British Food Journal

Consumer perception of organic food production and farm animal welfare

Gemma C. Harper Aikaterini Makatouni
Article information:
To cite this document:
Gemma C. Harper Aikaterini Makatouni, (2002),"Consumer perception of organic food production and farm
animal welfare", British Food Journal, Vol. 104 Iss 3/4/5 pp. 287 - 299
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00070700210425723
Downloaded on: 02 December 2014, At: 05:26 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 26 other documents.
Downloaded by University of Utah At 05:26 02 December 2014 (PT)

To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 18189 times since 2006*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Raffaele Zanoli, Simona Naspetti, (2002),"Consumer motivations in the purchase of organic
food: A means#end approach", British Food Journal, Vol. 104 Iss 8 pp. 643-653 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/00070700210425930
Aikaterini Makatouni, (2002),"What motivates consumers to buy organic food in the UK?:
Results from a qualitative study", British Food Journal, Vol. 104 Iss 3/4/5 pp. 345-352 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/00070700210425769
Athanasios Krystallis, George Chryssohoidis, (2005),"Consumers' willingness to pay for organic food:
Factors that affect it and variation per organic product type", British Food Journal, Vol. 107 Iss 5 pp. 320-343
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00070700510596901

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 111866 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/0007-070X.htm

Consumer perception of Organic food

production
organic food production and
farm animal welfare
Gemma C. Harper and Aikaterini Makatouni 287
Department of Agricultural and Food Economics, The University of
Reading, Reading, UK
Keywords Organic food, Farming, Green issues, Consumer behaviour
Abstract This paper is derived from a larger scale project investigating consumer attitudes
Downloaded by University of Utah At 05:26 02 December 2014 (PT)

towards organic food in the UK. Presents focus group results on consumer perceptions, attitudes
and behaviour in relation to two key interrelated food trends: organic food and animal welfare.
The results indicate that consumers often confuse organic and free-range products because they
believe that ``organic'' is equivalent to ``free-range'' food. Focus group discussions were conducted
to identify the main beliefs and attitudes towards organic food of both organic and non-organic
food buyers. Results indicate that, although health and food safety concerns are the main motives
for organic food purchases, ethical concerns, specifically in relation to standards of animal
welfare, play a significant influencing role in the decision to purchase organic food. The results
are consistent with parallel research into consumer concerns about animal welfare, which showed
that consumers are primarily concerned about food safety issues. Furthermore, the research
illustrates the central outcome that animal welfare is used by consumers as an indicator of other,
more important product attributes, such as safety and the impact on health. Indeed, ethical
considerations seem to motivate the purchase of organic food and free-range products and,
therefore, may be viewed as interrelated. However, such ethical frameworks are closely related, if
not contingent upon, the quality of the product, which includes perceptions of higher standards of
safety and healthiness. Based on the qualitative data, suggests that the organic market could take
advantage of research on consumer motivation to buy free-range products, by embodying ethical
concerns as an indicator of product quality.

Introduction
This paper focuses on consumer understanding of two key food issues: organic
production and farm animal welfare. The paper argues that consumers conflate
organic and ``animal-friendly'' products, believing that ``organic'' is equivalent
to ``free-range''. While it is true that the International Federation of Organic
Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) includes animal welfare as a key component,
and that all organic standards specify minimum animal welfare standards, it is
not necessarily true that these standards far exceed the legal requirements (e.g.
United Kingdom Register of Organic Food Standards). Indeed, Spedding (1996)
suggests that consumers do not consider animal production standards in
organic farming. Nonetheless, consumer concern about farm animal welfare
has risen in reaction to the intensification of agricultural animal production. A
number of surveys (e.g. Mintel, 1996; Bennett, 1996) state that the majority of
consumers are concerned (or very concerned) about animal welfare and are, British Food Journal,
indeed, willing to pay for improved animal welfare standards. Another key Vol. 104 No. 3/4/5, 2002, pp. 287-299.
# MCB UP Limited, 0007-070X
trend in consumer concern and, therefore, demand for improved quality, is in DOI 10.1108/00070700210425723
 BFJ the area of food health and safety (Mintel, 1999; Von Alvensleben and Mahlau,
104,3/4/5 1995). Indeed, concern about additives, such as hormones, pesticides, herbicides
and antibiotics, are key drivers in the growth of the organic food market
(Latacz-Lohmann and Foster, 1997). While concern about health is the primary
motivator, consumers are also concerned about the environmental impact on
intensive farming, and about the welfare of intensively-produced farm animals.
288 A number of surveys have identified concern about health, food safety, impact
on the environment and animal welfare as the key reasons why consumers
purchase organic food (e.g. Mintel, 1999; Soil Association, 2000). However, as
with the animal welfare surveys, there is little data available on the meanings
consumers attach to ``organic'' food and ``animal welfare''. Furthermore, while
animal welfare may be one of the main reasons for buying organic food, it is not
clear to what extent the consumers are motivated by concern for the animal or
Downloaded by University of Utah At 05:26 02 December 2014 (PT)

concern about the impact of the animal's quality of life on the food product.
With the organic market currently dominated by imports of fruit and
vegetables, the key health motivators appear to be connected with the purchase
of fresh plant produce. However, the organic meat market is growing and the
organic dairy market is one of the leading sectors in the organic market
(Leatherhead, 2000). As the organic market continues to grow, with consumer
concerns about food safety, genetic modification and intensification not yet
abating, the specifics of organic animal production, beyond concern about the
content of feed and use of veterinary medicines, will undoubtedly emerge at the
intersection of concerns about human health and animal welfare.

Farm animal production

There is an increasing amount of evidence to support the notion that
consumers are concerned about animal welfare. Such evidence includes
increasing demand for food products which are perceived by consumers to be
more ``animal friendly'', for example free-range eggs (Mintel, 1996; MAPS,
1996), the growth in the number of vegetarians (Mintel, 1994, 1996) and calls for
tougher regulation of welfare in animal production (Bennett, 1996; Harrison,
1992). There have also been a number of consumer surveys which support the
proposition that consumers are becoming more concerned about animal welfare
in food production (see for example MLC, 1996; Fiddes, 1991; Webster, 1995a,
b). However, there are remarkably few published studies of consumer
understanding and concerns about animal welfare (Carruthers, 1991). Those
studies which do exist only report the results of relatively simple consumer
surveys.
However, a recent EU-funded study on consumer concerns about animal
welfare and the impact on food choice (CT98-3678) revealed that consumers
define animal welfare in terms of natural rearing and humane slaughter and
that consumers use animal welfare as an indicator of other, more important,
product characteristics such as food safety and quality (Harper and Henson,
1999). Moreover, consumers are motivated as much by anthropocentric values
as much as zoocentric values (Harper and Henson, 2000). Furthermore, while
 the majority of consumers state that they are concerned about animal welfare, Organic food
there are a number of key barriers including lack of information, lack of production
availability, lack of personal influence, dissociation of the product from the
animal of origin, and higher cost (Harper and Henson, 2001). In this study,
consumers reported that they bought organic food due to concern about animal
welfare.
289
Organic food production
There have been many studies which examine consumers' perception of
organic food, their attitudes and reasons for purchase as well as factors that
facilitate or prevent them from purchasing organic food (Davies et al., 1995;
Grunert and Juhl, 1995; Roddy et al., 1994; Latacz-Lohmann and Foster, 1997).
Existing research reveals that organic food is perceived as food without
Downloaded by University of Utah At 05:26 02 December 2014 (PT)

``chemicals'' and ``growth hormones'', food that is ``not intensively'' produced

and is ``natural'' (Davies et al., 1995). Consumers purchase organic food mainly
for health reasons, in view of it being better for the children, because of lower
pesticide and fertiliser residues (Latacz-Lohmann and Foster, 1997; Morris,
1996; Davies et al., 1995; Tregear et al., 1994). Moreover, apart from health-
related reasons, better taste, being like home-grown, being free from BSE and
from food additives are motivations for buying organic food.
According to Grunert and Juhl (1995), Grunert (1993), and Sparks and
Shepherd (1992), the trend towards increased consumption of organic food can
be linked to a broader concern with environmental issues. Ethical and moral
reasons for buying organic food are also apparent in previous research (Morris,
1996). While health is undoubtedly the key motivator, ethical issues are
important components of consumer motivation. Indeed, issues involving
animal welfare, the environment and ethical trade all motivate consumers of
organic food.

Ethical consumerism
A ``green consumer'' movement emerged in the 1980s, when mounting concern
for the environment translated into sales of environmentally-friendly products
such as recycled paper and ozone-free fridges and freezers. The term ``ethical
consumerism'' was coined in 1998 by a group in Manchester, UK, who sought to
encourage people to embrace a wider set of concerns, and move from a simple
product-based to a company-orientated approach. They launched the magazine
Ethical Consumer to provide advice and information to help people avoid
buying from the worst companies and to locate products and services from
those taking an active stance against the exploitation of humans and animals
as well as the environment.
Being an ethical consumer means buying products which are not harmful to
the environment and society. This can be as simple as buying free-range eggs
or as complex as boycotting goods produced by child labour. Products which
fall into the ethical category include organic produce, fair trade goods, energy-
efficient light bulbs, electricity from renewable energy, recycled paper and
 BFJ wood products with Forest Stewardship Council approval. Being an ethical
104,3/4/5 consumer can also involve watching your food miles: how much energy was
used getting the product to you. For this reason, ethical consumers are
encouraged to buy products which are produced locally.

Aims and objectives

290 Consumption of free-range products is significantly motivated by concern
about food quality, as much as it is by concern about the animal's quality of life
(Harper and Henson, 2001). While consumption of organic food is primarily
motivated by health, the ethical reasons relating to animal welfare may be
double-edged ± organic production is perceived to improve the wellbeing of the
animal and, therefore, the quality of the food product. Here, the motivation
could be health-driven as much as ethically-driven, even though it is expressed
Downloaded by University of Utah At 05:26 02 December 2014 (PT)

in ethical terms. The aim, therefore, of this research is to investigate organic

buyers' and non-organic buyers' perception of organic production in relation to
animal welfare. Specifically, the paper aims to:
. identify buyer versus non-buyer perceptions of organic production;
. analyse buyer versus non-buyer attitudes towards standards of animal
welfare in organic food production; and
. reveal the underlying values which motivate consumers to substitute or
reduce their consumption of animal-based products.

Method
Focus group as a qualitative method
Focus groups act as a data collection procedure as they determine consumers'
perceptions, feelings and attitudes. In this way, focus groups produce
qualitative data which is analysed to understand consumer behaviour. Focus
groups provide in-depth information and explore why people feel, think or act
in a specific manner. It is a flexible research method as probing aids in the
exploration of unanticipated issues. Moreover, due to the fact that focus groups
place people in natural, real-life situations, the dynamic nature of the group
interaction is captured. Focus groups were selected as an idea-generating tool
so as to provide first-hand experience in observing and hearing consumers
talking about their perceptions of organic food and animal welfare and to
explore the way they interact with each other in terms of their consumer
behaviour.

Procedure
Four focus groups were conducted in Reading, UK, in summer and autumn
1999. In each focus group six to eight people participated, all of whom were
parents of children 4-11 years old. A screening questionnaire was used in the
recruitment of the participants so as ensure that all participants met the criteria
selected for the specific research. Knowledge of the meaning of organic food
was a prerequisite for the participants' selection. Moreover, they all were
 responsible for buying food in their families and all belonged to the ABC1 Organic food
socio-economic class. Age was not a criterion, since most participants belonged production
to the same age group because they had children 4-11 years old. Participants
were unknown to each other. All participants in the first two focus groups were
parents who buy organic food regularly (every week); all participants in the
other two were parents who either do not buy organic food regularly or have
never bought it. 291
Focus group participants were initially given the chance to express their
opinions regarding general concerns that they might have regarding the food
that their families eat. The sources of food concerns and their significance were
explored. This open-ended question also gave an insight into how participants
perceive nutrition and how they experience some of the food ``scares''. A
transition question was asked regarding the changes participants might have
Downloaded by University of Utah At 05:26 02 December 2014 (PT)

made in their food choice behaviour as a result of the food concerns. There were
many spontaneous responses regarding organic food and this question was a
unique opportunity for additional probing and follow-up questions. Another
question that was asked concerned the perceptions participants had of organic
food. That particular question was crucial to identify the general image that
participants have of organic food.
All of the above questions were asked during all focus group sessions, with
organic and non-organic buyers, and offered an initial platform for reporting
differences in the perception of both groups. The remaining questions were
different for organic and non-organic buyers and included key issues, e.g.
reasons for purchase/not purchase, influencing factors to purchase/not
purchase organic food for their children, and any improvement in organic food
that participants would like to see. More specifically, the focus groups
attempted to explore issues like perceived advantages and disadvantages of
organic food, willingness to pay a premium, social values of organic food, trust
and assurance of organic food, sources and reliability of information, children's
attitudes towards healthy eating, media influence on children and parents in
terms of food, perception of organic and non-organic buyers.
The discussions included a wide range of products such as vegetables,
fruits, processed food as well as animal based produce. A final question was
asked to allow participants to state their final position on critical areas
regarding the purchasing of organic food. It also allowed participants to reflect
on all comments shared in the discussion and clarify their position at the
conclusion of the discussion. This particular question aided in the
interpretation of conflicting comments and gave an insight into what each
participant considered important. The paper will focus on buyers' versus non-
buyers' perceptions of organic food and farm animal welfare.

Analysis
The groups were audio-taped and video-recorded and transcribed verbatim.
The transcripts were entered into NVivo, a software package especially
designed for the analysis of qualitative research. All data that related to a
 BFJ particular topic or theme were categorised and given a code name. Data were
104,3/4/5 coded through the initial creation of around 200 free nodes, some of which later
were revised and categorised according to topic areas. Coding helped the
organisation of data and facilitated interpretation. A node tree was created as
well as different node sets to explore perceptions of organic food in relation to
farm animal welfare.
292
Results
During the group discussions, three principal groups of people were identified.
The first group consisted of those participants that are so concerned about the
food, that their food choice has been affected. People who buy organic food
belong to that group. The second one included those participants who had
some food concerns but their food choice was either affected for a short period
Downloaded by University of Utah At 05:26 02 December 2014 (PT)

of time or it was not affected at all; for example, there were some participants
who stopped eating beef for a while after the BSE crisis. The last group
consisted of those participants who are not concerned at all about the food.
Their food choice was mainly driven by financial motives and price of food was
the most significant influencing factor.

Perception of organic food

A number of perceptions of organic food emerged from the discussions, which
showed that all participants had a basic understanding of organic food. The
different definitions given can be categorised according to the following:
. Food content. Organic food is food that contains no pesticides, hormones
and GM ingredients.
. Food production method. Organic food is produced naturally, is home-
grown food, and environmentally friendly.
. Food values. Organic food is healthful and safe.
. Organic food and social class. Organic food is for higher socio-economic
classes.
In general, there was no difference in the perceptions of organic food among
people who buy it and those that do not buy it. However, non-buyers were
confused regarding the distinction between organic versus free-range food.
Definition of organic food and free-range products. Participants cited free-
range products when talking about organic food and non-organic buyers were
confused in terms of differences between organic and free-range products. One
participant, when asked about her meaning for organic food, stated:
I am not sure whether it comes under that classification. It is the chickens that have been bred
in fields . . . I do not know. I had this discussion with a colleague at work . . . cause she is
vegetarian . . . and she buys organic food as often as she can . . . she says that those free range
things are OK because they are not injected with antibiotics, hormones so I used to buy them
out as a sort of pity for the animals . . . and so understand that this could come under the
classification of organic (Sophie, non-organic buyer).
 Here, Sophie is unsure of the distinction between organic and free-range Organic food
products, based on misinformation that free-range chickens are not injected production
with antibiotics and hormones. This is interesting because, typically, these are
human health concerns, but Sophie claims she was motivated to buy due to
``pity for the animals'', an emotional response to the conditions of the animals,
an ethical rather than a health-based position.
The variation in the terminology used for organic food seems to have caused 293
further confusion with regard to the definition of free-range products:
I mean it says organic but you do not know what is the exact definition of organic. And when
you buy a chicken . . . get a farm chicken or a free range chicken . . . they must have two
square metres to run about rather that a big house and then you get all these different names
for it and you do not really know what it means or if organic does really mean that the soil has
not been treated, or for how many years, or what kind of years, I do not know. And if the next
Downloaded by University of Utah At 05:26 02 December 2014 (PT)

adjacent field isn't treated that still that makes a different if you want to be free from nitrates
and insecticides (Dagmar, non-organic buyer).

The plethora of standards and definitions relating to both organic and free-
range production is at the heart of this confusion, and there is clearly a
conflation of organic and free-range production methods.
However, another non-buyer, who bought free-range eggs, seemed to know
the difference:
We always buy free-range but free-range does not always mean that organic. Because they
can be fed whatever it is only the fact they are out. If they run around it is OK. But if they stay
in the barn even if they run around I think that they are barred. The free range they can eat
whatever they want and they can go wherever they want but they are fed any growing
hormone, anything that is not organic. So even if we buy free range eggs I am not sure what
the hens has been eating, I just know that they had a nice life, being chickens . . . Again I think
that the free range has been more popular than the organic. And the price has been down . . .
(Anne, non-organic buyer).

Anne recognises the difference between organic and free-range chicken, and is
motivated by concern about the welfare of the chicken. The price difference is
identified as the reason why free-range products (notably eggs) are more
popular than organic equivalents.
Indeed, considering the cost of purchasing organic and free-range food,
participants found that free-range food was more expensive than normal food,
but the price differential was minor, in contrast to the differential for organic
food.
It is OK if it is a matter of 3p . . . Free-range is affordable. It is not something that is only for
the rich (Louise, non-organic buyer).

Food concerns
The focus group discussions asked participants whether they ``had any
concerns about the food people eat nowadays''. This initial question was very
important so as to identify the different level of concern among those
participants that buy and do not buy organic food. All participants, organic
buyers and non-buyers, spontaneously reported a wide range of concerns about
 BFJ the food their families eat. General food concerns were expressed, as well as
104,3/4/5 concerns about the quality of food, ethical issues, food cost, information
provision, food that children eat, international issues and, finally, concerns
about the food as it is produced today compared to the past.
Health and food contamination concerns. There were a number of
spontaneous responses regarding health concerns relating to food
294 contamination, which included issues like pesticides, antibiotics, additives,
excess amount of fat, salt and sugar in food.
Concern about the use of antibiotics appeared during the focus group
discussion, which is exemplified by the following participant:
With meat they put all these kind of antibiotics automatically into any animals they are
breeding. They are finding, now, that people are becoming immune to antibiotics they have
Downloaded by University of Utah At 05:26 02 December 2014 (PT)

been given, so they have to bring out new ones (Adriana, organic buyer).

There were no significant differences in the level of consumers' concern about

antibiotics among those participants that buy organic food and those that do
not.
Concerns about ethical issues. Throughout focus group discussions it
appeared that participants that expressed concerns about ethical issues such as
animal welfare, fair trade, the environment, and supported small local
producers were mainly the organic buyers. These concerns are the main
motives for the purchase of specific products as many of those participants
were buyers of free-range products and/or organic and free-range products as
well as fair traded products to support the movement against the exploitation
of developing countries' producers. Some other participants stated that they
were vegetarians for animal welfare issues. On the other hand, almost all of the
non-organic buyers did not express any sensitivity about food-related ethical
issues.

Purchase of free-range products

The focus group discussions revealed that there are two reasons why people
(mainly organic food buyers) may buy free-range products: animal welfare and
health issues.
Animal welfare. Organic buyers were quite concerned about the way that
animals were treated and the places where they were kept, which motivated
purchase of free-range products:
Actually I did not notice any difference between free-range eggs and non free-range eggs but I
buy free range eggs cause I do not like to think of the chickens being in boxes and cages
(Kathryn, organic buyer).

Another organic buyer buys free-range products because:

If they are intensively reared they are not haven't a happy life (Julia, organic buyer).

The following participant buys free-range products because of her concerns

about animal welfare:
 So even if we buy free range eggs I am not sure what the hens has been eaten, I just know that Organic food
they had a nice life, being chickens. And being able to do what they want, whenever they
want (Anne, non-organic buyer). production
Almost all of the organic buyers were interested in animal welfare issues and,
therefore, bought free-range, as exemplified by the following participant:
. . . And we mentioned quite a lot about vegetables. For me it is actually more the animals as
well. I am not happy if I know that I buy meat that is not fed organic or is fed through 295
intensive farming methods. I just feel more comfortable about it (Tracy, organic buyer).

And later the same participant used the animal welfare issue as a motive for
buying organic meat:
I do not buy organic vegetables so often. I buy more organic meat than organic vegetables
and I go a lot for taste for many things. The conventionally produced plum tomatoes taste
Downloaded by University of Utah At 05:26 02 December 2014 (PT)

really lovely. For me, it is not purely political thing as well. It is more that at the end of the day
it is going to taste more and I enjoy it. The political thing has to do more with the animals
than with the vegetables (Tracy, organic buyer).

With the exemption of one participant, all non-organic buyers were

unconcerned about the animal welfare issues. For the following participant,
nothing was wrong with the battery hens, whereas, the argument regarding the
happiness of the animal is not strong enough to make her buy free-range
products.
Once I visited a friend of mine whose parents had a battery farm hen and I went to huge place
where they were in sort of cages. But their argument for battery hens, and free-range were not
accurate in terms of food. With battery hens, they have automatic feeding to produce the
perfect egg. So I have never had any problem with battery hen eggs. In terms of being happier
for the animals I felt that I could buy free-range eggs for that reason for the animal . . . it
seems that you either do not eat it or you do (Jackie, non organic buyer).

While some non-buyers were concerned about animal welfare, they were less
likely to buy animal-friendly products and more likely to express concern about
animal production, in terms of food safety, by reducing consumption rather
than substituting conventionally produced products for organic or free-range
products.
Health issues. Organic food buyers perceive free-range products as superior
to conventional products as far as their health benefits are concerned. The
following participants commented on the animals' quality of life and its effect
on food healthiness:
I feel that free-range chickens had a happier and healthier life. More space to move and play
on the fields . . . the life an animal definitely affects the quality of its meat! (Julia, organic
buyer).

Another participant also referred to the relationship between food quality and
animals' wellbeing:
You are what you eat . . . happy animals produce healthy products (Tracy, organic buyer).

Additionally, another organic buyer commented on the health aspect of the

animal welfare issue:
 BFJ I can not see how chickens that are kept in cages could produce healthy eggs . . . if they never
see the sunlight! It is a horrible thought (Adriana, organic buyer).
104,3/4/5
Mistrust. Despite the fact that most of the organic food buyers purchase free-
range products for health and animal welfare issues, criticism with regard to
the way food is regulated and licensed was apparent throughout the focus
groups. Regarding free-range products, one participant was very sceptical after
296 a programme on TV that doubted the certification systems.
My husband told me about a programme in the last couple of weeks on the television
concerning free-range eggs and to put it briefly he said don't bother buying free-range eggs
from Tesco's and Asda any more because to meet the free-range standard requirements you
only need to have the farmers and the producers meet a number of categories out of five. And
the chickens have been as intensively reared as battery chickens and then they moved on then
what happened was that they were even more crowded than battery hens because they have
Downloaded by University of Utah At 05:26 02 December 2014 (PT)

been kept . . . this is all allowed and the legislation is all wrong and we all have been exploited
as these people only have to meet a couple of categories and we think we buying cruelty-free
wonderful food! These chickens from 0-6 there are taken to a certain place and when they are
ready to be laying hens they were so used to be indoors. They did not use the outdoor
facilities which was a little door and they all stayed in the barns like a lot of battery hens. It
was quite horrible. And then they moved to the Soil Association, which I always thought
were very stringent but apparently they are not! And I wonder whether the organic products
that we are consuming are also meeting one or two categories but they are also they do not
have this pesticide use and this pesticide but it has an insecticide and a fungicide used. We do
not know! (Julia, organic buyer).

Lack of trust in sources of information, especially the Government and the food
industry, was identified as a key barrier to purchasing animal-friendly
products (Harper and Henson, 2001) and is evident here, even among organic
buyers.

Vegetarianism
An alternative to substituting products, due to concern about health or animal
welfare, is to reduce or stop consumption. This strategy is adopted by both
buyers and non-buyers, but, the reasons for change in consumption and the
period of time involved differ radically. According to the focus group results,
two of the main reasons why people have decided to become vegetarians are
animal welfare issues and health issues.
Animal welfare issues. Animal welfare issues are closely related to health
issues, as evident in the following quotation describing why this organic buyer
became vegetarian:
Incidentally, I do not eat meat and that is because of animal welfare issues (apart from fish) I
have been vegetarian since I was 18, 15 years ago, I did not eat fish at the beginning as well.
But that was an animal welfare issue. But then I have always been interested in what I eat
and from where it comes from and I started to read about pesticides and the influence of DDT
back in the 1970s and 1980s when they found what it does to people and I became aware from
where the food comes from and how it has been produced. I also worked for the Ministry of
Agriculture at the time which is an ideal way to find out how food is produced (Julia, organic
buyer).
 Health issues. Concern about BSE made some people stop eating beef. The only Organic food
significant difference was that most of the non-organic food buyers have production
become vegetarians just for a specific period of time, during the BSE crisis,
whereas organic food buyers are more committed:
The biggest worry to me the recent years has been the BSE worry which . . . really . . . I had
sleepless nights about it . . . for my children and we are eating beef now again . . . we gave up 297
meat quite a long time ago, we tried to be vegetarians (Chris, non-organic buyer).

Non-buyers of organic food were less likely to be vegetarian than buyers;

indeed, there were non-buyers who believed that stopping eating beef after the
BSE scare was pointless:
It is too late. I mean I can understand people that dropped meat, although, I think that the
damage has been done. I mean that apart from your children that have not eaten beef, I think
Downloaded by University of Utah At 05:26 02 December 2014 (PT)

that the damage has already been done, so why stop? (Ally, non-organic buyer).

Discussion
While buyers and non-buyers of organic food have similar perceptions of what
organic food means, they have divergent understanding of the differences
between organic production and free-range (or ``animal-friendly'') production.
Perceptions of organic food are affected by their beliefs about the safety and
quality of conventional food production and subsequent attitudes to
conventional versus organic products. Purchasing behaviour is affected by
their perceptions, beliefs, attitudes and the ability to pay premiums for organic
products. Here, three groups of consumers were identified: those consumers
who are concerned about health and/or ethical issues and, therefore, buy
organic food; those consumers who are concerned about health and/or ethical
issues and, therefore, do not buy organic products but may have reduced
consumption or buy free-range products; and those consumers who are
unconcerned about health and/or ethical issues and, therefore, do not buy
organic products, have not changed their consumption and do not buy free-
range products.
The main motivator for purchasing organic food is health; moreover,
standards of animal welfare are used as indicators of the safety and healthiness
of food. However, both buyers and non-buyers report that concern for the
wellbeing of the animal motivates purchase of animal-friendly products.
Buyers of organic food are more likely to be concerned about food-related
ethical issues such as animal welfare, the impact of agriculture on the
environment and ethical trading, than non-buyers. Moreover, organic buyers
are more likely to be vegetarian than non-organic buyers. However, despite the
differential rates of purchasing free-range products, consumers present ethical
reasons to justify their motivations. The ethical dimension, concern about the
welfare of the animal for the animal's sake, contributes to the consumption of
products at the symbolic, as well as the literal level. Unlike concern about the
environment or fair-trade, animal welfare is a multi-level construct, which has
both a nutritional (or physiological) and social (or symbolic) component. This is
 BFJ clear from the use of standards of animal welfare as an indicator of food safety
104,3/4/5 by both organic buyers and non-organic buyers. Good animal welfare produces
not only an ethical result for the consumer, but a nutritional one as well.
The issue focuses on the degree to which animal welfare, as a motivator to
purchase organic food, is defined primarily in terms of the welfare of the animal
or the health of the consumer. Consumers of free-range products, though
298 manifestly expressing ethical concerns, are often motivated by health concerns.
In the case of organic food consumption, this displacement is amplified. The
emphasis is clearly on health. Consuming animal products is acceptable,
whether they are conventionally produced, extensively produced or organically
produced. All agricultural animals are commodified to the extent that the key
consumer definition of animal welfare, that animals are raised naturally, will
always be compromised. If so, ethical motivation for both organic and free-
Downloaded by University of Utah At 05:26 02 December 2014 (PT)

range consumption is fundamentally ambivalent. The value of health clarifies

this position for consumers ± both free-range and organic animal-based food
products are perceived to be healthier for the consumer than the conventionally
products alternatives. Marketing of organic animal food products is essentially
about health, but consumers want to express ethical concerns, as extensions of
their self-image, however ambivalent and unresolved. Marketers would do well
to acknowledge this displacement of consumer concerns and devise strategies
accordingly.

References
Bennett, R.M. (1996), ``People's willingness to pay for farm animal welfare'', Animal Welfare, Vol. 5,
pp. 3-11.
Carruthers, S.P. (1991), Farm Animals: It Pays to be Humane, Centre for Agricultural Strategy,
The University of Reading, Reading.
Davies, A., Titterington, A.J. and Cochrane, C. (1995), ``Who buys organic food? A profile of the
purchasers of organic food in Northern Ireland'', British Food Journal, Vol. 97 No. 10,
pp. 17-23.
Fiddes, N. (1991), Meat: A Natural Symbol, Routledge, London.
Grunert, S.C. (1993), ``Green consumerism in Denmark: some evidence from OKO Foods-projects'',
Der Markt, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 140-51.
Grunert, S.C. and Juhl, H.J. (1995), ``Values, environmental attitudes and buying of organic foods'',
Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 16, pp. 39-62.
Harper, G.C. and Henson, S.J. (1999), ``The nature of consumer concerns about animal welfare'',
Department of Agricultural and Food Economics, The University of Reading, Reading.
Harper, G.C. and Henson, S.J. (2000), ``Consumer values and concerns about animal welfare'',
Department of Agricultural and Food Economics, The University of Reading, Reading.
Harper, G.C. and Henson, S.J. (2001), ``The level of consumer concerns about animal welfare'',
Department of Agricultural and Food Economics, The University of Reading, Reading.
Harrison, R. (1992), ``Case study: animal welfare'', in Berry, R.J. (Ed.), Environmental Dilemmas:
Ethics and Decisions, Chapman & Hall, London.
Latacz-Lohmann, U. and Foster, C. (1997), ``From niche to mainstream strategies for the
marketing of organic food in Germany and the UK'', British Food Journal, Vol. 99 No. 8,
pp. 275-82.
 Leatherhead (2000), ``The international organic foods market'', Market Intelligence, September. Organic food
MAPS (1996), Vegetarian Food, Market Assessment Publications, London. production
Mintel (1994), The Green Consumer, Mintel Market Intelligence, London.
Mintel (1996), Red Meat, Mintel Market Intelligence, London.
Mintel (1999), Organic Food and Drink, November.
MLC (1996), European Attitudes to Meat Survey, Meat and Livestock Commission, Milton
Keynes. 299
Morris, L. (1996), The Ethical Consumer: A New Force in the Food Sector?, Market Intelligence
Section, April.
Roddy, G., Cowan, C. and Hutchinson, G. (1994), ``Organic food: a description of the Irish market'',
British Food Journal, Vol. 96 No. 4, pp. 3-10.
Soil Association (2000), Organic Food and Farming Report, Soil Association, Bristol.
Sparks, P. and Shepherd, R. (1992), ``Self-identity and the theory of planned behaviour: assessing
Downloaded by University of Utah At 05:26 02 December 2014 (PT)

the role of identification with `green consumerism''', Social Psychology Quarterly, Vol. 55
No. 4, pp. 388-99.
Spedding, C.R.W. (1996), Agriculture and the Citizen, Chapman & Hall, London.
Tregear, A., Dent, J.B. and McGregor, M.J. (1994), ``The demand for organically-grown produce'',
British Food Journal, Vol. 96 No. 4, pp. 21-5.
Von Alvensleben, R. and Mahlau, G. (1995), Neue Untersuchungsergebnisse uber das Image der
Landwirtschaft, Schriftenreihe der Agrarwissenschaftlichen Fakultat der Universitat Kiel.
Webster, A.J.F. (1995a), ``Animal welfare: who are our clients?'', Irish Veterinary Journal, Vol. 48
No. 6, pp. 236-9.
Webster, A.J.F. (1995b), ``Farm animal welfare: the law and its implications'', in Mepham, T.B.,
Tucker, G.A. and Wiseman, J. (Eds), Issues in Agricultural Bioethics, Nottingham
University Press, Nottingham.
 This article has been cited by:

1. Hyun-Joo Lee, Zee-Sun Yun. 2015. Consumers’ perceptions of organic food attributes and cognitive and
affective attitudes as determinants of their purchase intentions toward organic food. Food Quality and
Preference 39, 259-267. [CrossRef]
2. Laslo Tarjan, Ivana Šenk, Srdjan Tegeltija, Stevan Stankovski, Gordana Ostojic. 2014. A readability
analysis for QR code application in a traceability system. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 109,
1-11. [CrossRef]
3. Joanna Henryks, Ray Cooksey, Vic Wright. 2014. Organic Food at the Point of Purchase: Understanding
Inconsistency in Consumer Choice Patterns. Journal of Food Products Marketing 20, 452-475. [CrossRef]
4. Mauro Musto, Daniela Faraone, Francesco Cellini. 2014. The Role of Cognitive Styles and
Sociodemographic Characteristics in Consumer Perceptions and Attitudes Toward Nonhuman Animal
Welfare. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 17:3, 198-215. [CrossRef]
5. Denni Arli, Tania Bucic, Jennifer Harris, Hari Lasmono. 2014. Perceptions of Corporate Social
Downloaded by University of Utah At 05:26 02 December 2014 (PT)

Responsibility Among Indonesian College Students. Journal of Asia-Pacific Business 15, 231-259.
[CrossRef]
6. Beate Goetzke, Sina Nitzko, Achim Spiller. 2014. Consumption of organic and functional food. A matter
of well-being and health?. Appetite 77, 96-105. [CrossRef]
7. Sabine Dippel, Christine Leeb, Davide Bochicchio, Marianne Bonde, Klaas Dietze, Stefan Gunnarsson,
Kristina Lindgren, Albert Sundrum, Sofia Wiberg, Christoph Winckler, Armelle Prunier. 2014. Health
and welfare of organic pigs in Europe assessed with animal-based parameters. Organic Agriculture 4,
149-161. [CrossRef]
8. Domenico Dentoni, Glynn T. Tonsor, Roger Calantone, H. Christopher Peterson. 2014. Disentangling
direct and indirect effects of credence labels. British Food Journal 116:6, 931-951. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
9. Professor Ian Phau and Min Teah, Joanne Nicola Sneddon, Geoffrey N. Soutar, Julie Ann Lee. 2014.
Exploring wool apparel consumers’ ethical concerns and preferences. Journal of Fashion Marketing and
Management: An International Journal 18:2, 169-186. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
10. Manuela Vega-Zamora, Francisco José Torres-Ruiz, Eva Mª Murgado-Armenteros, Manuel Parras-Rosa.
2014. Organic as a Heuristic Cue: What Spanish Consumers Mean by Organic Foods. Psychology &
Marketing 31:5, 349-359. [CrossRef]
11. Inês Viegas, Luís Catela Nunes, Lívia Madureira, Magda Aguiar Fontes, José Lima Santos. 2014. Beef
Credence Attributes: Implications of Substitution Effects on Consumers’ WTP. Journal of Agricultural
Economics n/a-n/a. [CrossRef]
12. É. Gocsik, H. W. Saatkamp, C. C. Lauwere, A. G. J. M. Oude Lansink. 2014. A Conceptual Approach
for a Quantitative Economic Analysis of Farmers’ Decision-Making Regarding Animal Welfare. Journal of
Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 27:2, 287-308. [CrossRef]
13. P. Pomsanam, K. Napompech ., S. Suwanmaneepong .. 2014. Factors Driving Thai Consumers' Intention
to Purchase Organic Foods. Asian Journal of Scientific Research 7, 434-446. [CrossRef]
14. Matteo Pedrini, Laura Maria Ferri. 2014. Socio-demographical antecedents of responsible consumerism
propensity. International Journal of Consumer Studies 38:2, 127-138. [CrossRef]
 15. Shola David Ola-Fadunsin, Isaiah Oluwafemi Ademola. 2014. Anticoccidial effects of Morinda lucida
acetone extracts on broiler chickens naturally infected with Eimeria species. Pharmaceutical Biology 52:3,
330-334. [CrossRef]
16. Edward Shih-Tse Wang, Bi-Kun Tsai. 2014. Consumer response to retail performance of organic food
retailers. British Food Journal 116:2, 212-227. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
17. Alessio Emanuele Biondo. 2014. Organic Food and the Double Adverse Selection: Ignorance and Social
Welfare. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 38:2, 230-242. [CrossRef]
18. Christian Fuentes. 2014. Green Materialities: Marketing and the Socio-material Construction of Green
Products. Business Strategy and the Environment 23:2, 105-116. [CrossRef]
19. P.K. Nicholas, S. Mandolesi, S. Naspetti, R. Zanoli. 2014. Innovations in low input and organic dairy
supply chains—What is acceptable in Europe?. Journal of Dairy Science 97:2, 1157-1167. [CrossRef]
20. Wendy V. WismerConsumer Eating Habits and Perceptions of Fresh Produce Quality 31-52. [CrossRef]
21. Ioannis Kareklas, Jeffrey R. Carlson, Darrel D. Muehling. 2014. “I Eat Organic for My Benefit and Yours”:
Downloaded by University of Utah At 05:26 02 December 2014 (PT)

Egoistic and Altruistic Considerations for Purchasing Organic Food and Their Implications for Advertising
Strategists. Journal of Advertising 43:1, 18-32. [CrossRef]
22. A. SundrumOrganic Livestock Production 287-303. [CrossRef]
23. Somayeh Bahrami, Ali Reza Alborzi. 2013. Prevalence of subclinical coccidiosis in river buffalo calves of
southwest of Iran. Acta Parasitologica 58:4, 527-530. [CrossRef]
24. Albert Jolink, Eva Niesten. 2013. Sustainable Development and Business Models of Entrepreneurs in the
Organic Food Industry. Business Strategy and the Environment n/a-n/a. [CrossRef]
25. Genaro C. Miranda-de la Lama, Wilmer S. Sepúlveda, Morris Villarroel, Gustavo A. María. 2013. Attitudes
of meat retailers to animal welfare in Spain. Meat Science 95, 569-575. [CrossRef]
26. Patricia Graf, Uta König von Borstel, Matthias Gauly. 2013. Importance of personality traits in horses
to breeders and riders. Journal of Veterinary Behavior: Clinical Applications and Research 8:5, 316-325.
[CrossRef]
27. T. VUKASOVIČ. 2013. Attitude towards organic meat: an empirical investigation on West Balkans
Countries (WBC) consumers. World's Poultry Science Journal 69:03, 527-540. [CrossRef]
28. Emily C. Crofton, Anne Markey, Amalia G.M. Scannell. 2013. Consumers' expectations and needs towards
healthy cereal based snacks. British Food Journal 115:8, 1130-1148. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
29. Mohammed A. Dkhil. 2013. Anti-coccidial, anthelmintic and antioxidant activities of pomegranate (Punica
granatum) peel extract. Parasitology Research 112:7, 2639-2646. [CrossRef]
30. Khairia Sehib, Elizabeth Jackson, Matthew Gorton. 2013. Gender, social acceptability and the adoption of
supermarkets: evidence from Libya. International Journal of Consumer Studies 37:4, 379-386. [CrossRef]
31. Beatriz Mazas, Mª Rosario Fernández Manzanal, Francisco Javier Zarza, Gustavo Adolfo María. 2013.
Development and Validation of a Scale to Assess Students’ Attitude towards Animal Welfare. International
Journal of Science Education 35:11, 1775-1799. [CrossRef]
32. H.-J. Choi, M. K. Wohlgenant, X. Zheng. 2013. Household-Level Welfare Effects of Organic Milk
Introduction. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 95:4, 1009-1028. [CrossRef]
33. Lennart Heerwagen, Tove Christensen, Peter Sandøe. 2013. The Prospect of Market-Driven
Improvements in Animal Welfare: Lessons from the Case of Grass Milk in Denmark. Animals 3:2, 499-512.
[CrossRef]
 34. Yue Zheng, Xianghong Li, Hikaru Hanawa Peterson. 2013. In Pursuit of Safe Foods: Chinese Preferences
for Soybean Attributes in Soymilk. Agribusiness 29:3, 377-391. [CrossRef]
35. Vega-Zamora Manuela, Parras-Rosa Manuel, M. Murgado-Armenteros Eva, Torres-Ruiz Francisco José.
2013. The Influence of the Term ‘Organic’ on Organic Food Purchasing Behavior. Procedia - Social and
Behavioral Sciences 81, 660-671. [CrossRef]
36. Amir Shani, Yaniv Belhassen, Daniel Soskolne. 2013. Teaching professional ethics in culinary studies.
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 25:3, 447-464. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
37. Jay M. Lillywhite, Mohammad Al-Oun, Jennifer E. Simonsen. 2013. Examining Organic Food Purchases
and Preferences Within Jordan. Journal of International Food & Agribusiness Marketing 25:2, 103-121.
[CrossRef]
38. R. Zanoli, R. Scarpa, F. Napolitano, E. Piasentier, S. Naspetti, V. Bruschi. 2013. Organic label as an
identifier of environmentally related quality: A consumer choice experiment on beef in Italy. Renewable
Agriculture and Food Systems 28:01, 70-79. [CrossRef]
Downloaded by University of Utah At 05:26 02 December 2014 (PT)

39. Jonathon P. Schuldt, Mary Hannahan. 2013. When good deeds leave a bad taste. Negative inferences from
ethical food claims. Appetite 62, 76-83. [CrossRef]
40. Martin Hingley, Adam Lindgreen, Jon Reast, Simone Mueller Loose, Hervé Remaud. 2013. Impact
of corporate social responsibility claims on consumer food choice. British Food Journal 115:1, 142-166.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
41. Martin Hingley, Adam Lindgreen, Jon Reast, Monika Hartmann, Sarah Heinen, Sabrina Melis, Johannes
Simons. 2013. Consumers' awareness of CSR in the German pork industry. British Food Journal 115:1,
124-141. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
42. Martin Hingley, Adam Lindgreen, Jon Reast, Anne Wiese, Waldemar Toporowski. 2013. CSR failures
in food supply chains – an agency perspective. British Food Journal 115:1, 92-107. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
43. TIMOTHY RICHARDS, WILLIAM ALLENDER, DI FANG. 2013. MEDIA ADVERTISING AND
BALLOT INITIATIVES: THE CASE OF ANIMAL WELFARE REGULATION. Contemporary
Economic Policy 31:1, 145-162. [CrossRef]
44. Lydia Zepeda, Cong Nie. 2012. What are the odds of being an organic or local food shopper? Multivariate
analysis of US food shopper lifestyle segments. Agriculture and Human Values 29:4, 467-480. [CrossRef]
45. Giuseppe Nocella, Andreas Boecker, Lionel Hubbard, Riccardo Scarpa. 2012. Eliciting Consumer
Preferences for Certified Animal-Friendly Foods: Can Elements of the Theory of Planned Behavior
Improve Choice Experiment Analysis?. Psychology & Marketing 29:11, 850-868. [CrossRef]
46. Astrid Heid, Ulrich Hamm. 2012. Consumer Attitudes Towards Alternatives to Piglet Castration
Without Pain Relief in Organic Farming: Qualitative Results from Germany. Journal of Agricultural and
Environmental Ethics 25:5, 687-706. [CrossRef]
47. Annabell Franz, Ingke Deimel, Achim Spiller. 2012. Concerns about animal welfare: a cluster analysis of
German pig farmers. British Food Journal 114:10, 1445-1462. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
48. Terhi Latvala, Mari Niva, Johanna Mäkelä, Eija Pouta, Jaakko Heikkilä, Jaana Kotro, Sari Forsman-Hugg.
2012. Diversifying meat consumption patterns: Consumers' self-reported past behaviour and intentions
for change. Meat Science 92:1, 71-77. [CrossRef]
 49. Jue Chen, Antonio Lobo. 2012. Organic food products in China: determinants of consumers’ purchase
intentions. The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research 22:3, 293-314.
[CrossRef]
50. Ellen J. Van Loo, Sherry N. Melendez, Irene B. Hanning, Steven C. RickeFood-borne Pathogen
Occurrence in Organically and Naturally Raised Poultry 315-328. [CrossRef]
51. Simona Naspetti, Raffaele ZanoliOrganic Meat Production in Europe: Market and Regulation 53-66.
[CrossRef]
52. Ellen J. Van Loo, Vincenzina Caputo, Rodolfo M. Nayga, Maurizio Canavari, Steven C. RickeOrganic
Meat Marketing 67-85. [CrossRef]
53. Albert SundrumHealth and Welfare of Organic Livestock and Its Challenges 87-112. [CrossRef]
54. Megan E. Jacob, J. Trent Fox, T. G. NagarajaPrevalence of Food-Borne Pathogens in Organic Beef
285-299. [CrossRef]
55. Ewa Rembiałkowska, Maciej BadowskiNutritional Value of Organic Meat and Potential Human Health
Downloaded by University of Utah At 05:26 02 December 2014 (PT)

Response 239-255. [CrossRef]

56. Stefan Mann, Ali Ferjani, Linda Reissig. 2012. What matters to consumers of organic wine?. British Food
Journal 114:2, 272-284. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
57. Klaus Horsted, Bodil H Allesen-Holm, John E Hermansen, Anne G Kongsted. 2012. Sensory profiles of
breast meat from broilers reared in an organic niche production system and conventional standard broilers.
Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 92:2, 258-265. [CrossRef]
58. Scarlett C. Wesley, Min-Young Lee, Eun Young Kim. 2012. The Role of Perceived Consumer Effectiveness
and Motivational Attitude on Socially Responsible Purchasing Behavior in South Korea. Journal of Global
Marketing 25:1, 29-44. [CrossRef]
59. Bo Won Suh, Anita Eves, Margaret Lumbers. 2012. Consumers' Attitude and Understanding of Organic
Food: The Case of South Korea. Journal of Foodservice Business Research 15:1, 49-63. [CrossRef]
60. Pekka Jokinen, Saara Kupsala, Markus Vinnari. 2012. Consumer trust in animal farming practices -
exploring the high trust of Finnish consumers. International Journal of Consumer Studies 36:1, 106-113.
[CrossRef]
61. Anne G Kongsted, Chris Claudi-Magnussen, John E Hermansen, Klaus Horsted, Bent H Andersen. 2011.
Effect of breed on performance and meat quality of first parity sows in a seasonal organic rearing system.
Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 91:15, 2882-2887. [CrossRef]
62. Adnane Remmal, Sanaa Achahbar, Latifa Bouddine, Najat Chami, Fouzia Chami. 2011. In vitro
destruction of Eimeria oocysts by essential oils. Veterinary Parasitology 182, 121-126. [CrossRef]
63. David Fortin, Mark Uncles, Andrew Murphy, Ben Jenner‐Leuthart. 2011. Fairly sold? Adding value with
fair trade coffee in cafes. Journal of Consumer Marketing 28:7, 508-515. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
64. Anne Holst Andersen. 2011. Organic food and the plural moralities of food provisioning. Journal of Rural
Studies 27:4, 440-450. [CrossRef]
65. Yazmin Alcala-Canto, Lilia Gutierrez-Olvera, Carlos Gutierrez-Olvera, Hector Sumano-Lopez. 2011.
Effects of clinoptilolite on Eimeria spp. Infection in sheep. Small Ruminant Research 100, 184-188.
[CrossRef]
66. Laura Mørch Andersen. 2011. Animal Welfare and Eggs - Cheap Talk or Money on the Counter?. Journal
of Agricultural Economics 62:3, 565-584. [CrossRef]
 67. Cong Nie, Lydia Zepeda. 2011. Lifestyle segmentation of US food shoppers to examine organic and local
food consumption. Appetite 57:1, 28-37. [CrossRef]
68. JUTTA MATA, SONIA LIPPKE, ANJA DIECKMANN, PETER M. TODD. 2011. Meat Label
Information: Effects of Separate Versus Conjoint Presentation on Product Evaluation1. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology 41:8, 1947-1957. [CrossRef]
69. G.D. Sardana, Tojo Thatchenkery, Ritu Anand. 2011. A study of determinants impacting consumers food
choice with reference to the fast food consumption in India. Society and Business Review 6:2, 176-187.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
70. Adrian D. Uzea, Jill E. Hobbs, Jing Zhang. 2011. Activists and Animal Welfare: Quality Verifications in
the Canadian Pork Sector. Journal of Agricultural Economics 62:2, 281-304. [CrossRef]
71. Lise C. Deleuran. 2011. Innovation in vegetable seed production and the role of consumers in the organic
and conventional babyleaf chains: The case of Denmark. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 26:02,
149-160. [CrossRef]
72. Stefan Gössling, Brian Garrod, Carlo Aall, John Hille, Paul Peeters. 2011. Food management in tourism:
Downloaded by University of Utah At 05:26 02 December 2014 (PT)

Reducing tourism’s carbon ‘foodprint’. Tourism Management 32:3, 534-543. [CrossRef]

73. Brian Vander Naald, Trudy Ann Cameron. 2011. Willingness to pay for other species' well-being. Ecological
Economics 70, 1325-1335. [CrossRef]
74. Domenico Dentoni, Glynn Tonsor, Roger Calantone, H. Christopher Peterson. 2011. “Animal Welfare”
Practices along the Food Chain: How Does Negative and Positive Information Affect Consumers?. Journal
of Food Products Marketing 17:2-3, 279-302. [CrossRef]
75. M.G. Michels, L.C.T. Bertolini, A.F. Esteves, P. Moreira, S.C. Franca. 2011. Anticoccidial effects of
coumestans from Eclipta alba for sustainable control of Eimeria tenella parasitosis in poultry production.
Veterinary Parasitology 177:1-2, 55-60. [CrossRef]
76. C.C. Croney, R. Anthony. 2011. Invited review: Ruminating conscientiously: Scientific and socio-ethical
challenges for US dairy production. Journal of Dairy Science 94:2, 539-546. [CrossRef]
77. F.M. Langford, K.M.D. Rutherford, L. Sherwood, M.C. Jack, A.B. Lawrence, M.J. Haskell. 2011.
Behavior of cows during and after peak feeding time on organic and conventional dairy farms in the United
Kingdom. Journal of Dairy Science 94:2, 746-753. [CrossRef]
78. Sanda Renko, Claudio Vignali, Sylwia Żakowska‐Biemans. 2011. Polish consumer food choices and beliefs
about organic food. British Food Journal 113:1, 122-137. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
79. Paul S. Morley, David A. Dargatz, Doreene R. Hyatt, Grant A. Dewell, J. Gage Patterson, Brandy
A. Burgess, Thomas E. Wittum. 2011. Effects of Restricted Antimicrobial Exposure on Antimicrobial
Resistance in Fecal Escherichia coli from Feedlot Cattle. Foodborne Pathogens and Disease 8:1, 87-98.
[CrossRef]
80. Anastasios Tsinas, Ilias Giannenas, Chrisa Voidarou, Athina Tzora, John Skoufos. 2011. Effects of an
Oregano Based Dietary Supplement on Performance of Broiler Chickens Experimentally Infected with
Eimeria Acervulina and Eimeria Maxima. The Journal of Poultry Science 48:3, 194-200. [CrossRef]
81. F. HanssteinProfiling the egg consumer: attitudes, perceptions and behaviours 39-61. [CrossRef]
82. S.N. Melendez, I. Hanning, J. Han, R. Nayak, A.R. Clement, A. Wooming, P. Hererra, F.T. Jones, S.L.
Foley, S.C. Ricke. 2010. Salmonella enterica isolates from pasture-raised poultry exhibit antimicrobial
resistance and class I integrons. Journal of Applied Microbiology 109:6, 1957-1966. [CrossRef]
 83. Filiep Vanhonacker, Els Poucke, Frank Tuyttens, Wim Verbeke. 2010. Citizens’ Views on Farm Animal
Welfare and Related Information Provision: Exploratory Insights from Flanders, Belgium. Journal of
Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 23:6, 551-569. [CrossRef]
84. Ellen Van Loo, Vincenzina Caputo, Rodolfo M. Nayga Jr., Jean-Francois Meullenet, Philip G. Crandall,
Steven C. Ricke. 2010. Effect of Organic Poultry Purchase Frequency on Consumer Attitudes Toward
Organic Poultry Meat. Journal of Food Science 75:7, S384-S397. [CrossRef]
85. Somnath Chakrabarti. 2010. Factors influencing organic food purchase in India – expert survey insights.
British Food Journal 112:8, 902-915. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
86. Charles McIntyre, Benita Schwanke. 2010. Biscuit (cookie) consumption. British Food Journal 112:8,
853-870. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
87. Joanne Sneddon, Bernard Rollin. 2010. Mulesing and Animal Ethics. Journal of Agricultural and
Environmental Ethics 23:4, 371-386. [CrossRef]
88. Marija Cerjak, Željka Mesić, Marko Kopić, Damir Kovačić, Jerko Markovina. 2010. What Motivates
Consumers to Buy Organic Food: Comparison of Croatia, Bosnia Herzegovina, and Slovenia. Journal of
Downloaded by University of Utah At 05:26 02 December 2014 (PT)

Food Products Marketing 16:3, 278-292. [CrossRef]

89. J. Tawse. 2010. Consumer attitudes towards farm animals and their welfare: a pig production case study.
Bioscience Horizons 3:2, 156-165. [CrossRef]
90. G. Nocella, L. Hubbard, R. Scarpa. 2010. Farm Animal Welfare, Consumer Willingness to Pay, and Trust:
Results of a Cross-National Survey. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy 32:2, 275-297. [CrossRef]
91. Nina Michaelidou, Louise M. Hassan. 2010. Modeling the factors affecting rural consumers’ purchase of
organic and free-range produce: A case study of consumers’ from the Island of Arran in Scotland, UK.
Food Policy 35:2, 130-139. [CrossRef]
92. J. A. COLLINS, A. HANLON, S. J. MORE, P. G. WALL, J. KENNEDY, V. DUGGAN. 2010. Evaluation
of current equine welfare issues in Ireland: Causes, desirability, feasibility and means of raising standards.
Equine Veterinary Journal 42:2, 105-113. [CrossRef]
93. Jae Bong Chang, Jayson L. Lusk. 2009. Fairness and food choice. Food Policy 34:6, 483-491. [CrossRef]
94. Lydia Zepeda, David Deal. 2009. Organic and local food consumer behaviour: Alphabet Theory.
International Journal of Consumer Studies 33:6, 697-705. [CrossRef]
95. G. van Huylenbroek, K. Mondelaers, J. Aertsens, Joris Aertsens, Wim Verbeke, Koen Mondelaers, Guido
Van Huylenbroeck. 2009. Personal determinants of organic food consumption: a review. British Food
Journal 111:10, 1140-1167. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
96. T.A. Smith, C.L. Huang, B.-H. Lin. 2009. Estimating organic premiums in the US fluid milk market.
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 24:03, 197. [CrossRef]
97. Dong-Hun Kim, Soo-Hyun Cho, Jin-Hyoung Kim, Pil-Nam Seong, Jong-Moon Lee, Cheor-Un Jo,
Dong-Gyun Lim. 2009. Comparison of the Quality of the Chicken Breasts from Organically and
Conventionally Reared Chickens. Korean Journal for Food Science of Animal Resources 29:4, 409-414.
[CrossRef]
98. Filiep Vanhonacker, Wim Verbeke, Els Van Poucke, Stephanie Buijs, Frank A.M. Tuyttens. 2009. Societal
concern related to stocking density, pen size and group size in farm animal production. Livestock Science
123:1, 16-22. [CrossRef]
99. H.-K. Fröschle, U. Gonzales-Barron, K. McDonnell, S. Ward. 2009. Investigation of the potential use of
e-tracking and tracing of poultry using linear and 2D barcodes. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture
66:2, 126-132. [CrossRef]
 100. Pirjo Honkanen, Svein Ottar Olsen. 2009. Environmental and animal welfare issues in food choice. British
Food Journal 111:3, 293-309. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
101. Andrew P. Barnes, Petra Vergunst, Kairsty Topp. 2009. Assessing the consumer perception of the term
“organic”: a citizens' jury approach. British Food Journal 111:2, 155-164. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
102. Zeev WiesmanBio-organic desert olive oil cultivation: case study 345-354. [CrossRef]
103. Wendy V. WismerConsumer Eating Habits and Perceptions of Fresh Produce Quality 23-42. [CrossRef]
104. Megan E. Jacob, James Trent Fox, Shelby L. Reinstein, T.G. Nagaraja. 2008. Antimicrobial Susceptibility
of Foodborne Pathogens in Organic or Natural Production Systems: An Overview. Foodborne Pathogens
and Disease 5:6, 721-730. [CrossRef]
105. Shunsuke Managi, Yasutaka Yamamoto, Hiroyuki Iwamoto, Kiyotaka Masuda. 2008. Valuing the influence
of underlying attitudes and the demand for organic milk in Japan. Agricultural Economics 39:3, 339-348.
[CrossRef]
106. Gwendolyn Hustvedt, Hikaru Hanawa Peterson, Yun-Ju Chen. 2008. Labelling wool products for animal
welfare and environmental impact. International Journal of Consumer Studies 32:5, 427-437. [CrossRef]
Downloaded by University of Utah At 05:26 02 December 2014 (PT)

107. N.H.C. Sparks, M.A. Conroy, V. Sandilands. 2008. Socio-economic drivers for UK organic pullet rearers
and the implications for poultry health. British Poultry Science 49:5, 525-532. [CrossRef]
108. Filiep Vanhonacker, Wim Verbeke, Els Van Poucke, Frank A.M. Tuyttens. 2008. Do citizens and farmers
interpret the concept of farm animal welfare differently?. Livestock Science 116:1-3, 126-136. [CrossRef]
109. Halil Kizilaslan, Z. Gokalp Goktolga, Nuray Kizilaslan. 2008. An analysis of the factors affecting the food
places where consumers purchase red meat. British Food Journal 110:6, 580-594. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
110. Oliver M. Freestone, Peter J. McGoldrick. 2008. Motivations of the Ethical Consumer. Journal of Business
Ethics 79:4, 445-467. [CrossRef]
111. V. Naidoo, L.J. McGaw, S.P.R. Bisschop, N. Duncan, J.N. Eloff. 2008. The value of plant extracts with
antioxidant activity in attenuating coccidiosis in broiler chickens. Veterinary Parasitology 153:3-4, 214-219.
[CrossRef]
112. Nina Michaelidou, Louise M. Hassan. 2008. The role of health consciousness, food safety concern and
ethical identity on attitudes and intentions towards organic food. International Journal of Consumer Studies
32:2, 163-170. [CrossRef]
113. Dr Michael Bourlakis, Carmen Hubbard, Michael Bourlakis, Guy Garrod. 2007. Pig in the middle: farmers
and the delivery of farm animal welfare standards. British Food Journal 109:11, 919-930. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
114. Johan Anselmsson, Ulf Johansson, Niklas Persson. 2007. Understanding price premium for grocery
products: a conceptual model of customer‐based brand equity. Journal of Product & Brand Management
16:6, 401-414. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
115. L. Hegelund, J. T. Sørensen. 2007. Developing a HACCP-like system for improving animal health and
welfare in organic egg production – based on an expert panel analysis. animal 1:07, 1018. [CrossRef]
116. Renée Shaw Hughner, Pierre McDonagh, Andrea Prothero, Clifford J. Shultz, Julie Stanton. 2007. Who
are organic food consumers? A compilation and review of why people purchase organic food. Journal of
Consumer Behaviour 6:2-3, 94-110. [CrossRef]
117. Kishowar Jahan, Alistair Paterson. 2007. Lipid composition of retailed organic, free-range and conventional
chicken breasts. International Journal of Food Science & Technology 42:3, 251-262. [CrossRef]
 118. Ragnar E. Lofstedt. 2006. How can we Make Food Risk Communication Better: Where are we and Where
are we Going?. Journal of Risk Research 9:8, 869-890. [CrossRef]
119. John Connolly, Deirdre Shaw. 2006. Identifying fair trade in consumption choice. Journal of Strategic
Marketing 14:4, 353-368. [CrossRef]
120. Michael J Maloni, Michael E. Brown. 2006. Corporate Social Responsibility in the Supply Chain: An
Application in the Food Industry. Journal of Business Ethics 68:1, 35-52. [CrossRef]
121. Pirjo Honkanen, Bas Verplanken, Svein Ottar Olsen. 2006. Ethical values and motives driving organic food
choice. Journal of Consumer Behaviour 5:5, 420-430. [CrossRef]
122. Efthimia Tsakiridou, Yorgos Zotos, Konstantinos Mattas. 2006. Employing a Dichotomous Choice Model
to Assess Willingness to Pay (WTP) for Organically Produced Products. Journal of Food Products Marketing
12:3, 59-69. [CrossRef]
123. Marieke Saher, Marjaana Lindeman, Ulla-Kaisa Koivisto Hursti. 2006. Attitudes towards genetically
modified and organic foods. Appetite 46:3, 324-331. [CrossRef]
Downloaded by University of Utah At 05:26 02 December 2014 (PT)

124. M. Vaarst, T.W. Bennedsgaard, I. Klaas, T.B. Nissen, S.M. Thamsborg, S. Østergaard. 2006. Development
and Daily Management of an Explicit Strategy of Nonuse of Antimicrobial Drugs in Twelve Danish
Organic Dairy Herds. Journal of Dairy Science 89:5, 1842-1853. [CrossRef]
125. Willy Legrand, Philip SloanCustomers’ Preferences to Healthy Meals 265-273. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF] [PDF]
126. Faidon Magkos, Fotini Arvaniti, Antonis Zampelas. 2006. Organic Food: Buying More Safety or Just Peace
of Mind? A Critical Review of the Literature. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition 46:1, 23-56.
[CrossRef]
127. Emma Lea, Tony Worsley. 2005. Australians' organic food beliefs, demographics and values. British Food
Journal 107:11, 855-869. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
128. Emmanuel K. Yiridoe, Samuel Bonti-Ankomah, Ralph C. Martin. 2005. Comparison of consumer
perceptions and preference toward organic versus conventionally produced foods: A review and update of
the literature. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 20:04, 193-205. [CrossRef]
129. Morven McEachern, Claire Seaman, Susanne Padel, Peter Midmore. 2005. The development of the
European market for organic products: insights from a Delphi study. British Food Journal 107:8, 626-646.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
130. Kishowar Jahan, Alistair Paterson, John R. Piggott. 2005. Sensory quality in retailed organic, free range
and corn-fed chicken breast. Food Research International 38:5, 495-503. [CrossRef]
131. Marija Radman. 2005. Consumer consumption and perception of organic products in Croatia. British Food
Journal 107:4, 263-273. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
132. Monika J.A. Schröder, Morven G. McEachern. 2005. Fast foods and ethical consumer value: a focus on
McDonald's and KFC. British Food Journal 107:4, 212-224. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
133. Lynda S Kriflik, Heather Yeatman. 2005. Food scares and sustainability: A consumer perspective. Health,
Risk & Society 7:1, 11-24. [CrossRef]
134. Richard Shepherd, Maria Magnusson, Per-Olow Sjödén. 2005. Determinants of Consumer Behavior
Related to Organic Foods. AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment 34:4, 352. [CrossRef]
135. Isabelle Szmigin, Sarah Maddock, Marylyn Carrigan. 2003. Conceptualising community consumption.
British Food Journal 105:8, 542-550. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]