lynchehaun
52 crepancy between consumer attitudes towards (2002) suggest that the mixed opinions they
53 organic food and actual purchase behavior found about whether organic milk tasted
54 (Roddy et al., 1996). As an example, Magnus- different from conventionally produced milk
55 son et al. (2001) found that between 46 and was based on consumers perceptions that
56 67 per cent of the population, depending upon high price meant better quality, which cued
the food category, held positive attitudes them to believe this should lead to a difference

Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Month 2007
DOI: 10.1002/cb
1
2
3 Who are organic food consumers? 11
4
5 in taste. While WTP research has mainly to perceive any benefits or value to purchasing
6 focused on consumers WTP higher retail organic food may point to the paucity and/or
7 prices, Canavari et al. (2002) found that 30 ineffectiveness of organic food promotion
8 per cent of consumers surveyed in a conven- (Latacz-Lohmann and Foster, 1997).
9
tional Italian supermarket favored paying price
10
premiums directly to farmers.
11

FS
Theme 14: Satisfaction with current
12 food source
13
14
Theme 11: Lack of availability Roddy et al. (1994) found consumer satisfac-

O
15 The lack of availability and/or inconvenience tion with conventional food to be a key reason
16 associated with purchasing organic food pre- for not purchasing organic food. Further,

O
17 sents a further obstacle to its purchase (Zanoli Magnusson et al. (2001) found that Swedish
18 consumers most important purchase criterion
and Naspetti, 2002).
19

PR
for food was taste and that organic was the
20 least important criterion. Byrne et al. (1992)
21
Theme 12: Skepticism of certification also found that organic criteria and criteria
22
23 boards and organic labels related to food safety, were not among the top
24
D factors influencing consumers food purchas-
Another setback in the purchase of organic
25 ing decisions.
food is the level of consumer skepticism
TE
26 surrounding organic food labels. Some Euro-
27
pean studies have found that consumers tend Theme 15: Cosmetic defects
28
29
to distrust certification bodies, leading them to
Some researchers have found that consumers
EC

30 question the genuineness of organic products


are unwilling to accept the blemishes or
31 (Ott, 1990; Canavari et al., 2002; Aarset et al.,
imperfections often present in organic pro-
32 2004).
duce. Such cosmetic defects tend to deter
33
consumers from purchasing organic produce
R

34
35 Theme 13: Insufficient marketing (Ott, 1990; Thompson and Kidwell, 1998).
R

36
Several studies seem to indicate that organic
37 Discussion
food has been insufficiently promoted and
O

38
39 merchandized. Consumers lack of organic The preceding literature review sheds light on
food knowledge, the dearth of organic food
C

40 several key issues and elucidates our current


41 promotion, and ineffective retailing strategies state of knowledge pertaining to consumer
(merchandising and displays) have negatively
N

42 attitudes and buying behavior towards organic


43 influenced consumers (Roddy et al. 1996; food. In addition, it points to gaps in our
U

44 Chryssochoidis 2000). Interestingly, Hill and understanding. In the following section, a


45 Lynchehaun (2002) found that location of discussion of the key issues that arise from the
46 organic milk was very important to both
47 themes identified is presented.
regular and infrequent organic food purcha-
48
sers. All of the consumers agreed that they
49
would prefer organic milk to be positioned Future research needs
50
51 beside standard organic milk reasons include
The OCOFoccasional consumer
52 for making price comparisons, habitual shop-
of organic food
53 ping behavior (p.537). Respondents also
54 stated that they found organic milk packaging Much research has examined the demographic
55 to be subdued and liked the more bright, characteristics of organic food purchasers; far
56 modern, and colorful packaging (p.537). fewer studies have investigated the psycho-
Finally, the finding that some consumers fail graphic characteristics of these consumers.

Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Month 2007
DOI: 10.1002/cb
1
2
3 12 Renee Shaw Hughner et al.
4
5 Demographically, there have been mixed organic food by various households members?
6 findings. In addition, consumers vary in the Certainly, these answers are of importance to
7 emphases they place on attributes of organic marketers.
8 food, production methods, and in their view
9
on market factors, such as price premiums. A
10
more psychographic approach focusing on Information sources
11

FS
12 values, attitudes, and lifestyles could reveal
Very little research has examined the sources
13 profiles of organic food consumers that are
of information that inform consumers organic
14 able to be more widely generalized.
food knowledge. The current environment

O
15 A few studies have attempted to develop
presents the potential to inform consumers in a
16 profiles and descriptions of the regular
variety of waysinternet, print advertising,
consumer of organic food; those hard core

O
17
18
television, word-of-mouth, retail outlets, etc.
consumers who shop mainly from local food
19 Are there differences or similarities among
co-operatives and account for a relatively small

PR
20 regular, occasional, and infrequent organic
percentage of organic food purchases. Yet,
21 food purchasers in the information sources
many organic products have become common-
22 they seek and/or consider credible?
place in conventional supermarkets. Little
23
knowledge exists pertaining to the motivations D
24
25 and characteristics of the occasional organic
Methodological perspectives
food consumerthose consumers who pur-
TE
26
27 chase select categories of organic foods (such Survey methods characterize most of the
28 as milk) or occasionally purchase organic studies reviewed here. While such methods
29 products from large grocery chain retailers. facilitate the collection of data from larger
EC

30 That there is no single description of an sample sizes and enable greater predictive
31 organic food consumer and his/her motiv- capability, they are not sufficient in under-
32 ations could be a partial explanation for why standing the complexity inherent in consu-
33 consumers express everything from confusion mers organic food beliefs and consumption
R

34 about organic food to frustration about behaviors. Traditional survey questionnaires


35
product availability. With the provision of a are too simplistic to fully understand the
R

36
greater understanding of both current and connections between value systems and
37
incipient purchasers and their motivations, the action. More psychographic or holistic
O

38
39 industry could begin to address consumer research could reveal greater depth and
needs more effectively and one could theorize meaning and thereby better describe consu-
C

40
41 more meaningfully about how people use mer motivations. For example, food safety
organic food in their daily lives. was a construct found to be a motivator in the
N

42
43 purchase of organic food. However, in most
U

44 cases, we were unclear as to the meaning


45 consumers attributed to this term. Do con-
46 The distinction between consumers
sumers believe organic food to be safer due to
47 and purchasers
the absence of chemicals, the perception that
48
Of the many studies selected for review, not organic food it is not mass-produced, or the
49
one differentiated between purchasers and actual security measures governing the grow-
50
51 consumers of organic products. Consumers ing of the crops? Without careful consideration
52 living in households with young children have of how the term is understood, it is impossible
53 a higher likelihood of purchasing organic for researchers to understand the underlying
54 products. Is the organic food purchased only motives driving the decision making process.
55 for their children or is it bought for the entire Future research needs to incorporate more
56 familys consumption? Are there identifiable interpretative types of research methods in
patterns that reflect the adoption process of order to provide richer insight into consumer

Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Month 2007
DOI: 10.1002/cb
1
2
3 Who are organic food consumers? 13
4
5 motivations and interpretations of the organic healthier (Williams, 2002). Does the growth of
6 food purchase and consumption experiences. the organic food market hinge upon health
7 At the beginning of this paper we quote claims? Will there be repercussions should it
8 Schifferstein and Ophuis (1998) who talk be proven that there is no health advantage to
9
about buying organic food as being a way organic food?
10
of life for RCOFs. However, we have no real Additionally, to many consumers the high
11

FS
12 sense of what this way of life actually involves. prices characteristic of organic food constitute
13 Thus, interpretative research which considers a deterrent to its purchase; they do not believe
14 the lived experience of organic consumers is the value of organic food to be worth the high

O
15 needed to further our knowledge and under- premiums often times charged. Yet, research
16 standing of organic food consumption and the has noted that when organic food is priced
organic food consumer. lower, consumers tend to infer the low-

O
17
18 er-priced organic food is of lower quality and
19 has fewer benefits. If quality translates to

PR
20 Move to the mainstreamthe business health, then the lowering of prices reduces
21 of organic food organic foods differentiating feature per-
22
ceived healthfulness. Striking the balance
23 For years, organics were the exclusive pro- D between these two forces is an important
24 vince of small independent farmers. In the last
25 challenge for the industry.
decade, however, many large food companies
TE
26 have entered the organic marketplace. Some
27 have overtly created their own brands of
28 organic foods (e.g., Frito-Lays Naturals pro-
29
duct line; Tescos organic range in the UK and Implications
EC

30
31
Ireland), while others have been considerably
The themes identified in this review suggest
32 more discreet (e.g., Odwalla, makers of organic
that the stakeholders of organic foods have
33 orange juice, is owned by Minute Maid, a
much to do if the industry is to grow and to
R

34 division of Coca Cola). The entrance of mass


serve the varied consumer interests. Even the
35 organic-food producers and retailers carries
basic understanding of what organic means is
R

36 with it an inherent tension between the


not universal. If consumers cannot distinguish
37 principles of sustainable farming and the
organic from conventional food on reasonable
O

38 imperatives of big business. Noteworthy, is


39 criteria, it is not surprising that they do not
the paucity of research that has dealt with the
purchase organics at greater rates. It is
C

40 above described move to the mainstream.


41 incumbent on marketers, retailers, and produ-
From farming to retailing practices, organic
cers to better convey relevant information to
N

42
food production, and marketing processes are
43 consumers. Appropriate educational materials
rapidly changing. It is logical to believe that for
U

44 that could broaden the organic food consumer


45 some consumers this information would
base need to be developed. Marketers need to
46 influence their attitudes and subsequent
include information pertaining to production
47 behavior toward organic food. The question
methods, environmental benefits, positive
48 is how, and to what extent.
contributions to local economies, etc. By not
49
engaging in proactive, strategic marketing, the
50
51 industry has left consumers to figure it out on
Solving the paradoxes
52 their own.
53 Two paradoxes become apparent: the health The themes also revealed that some con-
54 paradox and the price paradox. Consumers sumers are concerned about food safety, have a
55 buy organic food primarily due to its perceived tendency to distrust government agencies, and
56 health benefits. This is interesting, as there has yet are not fully educated about organic food.
been no evidence that organic food is actually As a result, it is imperative that growers

Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Month 2007
DOI: 10.1002/cb
1
2
3 14 Renee Shaw Hughner et al.
4
5 recognize their own stake in the image of food in the 21st century is filled with
6 organic food as the image is generated by paradoxes, confusion, and dilemmas. At the
7 others in the value chain. As large corporations same time a recent review of 20 years of
8 extend their own offerings to include organic consumer research (Arnold and Thompson,
9
lines along with conventional foods even 2005) found that studies which have led to a
10
educated consumers may begin to doubt the distinctive body of theoretical knowledge
11

FS
12 authenticity of the organic label. Growers about consumption and marketplace beha-
13 must remain active participants in the value viors have been largely sociocultural, experi-
14 chain through which their products move in ential, symbolic, or ideological in nature. Thus,

O
15 order to protect the investment they have it seems consumer research into organic food
16 made. consumption, by focusing primarily on demo-
graphic issues, is in its infancy theoretically.

O
17
18 Future research in the area is now needed to
19 move beyond what we have seen over the past

PR
20 Concluding thoughts
20 years and embrace some of the themes
21 Our study shows the need for further research being identified in the consumer research field
22
to better understand the organic consumer, generally, and the food consumption field,
23
whilst also recognizing that current consu- specifically. Consequently, consumer resear-
D
24
25 mers, both regular and occasional, are con- chers, producers, retailers, and policy makers
fused on many fronts. As the global production will then benefit from a richer understanding
TE
26
27 of organic food is expected to grow substan- of the organic food consumer, than that which
28 tially, what appears clear from our research is has been offered to date. Thus, the next
29 that marketing academics have an important research question for researchers in this field,
EC

30 role to play in generating further insights into we would argue, should ask, not who is the
31 understanding the organic consumer and the organic food consumer; but moreover how do
32 marketing system in which they must make organic food consumers use the products in
33 purchase decisions and consume organic their everyday lives? What are her/his lived
R

34 products. This information may then be experiences and how can our understanding of
35
utilized to aid consumers, the food industry these experiences aid consumption knowl-
R

36
(growers and retailers alike), policy makers, edge to facilitate a richer understanding of
37
and special interest groups. Such research also consumption and marketplace behavior?
O

38
39 will be useful in helping consumers, retailers,
and producers better understand what organic
C

40
41 means in the public sphere and the impact of
Biographical notes
media in its representation. Research can also
N

42
43 inform the industry and policy makers on what Renee Shaw Hughner, PhD, is an Assistant Pro-
U

44 marketing strategies will be useful in educating fessor of marketing at Arizona State University.
45 and informing the public on the one hand; In addition to the organic food industry, her
46 whilst also providing tactical advice on packa- research focuses on policy issues related to the
47 ging, communications, pricing strategies, and marketing of childrens food products. She has
48
so forth. To this end, marketers might help also published research on the understanding
49
produce a convergence of interests strategy of lay health behaviors. She received her doc-
50
51 for all interested parties in the production and torate at the Arizona State University and
52 consumption of organic food, as well as advise taught in the Food Marketing Department at
53 on policy which elucidates rather than obfus- St. Josephs University before joining the Mor-
54 cates the organic question. rison School of Agribusiness at Arizona State
55 A recent special issue on the representa- University.
56 tion of food in everyday life (McDonagh and Pierre McDonagh (PhD Cardiff University, Wales)
Prothero, 2005) recognized that the study of is Lecturer in Marketing at Dublin City Univer-

Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Month 2007
DOI: 10.1002/cb
1
2
3 Who are organic food consumers? 15
4
5 sity Business School. He has published exten- particularly in developing countries. In
6 sively on social issues in marketing, including addition to analysis of the organic food indus-
7 editing Green Management: A Reader (ITBP, try, her current research includes mapping of
8 1997), a special issue of the European Journal U.S.Mexican food distribution channels, and
9
of Marketing on Societal Marketing (2002) and evaluating prospects for alternative crops and
10
a special issue of Consumption Markets & functional foods. She also spent 10 years with
11

FS
12 Culture on Food, Markets & Culture (2004). the World Bank.
13 Current projects include guest editing the
14 Journal of Strategic Marketings Special Issue

O
15 on Fair Trade and he is joint Global Policy and
16 Environment Editor for the Journal of Macro- References
marketing (with Andy Prothero and Bill Kil-

O
17
Aarset B, Beckmann S, Bigne E, Beveridge M, Bjorn-
18 bourne) and European Editor of the Academy
dal T, Bunting J, McDonagh P, Mariojouls C, Muir
19 of Marketing Science Review.

PR
20 J, Prothero A, Reisch L, Smith A, Tveteras R,
Andrea Prothero is Senior Lecturer in Marketing Young J. 2004. The European consumers under-
21 at University College Dublin. Andy graduated
22 standing and perceptions of the organic food
with a BSc in Business Administration and a regime: the case of aquaculture. British Food
23
PhD from the University of Cardiff. She joined D Journal 106(2): 93105.
24
25 the marketing department of UCD in 1999. Her Arnold EJ, Thompson CJ. 2005. Consumer culture
research activity falls into the key area of theory (CCT): twenty years of research. Journal
TE
26
27 macromarketing; where the main focus is an of Consumer Research 31(3): 868882.
28 assessment of the impact of marketing activi- Byrne PJ, Toensmeyer UC, German CL, Muller HR.
29 ties upon society. The key research areas she is 1992. Evaluation of consumer attitudes towards
EC

30 currently associated with are Sustainable Con- organic produce in Delaware and the Delmarva
31 sumption, Organic Food Consumption, region. Journal of Food Distribution Research
32 Families & Consumption and Advertising to 23(1): 2944.
33 Children. She has published widely in these Canavari M, Bazzani GM, Spadoni R, Regazzi D.
R

34 areas, has secured a number of research grants, 2002. Food safety and organic fruit demand in
35 Italy: a survey. British Food Journal 104(3/4/5):
and sits on several editorial review boards.
R

36 220232.
Clifford J. Shultz, II, holds a PhD from Columbia
37 Chinnici G, DAmico M, Pecorino B. 2002.
University, and is Professor and Marley Founda-
O

38 A multivariate statistical analysis on the consu-


39 tion Chair at Arizona State University. His
primary research focus is marketing and devel- mers of organic products. British Food Journal
C

40
104(3/4/5). 187199.
41 opment in recovering economies, for example,
Chryssochoidis G. 2000. Repercussions of consu-
the Balkans and Southeast Asia. He has over
N

42
mer confusion for late introduced differentiated
43 100 publications in diverse academic outlets
products. European Journal of Marketing 34(5/
U

44 and currently serves as Editor of the Journal


45 6): 705722.
of Macromarketing. He has won several Cicia G, Del Giudice T, Scarpa R. 2002. Consumers
46 awards for his scholarship, including Fulbright
47 perception of quality in organic food: a random
grants (Vietnam; Croatia), and currently man- utility model under preference heterogeneity
48
ages funded projects in various recovering and choice correlation from rank-orderings. Brit-
49
economies. ish Food Journal 104(3/4/5): 200213.
50
51 Julie Stanton (PhD, University of Maryland) is an Davies A, Titterington A, Cochrane C. 1995. Who
52 assistant professor of marketing at Saint buys organic food? A profile of the purchasers of
53 Josephs University in Philadelphia and was organic food in Northern Ireland. British Food
54 previously on the faculty at the Morrison Journal 97(10): 1723.
55 School of Agribusiness at Arizona State Univer- Fillion L, Arazi S. 2002. Does organic food taste
56 sity. Her research has focused on improving better? A claim substantiation approach. Nutri-
market opportunities for smaller farmers, tion and Food Science 32(2): 153157.

Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Month 2007
DOI: 10.1002/cb
1
2
3 16 Renee Shaw Hughner et al.
4
5 Fitzpatrick M. 2002. Food scares drive organic sales California consumers. Acta Horticulture 295:
6 in Japan. Food Traceability Report 2(3): 11. 41148.
7 Food Marketing Institute. 2001. Organic shoppers Kouba M. 2003. March. Quality of organic animal
8 may not be who you think they are. Washing- products. Livestock Production Science 80(12):
9 ton, DC: The Food Marketing Institute Report. 3340.
10 Latacz-Lohmann U, Foster C. 1997. From niche to Lacy R. 1992. Scares and the British Food System.
11

FS
mainstreamstrategies for marketing organic British Food Journal 94(7): 2630.
12 food in Germany and the UK. British Food Jour- Loureiro ML, McCluskey JL, Mittelhammer RC.
13
nal 99(8): 275283. 2001. Assessing consumer preferences for
14
Fotopoulos C, Krystallis A. 2002. Organic product organic, eco-labeled, and regular apples. Journal

O
15
avoidance: reasons for rejection and potential of Agricultural and Resource Economics 26(2):
16
buyers identification in a countrywide survey. 404416.

O
17
18 British Food Journal 104(3/4/5): 233260. Magnusson MK, Arvola A, Hursti U, Aberg L, Sjoden
19 Fotopoulos C, Krystallis A, Ness M. 2003. Wine P. 2001. Attitudes towards organic foods among

PR
20 produced by organic grapes in Greece: using Swedish consumers. British Food Journal
21 means-end chains analysis to reveal organic 103(3): 209227.
22 buyers purchasing motives in comparison to Magnusson MK, Arvola A, Hursti U, Aberg L, Sjoden
23 the non-buyers. Food Quality and Preference P. 2003. Choice of organic food is related to
14(7): 549566. perceived consequences for human health and
24
25 Goldman BJ, Clancy KL. 1991. A survey of organic
D to environmentally friendly behaviour. Appetite
produce purchases and related attitudes of food 40(2): 109117.
TE
26
27 cooperative shoppers. American Journal of Makatouni A. 2002. What motivates consumers to
28 Alternative Agriculture 6(2): 8995. buy organic food in the UK? Results from a
29 Grunert SC, Juhl HJ. 1995. Values, environmental qualitative study. British Food Journal 104(3/
EC

30 attitudes, and buying of organic foods. Journal of 4/5): 345352.


31 Economic Psychology 16(1): 3962. McDonagh P, Prothero A. 2005. Food, markets and
32 Hammit JK. 1990. Risk perception and food choice: culture: the representation of food in everyday
33 an exploratory analysis of organic versus conven- life. Consumption, Markets, and Culture 8(1):
R

34 tional produce buyers. Risk Analysis 10(3): 15.


35 367374. McDonald D. 2000. Organic products defined.
R

36 Harper GC, Makatouni A. 2002. Consumer percep- Farm Industry News, April.
37 tion of organic food production and farm animal Miller C. 1996. Challenge to fat-free: sales of organic
O

38
welfare. British Food Journal 104(3/4/5): food nearly double in five years. Marketing News
39
287299. 30(22): 13.
C

40
Hart C. 1998. Doing a literature review: releasing MillockQ7 2002. Willingness to pay for organic Q7
41
the social science research imagination, Sage foods: a comparison between survey data and
N

42
43 Publications: London. panel data from Denmark, Second World Con-
Hill H, Lynchehaun F. 2002. Organic milk: attitudes gress of Environmental and Resource Econom-
U

44
45 and consumption patterns. British Food Journal ists, Monterey, USA, June.
46 104(7): 526542. Mitsostergios T, Skiadas CH. 1994. Attitudes and
47 Huang CL. 1996. Consumer preferences and atti- perceptions of fresh pasteurized milk consu-
48 tudes towards organically grown produce. Euro- mers: a qualitative and quantitative survey. Brit-
49 pean Review of Agricultural Economics ish Food Journal 96(7): 410.
50 23(34): 331342. Murphy C. 1999. April Organic sector moves into
51 Hutchins RK, Greenhalgh LA. 1995. November/ the mainstream. Marketing 29: 1415.
52 December Organic confusion: sustaining com- ODonovan P, McCarthy M. 2002. Irish consumer
53 petitive advantage. Nutrition & Food Science preference for organic meat. British Food Jour-
54 6: 1114. nal 104(3/4/5): 353370.
55 Jolly DA. 1991. Determinants of organic horticul- Organic Consumers Association. 2001. Since 9/11
56 tural products consumption based on a sample of Americans food safety concerns and organic

Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Month 2007
DOI: 10.1002/cb
1
2
3 Who are organic food consumers? 17
4
5 food buying have increased. November 27, 2001, Thompson GD, Kidwell J. 1998. May. Explaining
6 Available at: http://www.organicconsumers.org/ the choice of organic produce: cosmetic defects
7 Organic/foodsafety112801.cfm. prices, and consumer preferences. American
8 Ott SL. 1990. Supermarkets shoppers pesticide Journal of Agricultural Economics 80(2):
9 concerns and willingness to purchase certified 277287.
10 pesticide residue-free fresh produce. Agribusi- Torjusen H, Lieblein G, Wandel M, Francis CA.
11

FS
ness 6(6): 593602. 2001. Food system orientation and quality per-
12 Palmer A. 2001. Organic food. Economic Review ception among consumers an producers of
13
19(1): 211. organic food in Hedmark County, Norway. Food
14
Roddy G, Cowan C, Hutchinson G. 1994. Organic Quality and Preference 12: 207216.

O
15
food: a description of the Irish market. British Tregear A, Dent JB, McGregor MJ. 1994. The
16
Food Journal 96(4): 310. demand for organically grown produce. British

O
17
18 Roddy G, Cowan C, Hutchinson G. 1996. Irish Food Journal 96(4): 2125.
19 Market. British Food Journal 96(4): 310. Wandel M, Bugge A. 1997. Environmental concern

PR
20 Schifferstein HNJ, Oude Ophuis PAM. 1998. Health- in consumer evaluation of food quality. Food
21 related determinants of organic food consump- Quality and Preference 8(1): 1926.
22 tion in the Netherlands. Food Quality and Pre- Wilkins JL, Hillers VN. 1994. Influences of pesticide
23 ference 9(3): 119133. residue and environmental concerns on organic
Soil Association. 2003. The Organic Food and Farm- food preference among food cooperative
24
25 ing Report 2003. Soil Association, UK.
D members and non-members in Washington
Soler F, Gil JM, Sanchez M. 2002. Consumers state. Journal of Nutrition Education 26(1):
TE
26
27 acceptability of organic food in Spain: results 2633.
28 from an experimental auction market. British Williams CM. 2002. February. Nutritional quality of
29 Food Journal 104(8). 670687. organic food: shades of grey or shades of
EC

30 Squires L, Juric B, Bettina Cornwell T. 2001. Level of green? Proceedings of the Nutrition Society
31 market development and intensity of organic 61(1): 19.
32 food consumption: cross-cultural study of Danish Zanoli R, Naspetti S. 2002. Consumer Motivations
33 and New Zealand consumers. Journal of Con- in the Purchase of Organic Food. British Food
R

34 sumer Marketing 18(5): 392409. Journal 104(8): 643653.


35
R

36
37
O

38
39
C

40
41
N

42
43
U

44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56

Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Month 2007
DOI: 10.1002/cb
1
2
3
4
5
6 Author Query Form (CB/210)
7
8
9
Special Instructions: Author please write responses to queries directly on Galley proofs
10 and then fax back.
11

FS
12
13
Q1: Author: Please check the affiliation of all the authors.
14 Q2: Author: Please provide the reference in the reference list.

O
15 Q3: Author: Please provide the reference in the reference list.
16
Q4: Author: Please provide the reference in the reference list.

O
17
18 Q5: Author: Please provide the reference in the reference list.
19

PR
20 Q6: Author: Please provide the reference in the reference list.
21 Q7: Author: Please provide the first name of the author.
22
23 D
24
25
TE
26
27
28
29
EC

30
31
32
33
R

34
35
R

36
37
O

38
39
C

40
41
N

42
43
U

44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56

You might also like