Journal of Consumer Behaviour

J. Consumer Behav. 6: 94–110 (2007)

Published online in Wiley InterScience
(www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/cb.210

Who are organic food consumers?

A compilation and review of why
people purchase organic food
Renée Shaw Hughner 1*, Pierre McDonagh 2, Andrea Prothero 3,
Clifford J. Shultz II 1 and Julie Stanton 4
1
Morrison School of Agribusiness and Resource Management, Arizona State University, 7001 E.
Williams Field Rd., Wanner Hall, Mesa, AZ 85212, USA
2
Centre for Consumption Studies, Dublin City University Business School, DCU, Dublin 9, Ireland
3
School of Business, University College Dublin, Blackrock, Co Dublin, Ireland
4
Saint Joseph’s University, Erivan K. Haub School of Business, 5600 City Avenue Philadelphia,
PA 19131, USA

 This 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 food marketing, are
to be best served. We conclude with implications and suggestions for further research.
Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Introduction behavior. Indeed, the rising popularity of

organic foods – a multi-billion dollar global
Interest in organic food has grown remarkably
industry with accelerating growth – raises
as consumers and marketers react to popular
important questions of interest to governments,
media about health and environmental effects
growers, distributors, retailers, industry plan-
of pesticides, genetically-modified organisms, ners, and marketers. Among those questions
and food safety. This gradual evolution of
are: (1) Who is the organic food consumer? (2)
attitudes toward the origins of the food we What are the forces and factors driving organic
eat has not been sufficiently captured in most of
food consumption? (3) What will the organic
the published literature about food-purchasing market look like in the future? (4) What, if any,
policies should be implemented to abet this
*Correspondence to: Renée Shaw Hughner, Morrison market and consumer welfare? The purpose of
School of Management and Agribusiness, Arizona State this paper is to synthesize the findings of
University, 7001 E. Williams Field Rd., Mesa, AZ 85212,
USA. Tel: 480-727-1570. Fax: 480-727-1961. published studies and thereby to begin answer-
E-mail: [email protected] ing these questions.

Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Mar.–Jun. 2007
DOI: 10.1002/cb
Who are organic food consumers? 95

Answering such questions requires recog- annual increase of 24 per cent during the
nition of the complexity and diversity of 1990s (Organic Trade Association, 2001). In
consumer decision-making vis-à-vis organics. 2003, U.S. organic food sales grew by approxi-
One must first understand that individuals mately 20 percent to reach $10.38 billion
interpret the term organic in a variety of ways (Organic Trade Association).
and in a multitude of contexts. Consumer Despite this global growth in consumer
purchase decisions are based on subjective demand and sales, the organic food market is
experiences and perceptions of organic foods. still relatively small. Organic farming globally
Therefore, in this paper we compile findings constitutes a very small percentage of overall
from extant studies to extract the themes that farming, as little as one per cent of farming in
can serve as the foundation for more in-depth most OECD countries. However, organic
research on organic food consumption. We farming is generally on the rise. In the United
identify several themes that reveal individuals’ States, while conventional farming is decreas-
perceptions of organic food. We also identify ing, organic farming is increasing by 12 per
specific advances needed in our understanding cent annually. Organic farmers are also begin-
of the topic to provide a guide for future ning to receive more government aid – a trend
studies. Our goal is to provide lessons about that is expected to increase in the future
organic food consumers to the various stake- (McDonald, 2000). Given the rapid and
holders – growers, retailers/marketers, policy- accelerating growth of the organic food
makers, and special interest groups – such that market, an assessment of organic food con-
their strategies better reflect consumer inter- sumers seems imperative.
ests and perceptions.

The global organic market Procedures

Published findings have produced commonal- The focus of this research is twofold: one, to
ities and contradictions and so it is difficult to review and synthesize the research concerned
say with confidence what the size of the global with identifying organic consumers and two,
organic market actually is. It is possible, to identify the reasons why consumers pur-
however, to make a number of observations. chase and fail to purchase organic food. The
Firstly, and perhaps most importantly, the volume of research in recent years pertaining
organic market is growing; it has increased to understanding organic consumers and
considerably in recent years and is frequently consumer attitudes toward organic food has
regarded as one of the biggest growth markets been immense. As organic food continues to
in the food industry. The global market for permeate the grocery landscape, it is import-
organic food was estimated at US$ 20 billion ant that researchers are mindful of what has
in 2002 (Fitzpatrick, 2002). In the United been learned, as well as the areas that have yet
Kingdom, sales increased from £100 million in to be understood.
1994 to £ 605 million in 2000 (Palmer, 2001). Several steps were used in selecting the
In 2005 UK consumers spent over £1.5 billion literature to be reviewed. First, we conducted a
GBP on food and drink, an increase of 30% on broad, interdisciplinary search for research
2004 spending figure (Murphy, 2006). In related to organic food published in the last 20
Europe, more broadly, it has been estimated years (1985–2005). Databases such as ABI
that sales of organic food will increase at a rate Inform Global Edition, AGRICOLA, Sociologi-
of 20 per cent per annum. cal Abstracts, PsychInfo, and EBSCO provided
The U.S. market has grown similarly. Sales hundreds of citations published since 1985,
increased from $78 million in 1980 to most since 1990. Following Hart’s (1998)
approximately $6 billion in 2000 (e.g., McDo- review guidelines, we then narrowed the
nald, 2000; Miller, 1996), with an average focus to include only empirical studies identi-

Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Mar.–Jun. 2007
DOI: 10.1002/cb
96 Rene´e Shaw Hughner et al.

fying consumers’ beliefs about and/or beha- food (Magnusson et al., 2001), yet older
viors toward organic food. This means we consumers are more likely to be purchasers.
eliminated all non-empirical – conceptual and One explanation is that the price premiums on
editorial – articles. We also eliminated research organic food may be more affordable by older
focused on associated topics (e.g., GMO foods, respondents. Hill and Lynchehaun (2002) note
animal welfare), as well as research related to that families are often introduced to organic
organic farming and production methods. food with the arrival of a baby. ‘‘Parents take a
Although conclusions vary substantially across huge interest in the food they buy for their
the sample of studies identified (see Table 1 family and increasingly many new parents are
for an overview), we sought common themes buying organic baby food. This is dramatically
that transcended study method or population changing family eating habits’’ (p. 530).
sampled. Fifteen themes that related to con- Attempts to classify organic food purchasers
sumers’ opinions, feelings, intentions, and/or by income and education have been mixed.
consumption behavior concerning organic Studies have found both negative and positive
food were identified. Table 2 provides an relationships between these demographic
overview of the themes identified. variables and organic food preference (Wilkins
and Hillers, 1994; Chinnici et al., 2002;
O’Donovan and McCarthy, 2002). In other
research, results have been inconclusive (Jolly,
1991).
Organic food consumers
Research has also focused on identifying a
Considerable confusion surrounding the term more comprehensive, psychographic profile of
‘organic’ still exists (Chryssochoidis 2000). the regular consumer of organic foods (RCOF).
While many consumers have heard of the term For RCOFs, ‘‘organic food consumption is part
and are aware of its central features – namely, of a way of life. It results from an ideology,
that it is chemical-free – most are unfamiliar connected to a particular value system, that
with organic farming standards and practices affects personality measures, attitudes, and
(Davies et al., 1995; Harper and Makatouni, consumption behavior’’ (Schifferstein and
2002; Hill and Lynchehaun, 2002). Further- Ophuis, 1998, p.119). The values of altruism
more, variables such as the level of market (relationship with others), ecology (harmony
development, the use of other positively with the universe and sustainable future),
associated food terms (e.g., ‘cage-free’ and universalism (protection of the welfare of all
‘natural’) and the product category (e.g., people and nature), benevolence (enhancing
farmed salmon) can serve to heighten con- the welfare of people with whom one is in
sumer confusion (Hutchins and Greenhalgh, frequent personal contact), spirituality (inner-
1995; Fotopoulos and Krystallis, 2002; Aarset harmony and unity with nature), and self-
et al., 2004). direction (independent thought and action)
While findings across research studies using have all been connected to regular consumers
demographic profiling are sometimes contra- of organic foods (Grunert and Juhl, 1995;
dictory, there have been some consistent Makatouni, 2002; Zanoli and Naspetti, 2002;
results that have emerged across studies. In Fotopoulos, Krystallis and Ness, 2003).
general, consumers of organic food are female Consequently, organic food consumption is
(Davies et al., 1995; Food Marketing Institute, often related to an alternative lifestyle that
2001), have children living in the household includes active environmentalism, vegetarianism,
(Thompson and Kidwell, 1998) and are older and/or alternative medicine (Cicia et al., 2002).
(Roddy et al., 1996; Schifferstein and Ophuis Research has found that RCOFs are high
1998; Cicia et al., 2002). Interestingly, younger internal locus of control individuals who
consumers have been found to hold more believe in self-responsibility for health and
positive attitudes toward organically grown are more likely to undertake preventative

Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Mar.–Jun. 2007
DOI: 10.1002/cb
 Table 1. Illustrative research pertaining to consumers and organic food

References Country of research Method and findings

Copyright#
Aarset et al. (2004) Germany Norway UK Group panel discussions—explored 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 Qualitative interviews—related wine choice to consumers’ value structures. For buyers of
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
Who are organic food consumers?

is in order of importance.
Magnusson et al. (2003) Sweden Mail Questionnaire—self-report purchase of organic foods was most strongly related to
perceived benefit for human health. Performance of environmentally friendly behaviors
were good predictors of purchase frequency. Egoistic motives are better predictors of the

2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

purchase of organic foods than are altruistic motives.
Canavari et al. (2002) Italy Survey—examined 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
effect of organic agriculture.
Chinnici et al. (2002) Italy Questionnaire—reasons consumers try organic food: health, curiosity, and environment.
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 questionnaire—RCOF are part of a homogeneous segment, often related to
alternative lifestyle. Include active environmentalists, vegetarians, and alternative medicine
practitioners. Other findings: organic food bought in specialty shops, most willing to pay
price premiums, and certification boards are not equally trusted.
Fotopoulos et al. (2002) Greece Questionnaire—examined 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
were further segmented into four groups: the ‘‘Explorers’’, ‘‘Greens’’, ‘‘Motivateds’’,
and ‘‘Price sensitives’’.

(Continues)

Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Mar.–Jun. 2007

97

DOI: 10.1002/cb
 Table 1. (Continued) 98

References Country of research Method and findings

Copyright#
Soler et al. (2002) Spain Experimental auction market—examined consumers’ willingness to pay for organic
olive oil. Format of information (personally communicated vs. written) affected WTP.
Decision to buy organic rests upon two steps: one, individuals’ environmental or food
safety concerns and two, amount to pay was associated with socio-economic variables.
Makatouni (2002) U.K. Interviews—RCOFs 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. Focus group—consumers tend to confuse organic and free-range products. Health and
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.
Hill and Lynchehaun (2002) U.K. Focus groups and secondary data—developed 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.
Canavari et al. (2002) Italy Mail survey and interview questionnaire—explored 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 Interviews—used means-end chain models to link product attributes to consumer
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
universe and sustainable future’’.
O’Donovan, and McCarthy Ireland Interview questionnaire—examined 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
willing to purchase.
Torjusen et al. (2001) Norway Survey—food quality traits such as freshness and taste, termed ‘‘observation traits’’, were
important to all consumers. Organic food purchasers were more concerned about
ethical, environmental, and health issues, termed ‘‘reflection traits’’. Three consumer
orientations were identified: practical, local, and social.
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

(Continues)

Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Mar.–Jun. 2007

DOI: 10.1002/cb
Rene´e Shaw Hughner et al.
 Table 1. (Continued)

References Country of research Method and findings

Magnusson et al. (2001) Sweden Mail survey—most respondents held positive attitudes toward organic, but rarely
purchased. Most important criterion, ‘‘good taste’’; least important, ‘‘organically

Copyright
produced’’. Organic foods perceived to be more expensive and healthier than

#
conventionally produced food, but high price a deterrent.
Loureiro et al. (2001) United States Survey—looked 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 Questionnaire—explored attitudes toward organic food products. Variables not significant
in organic purchase intention: ecological consciousness, purchasing in a thoughtful
manner, food’s 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
Who are organic food consumers?

purchasing organic. ‘Propensity to purchase organic’ and ‘level of income’ predicted store
choice. Higher income households more likely to choose specialty grocer (less likely to
purchase organic). Households with children more likely, higher- educated consumers

2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

less likely, to purchase organic.
Schifferstein and Ophuis (1998) Netherlands Written survey—compared organic food buyers to general population. Organic buyers
believed themselves more responsible for their health and were more likely to undertake
preventive health action. Reasons organic foods purchased included: wholesomeness,
absence of chemicals, environmental friendliness and taste. Suggests organic food
consumption is part of a way of life.
Huang (1996) U.S. Georgia Mail survey—consumers 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 survey—identified nine segments of consumers based on their food attitudes.
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,
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 survey—examined actual behavior. Main reasons for purchasing organic
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.
Hutchins and Greenhalgh (1995) United Kingdom Survey—considerable confusion existed concerning organic. among organic purchasers,
health, and children were most important reasons. All respondents desired organic food
to be available in supermarkets. Respondents’ willing to pay higher premiums for
organic meat than for produce

(Continues)

Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Mar.–Jun. 2007

99

DOI: 10.1002/cb
 Table 1. (Continued) 100

References Country of research Method and findings

Copyright#
Grunert and Juhl (1995) Denmark Written survey—respondents 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 Focus group—none of the participants had bought organic food; but held favorable
beliefs about organic foods’ attributes. Negative attitudes arose with regard to price,
availability, promotion and packaging. The need for more marketing and promotion
to increase awareness was expressed.
Wilkins and Hillers (1994) Washington, U.S. Questionnaire—compared to general population, members of a food co-op had stronger
attitudes about food and environmental issues, and a higher preference for, and more
frequent consumption of, organic food. Pesticide residue concern was an explanatory
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 surveys—organic produce perceived to be healthy, environmentally

2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

friendly, and better tasting than conventional. Appearance not a disincentive to
purchase; expense was.
Byrne et al. (1992) U.S. Delaware Survey—freshness, flavor, and nutrition were most influential in consumer food purchase
decisions. Revealed consumers’ confusion pertaining to organic produce. Majority of
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 shoppers—explored relationship between organic produce purchases
and attitudes related to pesticide use and food costs. Regular purchasers of organic produce
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. Questionnaire survey—surveyed all consumers; half expressed concern about pesticide use.
Two-thirds were WTP higher prices to obtain certified pesticide-free produce, but were
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 survey—found safety, freshness, general health benefits, nutritional value,
environmental effect, flavor, and appearance of product were important in choosing
organic foods

Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Mar.–Jun. 2007

DOI: 10.1002/cb
Rene´e Shaw Hughner et al.
Who are organic food consumers? 101

Table 2. Themes identified among buyers and food. These themes are classified into two
non-buyers of organic food broad areas: consumers’ purchasing motives
and hindrances to purchasing.
I. Consumers’ purchasing motives
Theme 1. Health and nutritional concern
Theme 2. Superior taste
Theme 3. Concern for the environment
Theme 4. Food safety, lack of confidence Consumers’ motives
in the conventional food industry
Theme 5. Concern over animal welfare Theme 1: Is healthier
Theme 6. Support of local economy
Theme 7. More wholesome The overwhelming majority of studies find
Theme 8. Nostalgia ‘health’ to be the primary reason consumers
Theme 9. Fashionable/Curiosity
II. Deterrents buy organic foods (Tregear et al., 1994; Huang,
Theme 10. High price premiums 1996; Hutchins and Greenhalgh, 1995; Schif-
Theme 11. Lack of organic food availability, ferstein and Ophuis, 1998; Chinnici et al.,
poor merchandising
Theme 12. Skepticism of certification boards
2002; Zanoli and Naspetti, 2002). Consumers
and organic labels buy organic because of their desire to avoid the
Theme 13. Insufficient marketing chemicals used in conventional food pro-
Theme 14. Satisfaction with current food source duction (Ott, 1990; Jolly, 1991; Wilkins and
Theme 15. Sensory defects
Hillers, 1994). The use of pesticides is
perceived to be associated with long-term
and unknown effects on health (Hammit,
health action (Makatouni, 2002). In general,
1990). Perceived healthiness of organic food
RCOFs strongly associate health with diet,
is a parameter of quality for many consumers
believe that eating healthily is more effective
(Wandel and Bugge, 1997; Magnusson et al.,
than medication in managing illness, and strive
2001). Some studies have found that consu-
to stay abreast of the latest advancements in
mers believe organic food to be more nutri-
health and nutrition research (Schifferstein and
tious (Jolly, 1991; Hill and Lynchehaun, 2002).
Ophuis, 1998; Squires et al., 2001). Zanoli and
Noteworthy, to date there has not been
Naspetti (2002) found health to be the most
conclusive evidence that organic food is more
important motive in the purchase of organic
nutritious (Williams, 2002). Magnusson et al.
foods among both regular and occasional
(2003) find that health concern is a better
consumers of organic food. For regular
predictor of the purchase of organic food than
purchasers, health attributes were found to
concern for the environment, and conclude
be associated with the transcendental values of
that egoistic motives are better predictors of
altruism and ecology; occasional consumers, in
the purchase of organic foods than are
contrast, were motivated by personal goals of
altruistic motives.
‘pleasure’ and ‘getting the most from life’.
In addition, RCOFs are characterized by
environmental and animal welfare concerns Theme 2: Tastes better
(Schifferstein and Ophuis, 1998), hold positive
attitudes towards cooking and grocery shop- Several studies have found ‘taste’ to be among
ping, and have a tendency to be less religious the most important criteria in organic food
(Wilkins and Hillers, 1994). purchases (Roddy et al., 1996; Schifferstein
and Ophuis, 1998; Magnusson et al., 2001).
Hill and Lynchehaun (2002) suggest that
Motives for the purchase and because of the high prices associated with
organic food, consumers perceive organic food
non-purchase of organic food
to be higher quality than conventionally grown
Fifteen themes integrate the results of studies food, which informs their perceptions of taste.
explaining consumer attitudes toward organic Interestingly, Fillion and Arazi (2002) con-

Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Mar.–Jun. 2007
DOI: 10.1002/cb
102 Rene´e Shaw Hughner et al.

ducted a series of blind taste-tests between respondents reported increased intention to

organic and non-organic orange juice and milk. purchase organic food (Organic Consumers
They found that organic orange juice was Association, 2001). Some research has
perceived as tasting better than conventional suggested that consumers view organic farm-
orange juice; however, no differences were ing methods to be safer than conventional
found between organic and conventional milk. intensive farming (Lacy, 1992; Kouba, 2003).
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.,
all organic food categories. Nonetheless, con- 2001), leaving it to the respondent to develop
sumers of organic food do perceive taste their own interpretations.
advantages over conventional alternatives.
Theme 5: Concern over animal welfare
Theme 3: Environmental concern Expectations of better animal welfare in
organic production systems also motivate
Many studies have found environmental con-
organic buyers, though to a lesser extent than
cern to be a factor in consumers’ attitudes
do health and environmental concerns (Hill
towards organic foods (Roddy et al., 1996;
and Lynchehaun, 2002; Aarset et al., 2004).
Wandel and Bugge, 1997; Squires et al., 2001;
Animal welfare is a multi-level construct which
Soler et al., 2002). Organic consumers view the
contains both nutritional and social com-
chemicals and pesticides used in conventional
ponents; it is used by respondents as an
food products as being environmentally harm-
indicator of food quality, food safety, and
ful, while organic foods are perceived as being
humane treatment of livestock (Torjusen et al.
environmentally friendly (Ott, 1990; Jolly,
2001; Harper and Makatouni, 2002).
1991; Wilkins and Hillers, 1994). Though
environmental concern has been demon-
strated to have a favorable influence on
Theme 6: Supports local economy
consumer attitudes, many studies have found
and helps to sustain traditional cooking
that it is not a driving factor of organic food
purchase. Rather, perceptions of good health, Some research has found that people have
nutrients, and taste are more important in the favorable attitudes toward and/or buy organic
purchase of organic food (Mitsostergios and food because they believe it supports the local
Skiadas, 1994; Tregear et al., 1994; Shifferstein economy. This most probably reflects a belief
and Ophuis, 1998; Zanoli and Naspetti, 2002; that organic food is locally grown, perhaps by
Magnusson et al., 2003). smaller, family-owned farms. Somewhat
related, Fotopoulos and Krystallis (2002) note
that Greek organic food buyers have strong
Theme 4: Concern over food safety ethnocentric tendencies in food-related mat-
ters and use this as a purchase criterion.
Concern about food safety has also been
identified as a reason for the purchase of
organically-produced food (Jolly, 1991; Schif-
Themes 7 through 9: Is wholesome,
ferstein and Ophuis, 1998; Soler et al., 2002).
reminiscent of the past, and fashionable
Recent food scares such as BSE (mad cow
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
tributed to increasing concerns about conven- not been widely found and/or elucidated.
tional food production methods. One study Schifferstein and Ophuis (1998) found that
even found that after the September 11 consumers perceived organic food to be more
terrorist attacks in the United States, American wholesome. It is unclear, however, what

Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Mar.–Jun. 2007
DOI: 10.1002/cb
Who are organic food consumers? 103

respondents meant by ‘wholesome’. Hill and which dissuade consumers from purchasing
Lynchehaun (2002) suggest that some people organic foods.
now perceive organic food to be fashionable
because of the considerable coverage in the
media it has received, the recent promotional
Theme 10: Rejection of high prices
campaigns and the high prices associated with
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
organic food is motivated mainly by curiosity. et al., 1992; Tregear et al., 1994; Roddy et al.,
Lastly, Chinnici et al. (2002) identified a 1996; Magnusson et al., 2001; Zanoli and
‘‘nostalgic’’ segment of respondents who Naspetti, 2002). As a result, willingness to pay
‘‘associate the consumption of organic pro- (WTP) has been the focus of several studies.
duce with the genuineness and tastes of the Research has found that consumers are willing,
past’’ (p. 194). at least hypothetically, to pay a premium for
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
among countries and may change over time market price premiums (Millock 2002).
(Davies et al., 1995). Squires et al. (2001, p. 9) Few studies have looked at the factors that
note that appropriate ranking ‘‘requires an influence WTP. Soler et al. (2002) found that
understanding of macroenvironmental WTP increases when consumers are presented
elements such as health care and public with information on reference prices for their
educational programs, as well as market conventionally produced counterparts. They
characteristics’’. While this may be, the also found that when consumers were given
findings of the dozens of research studies information about organic products verbally,
reviewed for this paper revealed that health as opposed to in a written leaflet format, WTP
was consumers’ primary reason for the increased. WTP a premium price for organic
purchase of organic food. Taste (quality) and products has been found to decrease with age
environmental concerns usually followed as and increase with strongly held attitudes
top-ranked reasons. Denmark is a notable towards the environment, food safety, and
exception to this finding, where one’s environ- the presence of younger children in the
mental concern seems to be the primary household (Canavari et al., 2002; Soler et al.,
motivator among respondents. 2002).
The high price premiums associated with
organically produced food result in ambiguous
consumer signals. While consumers indicate
Closing in on the attitude-behavior
the high price of organic food to be prohibitive
gap—deterrents to purchase
in their purchasing behaviors, they use price to
Despite the generally favorable attitudes con- form opinions about the quality and taste of
sumers hold, research has illustrated a dis- organic food items. Hill and Lynchehaun
crepancy between consumer attitudes towards (2002) suggest that the mixed opinions they
organic food and actual purchase behavior found about whether organic milk tasted
(Roddy et al., 1996). As an example, Magnus- different from conventionally produced milk
son et al. (2001) found that between 46 and was based on consumers’ perceptions that
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
toward organic food; however, only four to in taste. While WTP research has mainly
ten per cent of the same consumers indicated focused on consumers’ WTP higher retail
an intention to purchase those foods. The prices, Canavari et al. (2002) found that 30
following section is a synthesis of the factors per cent of consumers surveyed in a conven-

Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Mar.–Jun. 2007
DOI: 10.1002/cb
104 Rene´e Shaw Hughner et al.

tional Italian supermarket favored paying price Theme 14: Satisfaction with current
premiums directly to farmers. food source
Roddy et al. (1994) found consumer satisfac-
Theme 11: Lack of availability tion with conventional food to be a key reason
for not purchasing organic food. Further,
The lack of availability and/or inconvenience Magnusson et al. (2001) found that Swedish
associated with purchasing organic food pre- consumers’ most important purchase criterion
sents a further obstacle to its purchase (Zanoli for food was ‘taste’ and that ‘organic’ was the
and Naspetti, 2002). least important criterion. Byrne et al. (1992)
also found that organic criteria and criteria
related to food safety, were not among the top
Theme 12: Skepticism of certification
factors influencing consumers’ food purchas-
boards and organic labels ing decisions.
Another setback in the purchase of organic
food is the level of consumer skepticism Theme 15: Cosmetic defects
surrounding organic food labels. Some Euro-
pean studies have found that consumers tend Some researchers have found that consumers
to distrust certification bodies, leading them to are unwilling to accept the blemishes or
question the genuineness of organic products imperfections often present in organic pro-
(Ott, 1990; Canavari et al., 2002; Aarset et al., duce. Such cosmetic defects tend to deter
2004). consumers from purchasing organic produce
(Ott, 1990; Thompson and Kidwell, 1998).

Theme 13: Insufficient marketing Discussion

Several studies seem to indicate that organic The preceding literature review sheds light on
food has been insufficiently promoted and several key issues and elucidates our current
merchandized. Consumers’ lack of organic state of knowledge pertaining to consumer
food knowledge, the dearth of organic food attitudes and buying behavior towards organic
promotion, and ineffective retailing strategies food. In addition, it points to gaps in our
(merchandising and displays) have negatively understanding. In the following section, a
influenced consumers (Roddy et al. 1996; discussion of the key issues that arise from the
Chryssochoidis 2000). Interestingly, Hill and themes identified is presented.
Lynchehaun (2002) found that location of
organic milk was very important to both
regular and infrequent organic food purcha- Future research needs
sers. ‘‘All of the consumers agreed that they
The OCOF—occasional consumer
would prefer organic milk to be positioned
of organic food
beside standard organic milk – reasons include
for making price comparisons, habitual shop- Much research has examined the demographic
ping behavior’’ (p.537). Respondents also characteristics of organic food purchasers; far
stated that they found organic milk packaging fewer studies have investigated the psycho-
to be subdued and liked the more ‘‘bright, graphic characteristics of these consumers.
modern, and colorful’’ packaging (p.537). Demographically, there have been mixed
Finally, the finding that some consumers fail findings. In addition, consumers vary in the
to perceive any benefits or value to purchasing emphases they place on attributes of organic
organic food may point to the paucity and/or food, production methods, and in their view
ineffectiveness of organic food promotion on market factors, such as price premiums. A
(Latacz-Lohmann and Foster, 1997). more psychographic approach focusing on

Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Mar.–Jun. 2007
DOI: 10.1002/cb
Who are organic food consumers? 105

values, attitudes, and lifestyles could reveal food knowledge. The current environment
profiles of organic food consumers that are presents the potential to inform consumers in a
able to be more widely generalized. variety of ways—internet, print advertising,
A few studies have attempted to develop television, word-of-mouth, retail outlets, etc.
profiles and descriptions of the regular Are there differences or similarities among
consumer of organic food; those ‘hard core’ regular, occasional, and infrequent organic
consumers who shop mainly from local food food purchasers in the information sources
co-operatives and account for a relatively small they seek and/or consider credible?
percentage of organic food purchases. Yet,
many organic products have become common-
place in conventional supermarkets. Little
Methodological perspectives
knowledge exists pertaining to the motivations
and characteristics of the occasional organic Survey methods characterize most of the
food consumer—those consumers who pur- studies reviewed here. While such methods
chase select categories of organic foods (such facilitate the collection of data from larger
as milk) or occasionally purchase organic sample sizes and enable greater predictive
products from large grocery chain retailers. capability, they are not sufficient in under-
That there is no single description of an standing the complexity inherent in consu-
organic food consumer and his/her motiv- mers’ organic food beliefs and consumption
ations could be a partial explanation for why behaviors. Traditional survey questionnaires
consumers express everything from confusion are too simplistic to fully understand the
about organic food to frustration about connections between value systems and
product availability. With the provision of a action. More psychographic or holistic
greater understanding of both current and research could reveal greater depth and
incipient purchasers and their motivations, the meaning and thereby better describe consu-
industry could begin to address consumer mer motivations. For example, ‘‘food safety’’
needs more effectively and one could theorize was a construct found to be a motivator in the
more meaningfully about how people use purchase of organic food. However, in most
organic food in their daily lives. cases, we were unclear as to the meaning
consumers attributed to this term. Do con-
The distinction between consumers sumers believe organic food to be safer due to
and purchasers the absence of chemicals, the perception that
organic food it is not mass-produced, or the
Of the many studies selected for review, not one actual security measures governing the grow-
differentiated between purchasers and consu- ing of the crops? Without careful consideration
mers of organic products. Consumers living in of how the term is understood, it is impossible
households with young children have a higher for researchers to understand the underlying
likelihood of purchasing organic products. Is motives driving the decision making process.
the organic food purchased only for their Future research needs to incorporate more
children or is it bought for the entire family’s interpretative types of research methods in
consumption? Are there identifiable patterns order to provide richer insight into consumer
that reflect the adoption process of organic food motivations and interpretations of the organic
by various households members? Certainly, food purchase and consumption experiences.
these answers are of importance to marketers. At the beginning of this paper we quote
Schifferstein and Ophuis (1998) who talk
about buying organic food as being ‘‘a way
Information sources
of life’’ for RCOFs. However, we have no real
Very little research has examined the sources sense of what this way of life actually involves.
of information that inform consumers’ organic Thus, interpretative research which considers

Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Mar.–Jun. 2007
DOI: 10.1002/cb
106 Rene´e Shaw Hughner et al.

the lived experience of organic consumers is the value of organic food to be worth the high
needed to further our knowledge and under- premiums often times charged. Yet, research
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-
er-priced organic food is of lower quality and
has fewer benefits. If quality translates to
Move to the mainstream—the business ‘health’, then the lowering of prices reduces
of organic food organic food’s differentiating feature – per-
ceived healthfulness. Striking the balance
For years, organics were the exclusive pro-
between these two forces is an important
vince of small independent farmers. In the last
challenge for the industry.
decade, however, many large food companies
have entered the organic marketplace. Some
have overtly created their own brands of
organic foods (e.g., Frito-Lay’s Naturals pro- Implications
duct line; Tesco’s organic range in the UK and
The themes identified in this review suggest
Ireland), while others have been considerably
that the stakeholders of organic foods have
more discreet (e.g., Odwalla, makers of organic
much to do if the industry is to grow and to
orange juice, is owned by Minute Maid, a
serve the varied consumer interests. Even the
division of Coca Cola). The entrance of mass
basic understanding of what ‘organic’ means is
organic-food producers and retailers carries
not universal. If consumers cannot distinguish
with it an inherent tension between the
organic from conventional food on reasonable
principles of sustainable farming and the
criteria, it is not surprising that they do not
imperatives of big business. Noteworthy, is
purchase organics at greater rates. It is
the paucity of research that has dealt with the
incumbent on marketers, retailers, and produ-
above described move to the mainstream.
cers to better convey relevant information to
From farming to retailing practices, organic
consumers. Appropriate educational materials
food production, and marketing processes are
that could broaden the organic food consumer
rapidly changing. It is logical to believe that for
base need to be developed. Marketers need to
some consumers this information would
include information pertaining to production
influence their attitudes and subsequent
methods, environmental benefits, positive
behavior toward organic food. The question
contributions to local economies, etc. By not
is how, and to what extent.
engaging in proactive, strategic marketing, the
industry has left consumers to figure it out on
their own.
Solving the paradoxes
The themes also revealed that some con-
Two paradoxes become apparent: the health sumers are concerned about food safety, have a
paradox and the price paradox. Consumers tendency to distrust government agencies, and
buy organic food primarily due to its perceived yet are not fully educated about organic food.
health benefits. This is interesting, as there has As a result, it is imperative that growers
been no evidence that organic food is actually recognize their own stake in the image of
healthier (Williams, 2002). Does the growth of organic food as the image is generated by
the organic food market hinge upon health others in the value chain. As large corporations
claims? Will there be repercussions should it extend their own offerings to include organic
be proven that there is no health advantage to lines – along with conventional foods – even
organic food? educated consumers may begin to doubt the
Additionally, to many consumers the high authenticity of the ‘organic’ label. Growers
prices characteristic of organic food constitute must remain active participants in the value
a deterrent to its purchase; they do not believe chain through which their products move in

Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Mar.–Jun. 2007
DOI: 10.1002/cb
Who are organic food consumers? 107

order to protect the investment they have it seems consumer research into organic food
made. consumption, by focusing primarily on demo-
graphic issues, is in its infancy theoretically.
Future research in the area is now needed to
move beyond what we have seen over the past
Concluding thoughts
20 years and embrace some of the themes
Our study shows the need for further research being identified in the consumer research field
to better understand the organic consumer, generally, and the food consumption field,
whilst also recognizing that current consu- specifically. Consequently, consumer resear-
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
of organic food is expected to grow substan- of the organic food consumer, than that which
tially, what appears clear from our research is has been offered to date. Thus, the next
that marketing academics have an important research question for researchers in this field,
role to play in generating further insights into we would argue, should ask, not who is the
understanding the organic consumer and the organic food consumer; but moreover how do
marketing system in which they must make organic food consumers use the products in
purchase decisions and consume organic their everyday lives? What are her/his lived
products. This information may then be experiences and how can our understanding of
utilized to aid consumers, the food industry these experiences aid consumption knowl-
(growers and retailers alike), policy makers, edge to facilitate a richer understanding of
and special interest groups. Such research also consumption and marketplace behavior?
will be useful in helping consumers, retailers,
and producers better understand what organic
means in the public sphere and the impact of
Biographical notes
media in its representation. Research can also
inform the industry and policy makers on what Rene´e Shaw Hughner, PhD, is an Assistant
marketing strategies will be useful in educating Professor of marketing at Arizona State Univer-
and informing the public on the one hand; sity. In addition to the organic food industry,
whilst also providing tactical advice on packa- her research focuses on policy issues related to
ging, communications, pricing strategies, and the marketing of children’s food products. She
so forth. To this end, marketers might help has also published research on the understand-
produce a ‘convergence of interests’ strategy ing of lay health behaviors. She received her
for all interested parties in the production and doctorate at the Arizona State University and
consumption of organic food, as well as advise taught in the Food Marketing Department at St.
on policy which elucidates rather than obfus- Joseph’s University before joining the Morri-
cates the organic question. son School of Management and Agribusiness at
A recent special issue on ‘‘the representa- Arizona State University.
tion of food in everyday life’’ (McDonagh and Pierre McDonagh (PhD Cardiff University,
Prothero, 2005) recognized that the study of Wales) is Associate Dean for Research at Dublin
food in the 21st century ‘‘is filled with City University Business School and Director of
paradoxes, confusion, and dilemmas’’. At the the Centre for Consumption Studies at DCU.
same time a recent review of 20 years of He has published extensively on social issues in
consumer research (Arnold and Thompson, marketing, including editing Green Manage-
2005) found that studies which have led to ‘‘a ment: A Reader (ITBP, 1997), a special issue
distinctive body of theoretical knowledge of the European Journal of Marketing on
about consumption and marketplace beha- Societal Marketing (2002) and a special issue
viors’’ have been largely sociocultural, experi- of Consumption Markets & Culture on Food,
ential, symbolic, or ideological in nature. Thus, Markets & Culture (2004). Current projects

Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Mar.–Jun. 2007
DOI: 10.1002/cb
108 Rene´e Shaw Hughner et al.

include guest editing the Journal of Strategic References

Marketing’s Special Issue on Fair Trade and he is
Aarset B, Beckmann S, Bigne E, Beveridge M, Bjorn-
joint Global Policy and Environment Editor for dal T, Bunting J, McDonagh P, Mariojouls C, Muir
the Journal of Macromarketing (with Andy J, Prothero A, Reisch L, Smith A, Tveteras R,
Prothero and Bill Kilbourne) and European Young J. 2004. The European consumers’ under-
Editor of the Academy of Marketing Science standing and perceptions of the ‘‘organic’’ food
Review. regime: the case of aquaculture. British Food
Andrea Prothero is Senior Lecturer in Market- Journal 106(2): 93–105.
ing at University College Dublin. Andy gradu- Arnould EJ, Thompson CJ. 2005. Consumer culture
ated with a BSc in Business Administration and theory (CCT): twenty years of research. Journal
a PhD from the University of Cardiff. She joined of Consumer Research 31(3): 868–882.
the marketing department of UCD in 1999. Her Byrne PJ, Toensmeyer UC, German CL, Muller HR.
research activity falls into the key area of 1992. Evaluation of consumer attitudes towards
macromarketing; where the main focus is an organic produce in Delaware and the Delmarva
assessment of the impact of marketing activi- region. Journal of Food Distribution Research
ties upon society. The key research areas she is 23(1): 29–44.
currently associated with are Sustainable Con- Canavari M, Bazzani GM, Spadoni R, Regazzi D.
sumption, Organic Food Consumption, 2002. Food safety and organic fruit demand in
Families & Consumption and Advertising to Italy: a survey. British Food Journal 104(3/4/5):
Children. She has published widely in these 220–232.
areas, has secured a number of research grants, Chinnici G, D’Amico M, Pecorino B. 2002.
and sits on several editorial review boards. A multivariate statistical analysis on the consu-
Clifford J. Shultz, II, holds a PhD from Colum- mers of organic products. British Food Journal
104(3/4/5). 187–199.
bia University, and is Professor and Marley
Chryssochoidis G. 2000. Repercussions of consu-
Foundation Chair at Arizona State University.
mer confusion for late introduced differentiated
His primary research focus is marketing and
products. European Journal of Marketing 34(5/
development in recovering economies, for
6): 705–722.
example, the Balkans and Southeast Asia. He
Cicia G, Del Giudice T, Scarpa R. 2002. Consumers’
has over 100 publications in diverse academic perception of quality in organic food: a random
outlets and currently serves as Editor of the utility model under preference heterogeneity
Journal of Macromarketing. He has won sev- and choice correlation from rank-orderings.
eral awards for his scholarship, including Fulb- British Food Journal 104(3/4/5): 200–213.
right grants (Vietnam; Croatia), and currently Davies A, Titterington A, Cochrane C. 1995. Who
manages funded projects in various recovering buys organic food? A profile of the purchasers of
economies. organic food in Northern Ireland. British Food
Julie Stanton (PhD, University of Maryland) is Journal 97(10): 17–23.
an assistant professor of marketing at Saint Fillion L, Arazi S. 2002. Does organic food taste
Joseph’s University in Philadelphia and was better? A claim substantiation approach. Nutri-
previously on the faculty at the Morrison tion and Food Science 32(2): 153–157.
School of Agribusiness at Arizona State Univer- Fitzpatrick M. 2002. Food scares drive organic sales
sity. Her research has focused on improving in Japan. Food Traceability Report 2(3): 11.
market opportunities for smaller farmers, Food Marketing Institute. 2001. Organic
particularly in developing countries. In shoppers may not be who you think they are.
addition to analysis of the organic food indus- Washington, DC: The Food Marketing Institute
try, her current research includes mapping of Report.
U.S.–Mexican food distribution channels, and Latacz-Lohmann U, Foster C. 1997. From ‘‘niche’’ to
evaluating prospects for alternative crops and ‘‘mainstream’’—strategies for marketing organic
functional foods. She also spent 10 years with food in Germany and the UK. British Food Jour-
nal 99(8): 275–283.
the World Bank.

Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Mar.–Jun. 2007
DOI: 10.1002/cb
Who are organic food consumers? 109

Fotopoulos C, Krystallis A. 2002. Organic product organic, eco-labeled, and regular apples. Journal
avoidance: reasons for rejection and potential of Agricultural and Resource Economics 26(2):
buyers’ identification in a countrywide survey. 404–416.
British Food Journal 104(3/4/5): 233–260. Magnusson MK, Arvola A, Hursti U, Aberg L, Sjoden
Fotopoulos C, Krystallis A, Ness M. 2003. Wine P. 2001. Attitudes towards organic foods among
produced by organic grapes in Greece: using Swedish consumers. British Food Journal
means-end chains analysis to reveal organic 103(3): 209–227.
buyers’ purchasing motives in comparison to Magnusson MK, Arvola A, Hursti U, Aberg L, Sjoden
the non-buyers. Food Quality and Preference P. 2003. Choice of organic food is related to
14(7): 549–566. perceived consequences for human health and
Goldman BJ, Clancy KL. 1991. A survey of organic to environmentally friendly behaviour. Appetite
produce purchases and related attitudes of food 40(2): 109–117.
cooperative shoppers. American Journal of Makatouni A. 2002. What motivates consumers to
Alternative Agriculture 6(2): 89–95. buy organic food in the UK? Results from a
Grunert SC, Juhl HJ. 1995. Values, environmental qualitative study. British Food Journal 104(3/
attitudes, and buying of organic foods. Journal of 4/5): 345–352.
Economic Psychology 16(1): 39–62. McDonagh P, Prothero A. 2005. Food, markets and
Hammit JK. 1990. Risk perception and food choice: culture: the representation of food in everyday life.
an exploratory analysis of organic versus conven- Consumption, Markets, and Culture 8(1): 1–5.
tional produce buyers. Risk Analysis 10(3): McDonald D. 2000. Organic products defined.
367–374. Farm Industry News, April.
Harper GC, Makatouni A. 2002. Consumer percep- Miller C. 1996. Challenge to fat-free: sales of organic
tion of organic food production and farm animal food nearly double in five years. Marketing News
welfare. British Food Journal 104(3/4/5): 30(22): 1–3.
287–299. Millock K. 2002. Willingness to pay for organic
Hart C. 1998. Doing a literature review: releasing foods: a comparison between survey data and
the social science research imagination, Sage panel data from Denmark’’, Second World Con-
Publications: London. gress of Environmental and Resource Econom-
Hill H, Lynchehaun F. 2002. Organic milk: attitudes ists, Monterey, USA, June.
and consumption patterns. British Food Journal Mitsostergios T, Skiadas CH. 1994. Attitudes and
104(7): 526–542. perceptions of fresh pasteurized milk consu-
Huang CL. 1996. Consumer preferences and atti- mers: a qualitative and quantitative survey. Brit-
tudes towards organically grown produce. Euro- ish Food Journal 96(7): 4–10.
pean Review of Agricultural Economics Murphy C. 1999. April Organic sector moves into
23(3–4): 331–342. the mainstream. Marketing 29: 14–15.
Hutchins RK, Greenhalgh LA. 1995. November/ Murphy C. 2006. Organic outshines expectations.
December Organic confusion: sustaining com- Marketing July: 16.
petitive advantage. Nutrition & Food Science O’Donovan P, McCarthy M. 2002. Irish consumer
6: 11–14. preference for organic meat. British Food Jour-
Jolly DA. 1991. Determinants of organic horticul- nal 104(3/4/5): 353–370.
tural products consumption based on a sample of Organic Consumers Association. 2001. Since 9/11
California consumers. Acta Horticulture 295: Americans’ food safety concerns and organic
41–148. food buying have increased. November 27,
Kouba M. 2003. March. Quality of organic animal 2001, Available at: http://www.organicconsu-
products. Livestock Production Science 80(1–2): mers.org/Organic/foodsafety112801.cfm.
33–40. Organic Trade Association Organic Food Facts
Lacy R. 1992. Scares and the British Food System. retrieved March 23, 2007 from http://www.
British Food Journal 94(7): 26–30. ota.com/organic/mt/food.html
Loureiro ML, McCluskey JL, Mittelhammer RC. Ott SL. 1990. Supermarkets shoppers’ pesticide
2001. Assessing consumer preferences for concerns and willingness to purchase certified

Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Mar.–Jun. 2007
DOI: 10.1002/cb
110 Rene´e Shaw Hughner et al.

pesticide residue-free fresh produce. Agribusi- Journal of Agricultural Economics 80(2):

ness 6(6): 593–602. 277–287.
Palmer A. 2001. Organic food. Economic Review Torjusen H, Lieblein G, Wandel M, Francis CA.
19(1): 2–11. 2001. Food system orientation and quality
Roddy G, Cowan C, Hutchinson G. 1994. Organic perception among consumers an producers
food: a description of the Irish market. British of organic food in Hedmark County, Norway.
Food Journal 96(4): 3–10. Food Quality and Preference 12: 207–
Roddy G, Cowan C, Hutchinson G. 1996. Irish 216.
Market. British Food Journal 96(4): 3–10. Tregear A, Dent JB, McGregor MJ. 1994. The
Schifferstein HNJ, Oude Ophuis PAM. 1998. Health- demand for organically grown produce. British
related determinants of organic food consump- Food Journal 96(4): 21–25.
tion in the Netherlands. Food Quality and Pre- Wandel M, Bugge A. 1997. Environmental concern
ference 9(3): 119–133. in consumer evaluation of food quality. Food
Soil Association. 2003. The Organic Food and Farm- Quality and Preference 8(1): 19–26.
ing Report 2003. Soil Association, UK. Wilkins JL, Hillers VN. 1994. Influences of pesticide
Soler F, Gil JM, Sánchez M. 2002. Consumers’ residue and environmental concerns on organic
acceptability of organic food in Spain: results food preference among food cooperative
from an experimental auction market. British members and non-members in Washington
Food Journal 104(8). 670–687. state. Journal of Nutrition Education 26(1):
Squires L, Juric B, Bettina Cornwell T. 2001. Level of 26–33.
market development and intensity of organic Williams CM. 2002. February. Nutritional quality of
food consumption: cross-cultural study of Danish organic food: shades of grey or shades of
and New Zealand consumers. Journal of Con- green? Proceedings of the Nutrition Society
sumer Marketing 18(5): 392–409. 61(1): 19.
Thompson GD, Kidwell J. 1998. May. Explaining Zanoli R, Naspetti S. 2002. Consumer Motivations
the choice of organic produce: cosmetic defects in the Purchase of Organic Food. British Food
prices, and consumer preferences. American Journal 104(8): 643–653.

Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Mar.–Jun. 2007
DOI: 10.1002/cb