Determinants of Consumer Behavior Related to Organic Foods

Author(s): Richard Shepherd , Maria Magnusson , Per-Olow Sjödén

Source: AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment, 34(4):352-359. 2005.
Published By: Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
URL: http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.1579/0044-7447%282005%29034%5B0352%3ADOCBRT
%5D2.0.CO%3B2

BioOne (www.bioone.org) is a nonprofit, online aggregation of core research in the biological, ecological,
and environmental sciences. BioOne provides a sustainable online platform for over 170 journals and books
published by nonprofit societies, associations, museums, institutions, and presses.
Your use of this PDF, the BioOne Web site, and all posted and associated content indicates your acceptance of
BioOne’s Terms of Use, available at www.bioone.org/page/terms_of_use.
Usage of BioOne content is strictly limited to personal, educational, and non-commercial use. Commercial
inquiries or rights and permissions requests should be directed to the individual publisher as copyright holder.

BioOne sees sustainable scholarly publishing as an inherently collaborative enterprise connecting authors, nonprofit publishers, academic institutions,
research libraries, and research funders in the common goal of maximizing access to critical research.
Richard Shepherd, Maria Magnusson and Per-Olow Sjödén

Determinants of Consumer Behavior

Related to Organic Foods
major motives for purchasing organic foods (2, 4, 11, 20–22).
There have been many studies of what influences Positive environmental consequences are also a reason for
consumers in their decisions to purchase or consume choosing organic foods (1, 4, 9, 20, 22). Thus, the two most
organic foods, mainly concerned with fresh organic foods. commonly stated motives for purchasing organic foods are, first,
These show a discrepancy between attitudes and be-
concerns for one’s personal health, followed by concerns for the
havior with people being positive about organic foods but
environment. However, previous research indicates that in food
often not purchasing them. This discrepancy seems to be
choice, environmental friendliness is not a criterion considered
explained by the fact that consumers do not consider
‘‘organically produced’’ to be an important purchase to be highly important for most consumers (2, 5, 14). Ethical
criterion, that organic foods are not perceived to surpass motives, particularly in relation to animal welfare, is another
conventional foods regarding taste and shelf life (two motive for some consumers for buying organic foods (23).
qualities rated to be of great importance), and because of Although the most common reason for choosing organic
the perceived premium prices of organic foods. In two foods is health related, there is no unambiguous evidence that
Swedish studies, health benefits were demonstrated to organic foods are healthier than conventionally produced foods
be more strongly related to attitudes and behavior toward (19). It is difficult to establish that a certain cultivation
organic foods than were perceived environmental bene- technique would give products with a different nutritional
fits. A new European Union (EU) project will investigate content solely because of the technique (24). In her review
the influences on both fresh and processed organic foods concerning the nutritional quality of organic foods, Williams
and investigate the role of moral, ethical, and affective (25) concluded that some studies show a somewhat improved
influences on choice across eight EU countries. level of micronutrients in organic foods but that these small
differences are unlikely to have health implications for
consumers.
Findings indicate that there are differences between frequent
INTRODUCTION and less frequent buyers of organic foods regarding their motive
for purchasing such foods. Torjusen et al. (14) found that
Factors Influencing Organic Food Choice
frequent buyers were the most concerned with characteristics
There have been many studies investigating the influences on that demand reflection on the part of the consumer (e.g. ‘‘fewest
consumer purchasing and consumption of organic foods. These possible additives,’’ ‘‘environmentally sound production,’’
have often taken the form of asking consumers directly about ‘‘ethical and political considerations,’’ ‘‘animal welfare’’).
their reasons for purchase or nonpurchase of organic foods Further, consumers who found it important to support local
rather than seeking which types of beliefs and attitudes are business and to buy locally produced foods were more likely to
actually related to purchase or consumption. purchase organic foods than were those who did not consider
In several studies, a majority of the consumers state that they local production important (14). Wier and Calverly (26)
have a preference for and an interest in organically produced concluded that product-specific characteristics that benefit the
foods (1–3). Nevertheless, the proportion of regular purchasers consumer appear to be the major motivation to purchase
of organic foods is low (2, 4–7). Thus, there is a discrepancy organic foods but that the motivation varies between different
between preferences and behavior. This discrepancy may be due consumer segments. The ‘‘idealistic’’ consumers who are buying
to several factors. Premium price appears to be one obstacle to organic foods most frequently are driven by environmental
the purchase (6–11), as is consumer satisfaction with the concerns and political motives (26). However, this consumer
conventional food supply (1, 8, 9). Limited availability is segment is not very large. In a study of Dutch consumers (22), it
another obstacle (2, 7, 9, 10, 12), but the availability and the was concluded that health is a more important purchase motive
offering of organic foods for sale has increased in several for incidental than for heavy buyers, whereas heavy buyers
European countries during recent years. However, in some bought organic foods for health as well as environmental
European countries, for example, Greece and Spain, consumers reasons (22).
still perceive limited availability to be a major obstacle (8, 13).
There is evidence that consumers consider the sensory Consumer Attitudes to Processed Organic Foods
characteristics of food to be the most important factors in their
choice of food (e.g. 2, 14). However, it appears that nonsensory Most of the earlier literature reviewed previously has concen-
attributes of foods are becoming increasingly important (14, trated on fresh organic foods, mainly in the form of fruits and
15), such as absence of food additives, preservatives and vegetables and to a lesser extent on fresh meat and milk.
residues (3, 15), nutritional value (2, 14), and how the food Although this reflects the market for organic foods in its early
was produced (14, 16). Examples of concerns about food stages, with most of the consumption of organic foods
production are animal welfare and the specific production concentrated on fresh produce (27), the markets have begun
system used (e.g. conventional vs. organic production). to extend to processed staple foods, such as bread, and also to
Consumers also express interest in issues relating to food and more clearly processed and convenience foods (27). If organic
health (15, 17, 18). Healthiness is an important criterion for production is to have a significant impact, then it will be
purchase and a parameter of quality for many consumers (2, 16). necessary to make an impact in the processed food market since
Many consumers perceive that organic foods are healthier than this represents the majority of sales of food products in parts of
conventional foods (5, 19), and health-related reasons are the Europe, represents higher ‘‘added value,’’ and in many parts of

352 Ó Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2005 Ambio Vol. 34, No. 4–5, June 2005
http://www.ambio.kva.se
Europe is where there is real scope for expansion of the organic Many of the studies in the literature have relied on direct ratings
market (28). by consumers of the importance of issues such as health or the
This move into processed organic foods opens a series of environment. This presupposes that consumers are aware of the
crucial questions concerning consumer attitudes and motiva- influences on their own behavior and can report the strength of
tions in addition to the key importance for the development of such influences accurately. A strong test of the importance of
the market. When organic produce is sold fresh, people can such factors is to assess the beliefs of consumers and to test how
identify with these foods as being ‘‘organic’’ even if they are such beliefs predict behavior. This was done in the current
slightly unsure of the definition of organic. However, if studies.
ingredients are combined and processed, people’s understanding In both studies, a total of 2000 persons, aged 18 to 65 y
of organic might be very different. Consumer beliefs and (representing approximately 60% of the Swedish population),
attitudes on this have not previously been studied. Also, were recruited by random selection from the national
consumers’ beliefs about organic foods include the idea that population register. Questionnaires were mailed to two
they are ‘‘natural’’ and therefore not processed to any great separately selected groups during the springs of 1998 and
degree. When organic ingredients are processed, do people 2001, and those not responding were sent two reminders.
think of them as less organic? Alternatively, are processed Details about the sample, its characteristics, and response
organic foods viewed very positively because they are both rates are presented in Table 1. The demographic characteris-
convenient and do not offend the consciences of environmen- tics correspond rather well with those of the Swedish
tally concerned consumers? population (35, 36; Table 1), but there was an overrepresen-
It is very difficult to anticipate how consumers will respond tation of respondents with 2 or 3 y of upper-secondary-school
to processed organic foods without thorough scientific con- education (Table 1).
sumer research. There are reasons to expect acceptance as well The questions were focused on four target foods: milk,
as rejection of processed organic foods. Some of the earlier meat, potatoes, and bread. These were chosen because they
studies on organic food users suggest that they are a special represent staple foods in the Swedish diet and because, at the
segment of people with environmentally friendly and altruistic time of the study, their availability and price varied. Most
values (22, 29). In addition, health, food safety, and environ- questions were focused on the organic varieties of the four
mental friendliness are usually mentioned as the most important foods and concerned purchase rather than consumption. The
motives for organic food purchases by the consumer. Third, questionnaire comprised two sections. The first section (37)
consumers strongly associate organic foods with ‘‘naturalness,’’ concerned the perceived importance of purchase criteria
‘‘cleanliness,’’ and the absence of any chemicals or additives dependent on whether the foods are conventionally or
(30). Since processed organic foods would not be as natural as organically produced (healthy, good taste, shelf life, cheap,
the fresh ones, these could be rejected by at least one segment of organically produced, and some product-specific criteria).
organic food consumers. Respondents were also asked about general attitudes toward
On the other hand, interest in organic foods is rapidly buying the four target foods and intentions to purchase organic
spreading to mainstream consumers (31). In comparison to the milk, meat, potatoes, and bread. Questions concerned the
first users of organic foods, the mainstream consumers may not purchase frequency of the four target organic foods and
be so willing to make sacrifices regarding convenience, money, perceived availability of these products. Further, beliefs about
or food quality. Thus, it seems that one prerequisite for wider their characteristics as compared to their conventionally
adoption is that organic foods correspond to conventional produced counterparts (healthier, tastier, longer shelf life,
foods as regard their quality and convenience. Purchase of more expensive, and some product-specific characteristics)
convenient organic food may be a welcome solution for the were investigated in this section. There were two versions of
consumer dilemma between personal and collective benefits, this first part of the questionnaire. In one, respondents were
which may be one of the most difficult obstacles preventing asked about milk and meat and in the other potatoes and
people from realizing their positive attitudes toward environ-
mental protection and sustainable development in their
everyday behaviors (e.g. 32, 33). Table 1. Descriptive characteristics of the subjects in the two
In the following sections, we present findings from two surveys (%, unless otherwise indicated).
surveys of attitudes of Swedish consumers followed by a de- Survey I, Survey II, Swedish
scription of work and preliminary findings from a European 1998 2001 population
study of consumer attitudes to both fresh and processed organic Number of respondents (n) 1154 1100
foods. Total response rate 58 55
Milk/meat, response rate 52 51
Potatoes/bread, response rate 48 49
CONSUMER PERCEPTION OF ORGANIC FOODS Gender
AMONG SWEDISH CONSUMERS Female 54 53 51
Male 46 47 49
In the mid-1990s, research related to consumer preference and Age (years)
Mean 40.6 41.9 40.7
demand for organic foods was sparse (3, 20, 34), and there 18-25 15 15 15
were few scientific studies investigating Swedish consumers. 26-35 23 20 21
This led us (Magnusson and Sjödén) to carry out a survey 36-45 22 21 22
46-55 23 23 21
regarding perceptions of organic foods among Swedish 56-65 17 20 20
consumers in 1998. This was followed by a replication in Education
2001 to examine whether there had been any substantial Elementarya 21 20 26
changes in the way that Swedish consumers thought about Upper secondaryb 52 50 45
Universityc 27 30 28
organic foods. a
Elementary school or 9-y compulsory education.
The overall aim of these studies was to gain knowledge about b
Two or 3 y of upper secondary school.
Swedish consumers’ perceptions of organic foods. Further, we c
University or university college education. The information is obtained from Statistics
were interested in investigating if the choice of organic foods Sweden (35, 36).
was most strongly related to environmental or health concerns.

Ambio Vol. 34, No. 4–5, June 2005 Ó Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2005 353
http://www.ambio.kva.se
 Table 2. Perceived likelihood that organic food purchases will behaviors (e.g. refrain from car driving to spare the environ-
result in positive environmental, health, and animal welfare ment); see Table 3.
consequences in 1998 and 2001. Mean scores and standard
deviation (SD).
Attitudes Toward Organic Foods
1998 2001
Findings from the first survey demonstrated that the majority
Mean SD Mean SD of consumers have positive attitudes toward buying organic
Improve the general state 4.0 1.0 3.9 1.0 milk, meat, potatoes, and bread. However, their positive
of the environment attitudes were mirrored neither in their intention to purchase
Improve circumstances and health 4.0 1.0 4.0 1.1
of the farm animals
or in actual purchase behavior. Only between 4% and 10%
Improve my own or my family’s health 3.6 1.1 3.5 1.1 declared that it is very likely that they will choose the organic
Give myself a good conscience 3.6 1.3 3.6 1.2 alternative the next time, and between 8% and 16% stated that
Avoid risks that may be associated 3.7 1.1 3.6 1.1 they often or always buy the four investigated target foods.
with eating nonorganic foods
Reduce the use of artificial fertilizers 4.1 1.0 4.1 1.0 Thus, there is a discrepancy between attitudes and self-reported
in agriculture behavior. One factor that may help explain the attitude-
Reduce the eutrophication of lakes 4.1 1.0 4.0 1.0 behavior discrepancy is the relative importance of the criterion
and watercourses
Reduce the pollution of the soil 3.9 1.0 3.9 1.0 ‘‘organically produced’’ in comparison to other purchase
Reduce the transportation of foods 3.1 1.2 3.1 1.3 criteria. In general, the most important purchase criterion for
Reduce the use of petrol and other 3.0 1.2 3.0 1.2 all studied foods was that they should taste good, and the least
nonrenewable sources of energy
Reduce the amount of waste 3.1 1.2 3.0 1.2 important was that they were organically produced. Long shelf
Reduce the ozone hole in the atmosphere 3.0 1.2 3.0 1.2 life and healthiness were also rated to be important or very
Preserve biodiversity in nature 3.6 1.1 3.5 1.2 important by the majority of the respondents. Another
Reduce the use of herbicides 4.1 1.0 4.1 1.0
and pesticides in agriculture
candidate for explaining the discrepancy is that consumers did
Reduce the medication of farm animals 3.9 1.1 3.8 1.1 not perceive organic foods to be any better than conventional
Give my children better food 3.9 1.1 3.8 1.1 foods. The most common beliefs about organic foods were that
Reduce the risk for illness in my family 3.4 1.2 3.3 1.2
they were ‘‘more expensive’’ and ‘‘healthier’’ than conventional
Five-point unipolar scales ranging from ‘‘not at all likely’’ (1) to ‘‘very likely’’ (5). foods. Respondents did not think that the organic counterparts
would taste better or have a longer shelf life. A third influential
factor that may help account for the attitude-behavior
bread. Half the sample (n = 1000) received the milk and meat discrepancy is the fact that around half (49%) of the
version and the other half (n = 1000) the potatoes and bread respondents stated that they often or always refrain from
version (response rates; see Table 1). Descriptive data and buying organic foods because they perceive them to be too
demographic comparisons for the questions of the first section expensive. Further, a majority (63%) reported that it is
(1998) have been reported earlier (37). This paper contains important or very important that organic foods do not cost
a summary of the descriptive data (1998) and reports differ- more than conventional foods.
ences in the results of the two surveys. There were no substantial differences between the results
The second section concerned respondents’ perceptions of from the first (1998) and the second survey (2001), but
the likelihood and importance of occurrence of 17 possible a somewhat larger proportion rated the perceived availability
consequences of purchasing organic foods in general (Table 2). of the four organic target foods to be better in 2001 than 1998
They were also asked about the frequency of their performance (statistically significant only for organic bread). Also, fewer
of recycling glass, paper/metal/plastic packages, newspaper/ consumers thought that the organic varieties are healthier than
paper and batteries, and about eight environmentally friendly their conventional counterparts in 2001 than in 1998 (statisti-
cally significant only for organic milk).
Table 3. Self-reported environmentally friendly behavior and
recycling. Mean scores and standard deviation (SD). Factors Related to Choice of Organic Foods
1998 2001
The responses to the 17 environmental, human health, and
Mean SD Mean SD animal welfare consequences (1998; Table 2) were subjected to
Avoid purchasing products 2.9 1.0 2.9 1.1
principal components analysis (PCA, varimax rotation). The
in environmentally nonfriendly packages PCA resulted in three interpretable factors with eigenvalues
Purchase environmentally friendly 3.5 0.9 3.4 0.9 greater than 1 (Table 4). The first factor (Environment)
labeled products
reflected environmental pollution, the second (Health) per-
Save electricity 3.5 1.0 3.4 1.1
Donate money to environmental 2.0 0.9 2.1 1.0 ceived health aspects, and the third (Transportation/Waste)
organizations mirrored transportation and waste handling. Cronbach a-
Discuss environmental problems 3.0 1.0 2.9 1.0 coefficients varied between 0.88 and 0.90, which indicates good
with my friends or family
Refrain from car driving to spare 2.5 1.2 2.5 1.3 homogeneity of these factors. The PCA on the 2001 data
the environment resulted in essentially the same factor structure. However, there
Avoid purchasing new products to spare 2.4 0.9 2.3 1.0 were some differences. The items ‘‘reduce the ozone hole in the
the environment
Compost or leave domestic refuse 2.9 1.6 2.9 1.6 atmosphere’’ and ‘‘preserve biodiversity in nature,’’ which did
for composting not load highly on any of the factors in 1998, loaded on the
Recycle glass 4.7 0.7 4.8 0.7 Transportation/Waste factor in 2001. Further, the item ‘‘give
Recycle paper-packages 4.0 1.2 4.1 1.2
Recycle newspaper and paper 4.6 0.9 4.5 1.0 myself a good conscience,’’ which loaded highly on the Health
Recycle batteries 4.6 0.9 4.6 0.9 factor in 1998, did not in 2001. The order of the Health and
Recycle plastic packages 3.3 1.4 3.6 1.4 Transportation/Waste factors, according to explained variance,
Recycle metal packages 3.4 1.5 3.8 1.4
was also reversed in 2001. Since the PCAs were principally the
Five-point unipolar scales ranging from ‘‘never’’ (1) to ‘‘always/very often’’ (5). same for both years, it was decided to apply the same factor
structure on the data from 2001.

354 Ó Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2005 Ambio Vol. 34, No. 4–5, June 2005
http://www.ambio.kva.se
 Table 4. Principal components analysis of the rated likelihood of perceived consequences of organic food purchase (1998).
Factor name %a a Items Loading

1. Environment 51 0.90 Improve the state of the environment .63

Reduce the use of artificial fertilizers in agriculture .85
Reduce the eutrophication of lakes and watercourses .82
Reduce the pollution of the soil .70
Reduce the use of herbicides and pesticides in agriculture .63
2. Health 10 0.89 Improve my own or my family’s health .76
Give myself a good conscience .70
Avoid risks that may be associated with eating nonorganic foods .76
Give my children better food .71
Reduce the risk for illness in my family .67
3. Transportation/waste 7 0.88 Reduce the transportation of foods .88
Reduce the use of petrol and other nonrenewable sources of energy .87
Reduce the amount of waste .58
a
Percentage of explained variance.

Table 5. Results of principal component analysis of self-reported environmentally friendly behaviors and recycling (1998).
Factor name %a a Items Loading

1. Environmentally friendly behavior 31 0.75 Avoid purchasing products in nonenvironmentally friendly packages .67
Purchase environmentally friendly labeled products .67
Save electricity .47
Donate money to environment organizations .56
Discuss environmental problems with my friends or family .64
Refrain from car driving to spare the environment .63
Avoid purchasing new products to spare the environment .68
2. Easy recycling 12 0.69 Recycle glass .74
Recycle paper-packages .68
Recycle newspapers and paper .81
Recycle batteries .55
3. Advanced recycling 8 0.72 Recycle plastic packages .86
Recycle metal packages .86
Compost or leave domestic refuse for composting .56
a
Percentage of explained variance.

Table 6. Results of multiple regression analysis (standardized beta coefficients, unless otherwise indicated) of data, 1998 and 2001. Significant
contributions by the factors Environment, Transportation/Waste, and Health to the prediction of attitudes, perceived importance of the
criterion organically produced (Organic), purchase intentions (Intention), and purchase frequency (Purchase). Figures in parentheses are
results of 2001.
Milk Meat

Attitude Organic Intention Purchase Attitude Organic Intention Purchase

n = 564 (480) n = 516 (451) n = 570 (506) n = 543 (479) n = 569 (493) n = 515 (469) n = 565 (504) n = 522 (469)

R2 .23 (.26) .16 (.19) .17 (.19) .11 (.10) .28 (.32) .32 (.23) .23 (.24) .17 (.15)
F (d.f.) 1998 58.5 (3, 560) 32.7 (3, 512) 39.4 (3, 566) 22.2 (3, 539) 74.5 (3, 565) 81.5 (3, 511) 57.2 (3, 561) 36.3 (3, 518)
F (d.f.) 2001 57.8 (3, 476) 35.1 (3, 447) 39.4 (3, 502) 18.6 (3, 475) 79.4 (3, 489) 46.7 (3, 465) 52.7 (3, 500) 28.8 (3, 465)
Environment .22*** (.30***) — (.17*) — (—) .15* (—) .14* (.14*) — (—) — (—) — (—)
Transportation/Waste 14* (—) — (—) — (—) — (—) — (—) — (—) — (—) .17*** (—)
Health .39*** (.27***) .40*** (.27***) .37*** (.33***) .25*** (.21*) .49*** (.44***) .55*** (.47***) .43*** (.49***) .28*** (.36***)
* p , 0.01, *** p , 0.0001, — not significant.

Table 7. Results of multiple regression analysis (standardized beta coefficients, unless otherwise indicated) of data, 1998 and 2001. Significant
contributions by self-reported behavior and perceived consequences to the prediction of attitudes, perceived importance of the criterion
organically produced (Organic), purchase intentions (Intention), and purchase frequency (Purchase). Figures in parentheses are results of
2001.
Milk Meat

Attitude Organic Intention Purchase Attitude Organic Intention Purchase

n = 530 (467) n = 483 (438) n = 536 (490) n = 510 (464) n = 535 (480) n = 485 (456) n = 530 (489) n = 491 (455)

R2 .26 (.28) .20 (.24) .24 (.22) .17 (.14) .30 (.32) .36 (.31) .27 (.27) .22 (.20)
F (d.f.) 1998 32.1 (6, 523) 21.0 (6, 476) 28.9 (6, 529) 18.7 (6, 503) 39.2 (6, 528) 47.3 (6, 478) 34.1 (6, 523) 24.1 (6, 484)
F (d.f.) 2001 30.5 (6, 460) 24.4 (6, 431) 23.6 (6, 483) 13.4 (6, 458) 38.9 (6, 473) 35.5 (6, 449) 31.7 (6, 482) 19.8 (6, 448)
Environment .18* (.31***) — (.18*) — (.16*) — (.16*) — (—) — (—) — (—) — (—)
Transportation/Waste .16* (—) — (—) .17*** (—) .14* (—) .14* (—) — (—) — (—) — (—)
Health .32*** (.22***) .35*** (.22***) .33*** (.26***) .21*** (—) .46*** (.42***) .50*** (.41***) .40*** (.44***) .24*** (.30***)
EFB .21*** (.17***) .22*** (.27***) .27*** (.23***) .28*** (.24***) .15* (—) .22*** (.29***) .21*** (.23***) .23*** (.27***)
Easy recycling — (—) — (—) — (—) — (—) — (—) — (—) — (—) — (—)
Advanced recycling — (—) — (—) — (—) — (—) — (—) — (—) — (—) — (—)
* p , 0.01, *** p , 0.0001, — not significant.

Ambio Vol. 34, No. 4–5, June 2005 Ó Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2005 355
http://www.ambio.kva.se
 The data on the eight self-reported environmentally friendly and 2001, except that Environment was an important predictor
behaviors and recycling (Table 3) were also subjected to PCA of attitudes toward buying organic milk in 2001. Thus, positive
(oblique rotation) and resulted in three factors (all had health benefits appear to be a stronger motive for purchasing
eigenvalues .1; Table 5). The first, Environmentally Friendly organic foods than are environmental benefits.
Behavior (EFB), included performance of environmentally Multiple regression analyses were performed with all six
friendly behaviors (e.g. refrain from car driving to spare the factors (Environment, Transportation/Waste, Health, EFB,
environment, save electricity). The Easy Recycling factor Easy Recycling, Advanced Recycling) for each of the four
included recycling of items disposable at easily available organic foods separately. The aim was to investigate the
collection points (e.g. glass and batteries). Advanced Recycling predictability of the variables attitude, ‘‘organically produced,’’
was based on recycling of items that require more effort on the purchase intention, and purchase frequency. Health was the
part of the consumer (e.g. fewer collection points, metal most important predictor of attitudes, ‘‘organically produced,’’
packages, and composting/leaving domestic refuse for compost- and purchase intention for the four foods (1998; Table 7). The
ing). Cronbach’s a-coefficients for these factors varied between health factor was also the most important predictor of the
0.69 and 0.75, indicating good homogeneity. The PCA showed purchase frequency of organic potatoes and an important
the same factor structure on the data from both years. However, predictor of the purchase frequency of organic milk, meat, and
the order of the factors Easy Recycling and Advanced bread. However, regarding the purchase frequency prediction,
Recycling, according to explained variance, was reversed in EFB was almost equally predictive like Health for organic meat
2001 and potatoes. Also, EFB was the most important predictor of
The factor-analytically derived factors based on the likeli- purchase frequency for organic milk and bread. There were no
hood ratings of positive health and environmental outcomes as differences between the results from 1998 and 2001 for organic
a result of organic food purchase (Environment, Transportation/ meat and only minor differences for organic potatoes (EFB was
Waste, Health) were used as independent variables in a multiple the most important predictor of purchase frequency) and bread
regression analysis. This was done to investigate the pre- (Health was the most important predictor of purchase
dictability of the dependent variables: attitudes to purchase, frequency). However, for organic milk, there were greater
the importance of the criterion ‘‘organically produced,’’ purchase differences in the second survey. Health was only the most
intention, and purchase frequency. Each of the four organic important predictor of intention to purchase and was not
foods was analyzed separately. For all of these, Health was the a significant predictor of the purchase frequency of organic milk
most important factor for predicting attitudes to purchase, the in 2001. Also, Environment was the most important predictor
importance of the purchase criterion ‘‘organically produced,’’ of attitudes and EFB the most important predictor of
purchase intention, and purchase frequency (1998; Table 6). ‘‘organically produced’’ and purchase frequency for organic
There were no differences between the results obtained in 1998 milk in 2001.

Table 6. Extended.
Potatoes Bread

Attitude Organic Intention Purchase Attitude Organic Intention Purchase

n = 518 (481) n = 435 (424) n = 517 (503) n = 459 (449) n = 512 (492) n = 494 (466) n = 518 (507) n = 497 (474)

R2 .33 (.30) .25 (.27) .23 (.26) .18 (.15) .33 (.33) .31 (.31) .24 (.25) .16 (.18)
F (d.f.) 1998 84.0 (3, 514) 49.3 (3, 431) 52.3 (3, 513) 34.2 (3, 455) 83.9 (3, 508) 74.7 (3, 490) 55.6 (3, 514) 33.2 (3, 493)
F (d.f.) 2001 70.0 (3, 477) 53.7 (3, 420) 60.3 (3, 499) 28.2 (3, 445) 82.3 (3, 488) 69.1 (3, 462) 58.6 (3, 503) 34.5 (3, 470)
Environment .15* (.17*) — (—) — (—) — (—) .21*** (—) — (—) — (—) — (—)
Transportation/Waste — (—) — (—) — (—) — (—) — (—) — (—) — (—) — (—)
Health .47*** (.43***) .50*** (.47***) .47*** (.47***) .45*** (.35***) .43*** (.50***) .49*** (.56***) .45*** (.52***) .28*** (.36***)

Table 7. Extended.
Potatoes Bread

Attitude Organic Intention Purchase Attitude Organic Intention Purchase

n = 496 (464) n = 420 (409) n = 495 (486) n = 441 (435) n = 490 (474) n = 473 (450) n = 493 (489) n = 474 (458)

R2 .35 (.34) .30 (.36) .26 (.30) .26 (.23) .34 (.39) .35 (.37) .27 (.31) .22 (.24)
F (d.f.) 1998 45.8 (5, 489) 30.7 (6, 413) 30.4 (6, 488) 26.2 (6, 434) 42.3 (6, 483) 42.5 (6, 466) 30.7 (6, 486) 23.3 (6, 467)
F (d.f.) 2001 41.3 (6, 457) 39.2 (6, 402) 35.6 (6, 479) 22.0 (6, 428) 50.7 (6, 467) 44.0 (6, 443) 37.6 (6, 482) 25.1 (6, 451)
Environment .16* (.14*) — (—) — (—) — (—) .20*** (—) — (—) — (—) — (—)
Transportation/Waste — (—) — (—) — (—) — (—) — (—) — (—) — (—) — (—)
Health .41*** (.36***) .38*** (.38***) .37*** (.42***) .32*** (.29***) .38*** (.43***) .39*** (.48***) .37*** (.47***) .18* (.30***)
EFB .15* (.27***) .27*** (.35***) .22*** (.24***) .26*** (.31***) .13* (.30***) .20*** (.28***) .17*** (.27***) .21*** (.27***)
Easy recycling — (—) — (—) — (—) — (—) — (—) — (—) — (—) — (—)
Advanced recycling — (—) — (—) — (—) — (—) — (—) — (—) — (—) — (—)

356 Ó Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2005 Ambio Vol. 34, No. 4–5, June 2005
http://www.ambio.kva.se
EUROPEAN UNION–FUNDED PROJECT developed for general views on foods, there are specific aspects
ON CONSUMER ATTITUDES of organic food choice that need to be addressed and those are
targeted in the CONDOR project.
The previously mentioned results provide a detailed picture of Both the approaches based on the TPB and MEC fail to
the attitudes of Swedish consumers to organic foods at two time effectively incorporate some key features that are likely to be
points and how these attitudes link to intention and behavior. important in the choice of organic foods. These are affective
We now turn to the issue of attitudes toward processed organic responses to foods and moral concerns about the ways in which
foods and also consideration of variations across European foods are produced. There have been previous attempts to
countries. integrate these nonrational influences into the essentially
‘‘Consumer Decision Making on Organic Products (CON- rational model formulation of the TPB for other types of
DOR)’’ is a major new European Union (EU)–funded project choices of foods (46–48) but not for the consumption of organic
that examines the attitudes of consumers to both fresh and foods. Affective associations and moral concerns also need to be
processed organic foods (http://www.condor-organic.org). The incorporated into the MEC/FRL framework and included in
project has partners from eight EU countries: the United the segmentation model.
Kingdom, Finland, Italy, Greece, Spain, Denmark, Germany, The overall objectives of the project are i) to provide a basic
and Sweden. This includes countries with relatively high levels of understanding of the processes involved in consumer decision
organic production and consumption (e.g. Denmark, Sweden) making on the purchase and consumption of processed and
and those with relatively low levels (Greece, Spain) (38). fresh organic foods and ii) to model consumer choice of organic
The project aims to develop several concerns not addressed foods based on attitudes, values, and affective and moral
well in the existing literature. The first is to examine consumer concerns over eight EU countries.
attitudes toward processed as well as fresh organic foods across The project is organized as a series of work packages. The
a range of European countries. The second is to model the first of these seeks to develop new methods for the elicitation of
influences of attitudes and beliefs on intention and behavior, as affective and moral concerns from consumers. This part of the
in the previously mentioned Swedish studies, rather than relying work was conducted in the United Kingdom, Finland, and Italy
on consumers’ own statements of what are the important and involved testing focus groups, word association, and an
influences on their behavior. The third is to find ways in which open-ended method of eliciting emotions and beliefs as
to incorporate more effectively the moral and ethical dimen- alternatives to the normal method of eliciting advantages and
sions in consumers’ decisions. disadvantages of behaviors usually used in the TPB (39).
The CONDOR project takes as its starting point two key The data from the focus groups in each country were really
approaches from the consumer behavior literature, the Theory quite different from those from the other methods and were
of Planned Behavior (TPB) (39, 40) and Means-End Chain therefore analyzed separately. The UK results are described
analysis (MEC) (41). The TPB is a rational model of human here briefly. The UK data showed five main themes. The first
behavior that argues that behaviors such as the choice of a type main theme was on aspects of food production, including
of food is predicted by intentions, which in turn are predicted by subthemes related to foods being homegrown or for home
attitudes, perceived social pressure, and how much control the cooking, local, or from intensive farming. The second theme
person feels he or she has over the behavior. This has been was on access to food with subthemes of local, supermarkets,
widely applied in consumer studies, including several successful and imported food. The third theme was control, which again
applications on the choice of foods (40). This model offers an linked to imported food but also to food regulations and trust.
excellent starting point for the examination of organic food The fourth theme was health issues. The fifth theme was moral
purchasing and consumption. issues, which linked to considerations of profit, environmental
An alternative, although complementary, approach to impact, animal welfare, and advantages and disadvantages of
uncovering the motivations behind consumer decisions is organic foods. There were also some issues that were raised
provided by MEC theory (41). Within this approach, the links that did not fit within these themes, including, for example,
from attributes of products to perceived benefits are uncovered names of particular organic foods or images or the definition
and then further linked to the underlying values held by of organic foods.
consumers. It is argued that behavior is influenced by how the The responses from the conventional method, word associ-
attributes of products and their perceived benefits meet the ation, open-ended beliefs, and open-ended emotions were
needs of consumers in terms of their underlying values. Again, categorized in order to examine whether there were differences
this method has been successfully applied to understanding in the frequency of responses from the different methods.
consumer choice of foods (41). Using the MEC approach, it is Although there were small differences in the results between the
possible to develop segmentation of consumers based on the countries, on the whole, the different methods all elicited similar
values they hold. Such segments tend to be stable, but the types of beliefs with comparable frequencies. The most
relationships between these segments and particular food- frequently elicited types of beliefs are shown in Table 8.
related behavior tends to be limited (42). There were some differences in the way fresh and processed
The concept of Food Related Lifestyle (FRL), developed organic foods were evaluated. The fresh organic foods were
and validated through studies in several countries and at considered to be more natural, and the participants expressed
different times (43, 44, 45), is a quantitative approach based on more positive feelings toward them and also mentioned the shelf
MEC theory and provides an understanding of the relations life of these foods. Processed foods brought out more negative
between consumers’ choices in the market and their underlying views and issues of trust and in some cases no feelings at all.
values. By applying a segmentation approach to this problem, Quality, health issues, expense, and chemicals in foods were
consumer heterogeneity is taken into consideration in an mentioned for both fresh and processed foods. The word
instrumental way, pointing to different ways of addressing association task brought out more imagery and names of
these segments. The FRL segmentation has been validated specific foods. The traditional task and the open-ended beliefs
across European countries, and one implication may be that task elicited similar categories of responses in similar numbers.
differences across segments are more important than differences However, by explicitly asking about emotions and feelings, the
across countries, opening the way for common strategies open-ended emotions sections generated additional categories
directed to each specific segment. While this approach has been that were purely emotional and not expressed in any of the

Ambio Vol. 34, No. 4–5, June 2005 Ó Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2005 357
http://www.ambio.kva.se
 Table 8. Most frequently used categories for responses from methods in elicitation study.
Traditional Word association Open-ended beliefs Open-ended emotions

Fresh foods Quality Quality Quality Quality

Health issues Specific foods Health issues Positive feelings
Expense Health issues Expense Health issues
Chemical Visual images Chemical Expense
Trust Expense Natural Natural
Shelf life (Negative feelings—seventh)
Processed foods Quality Quality Quality Quality
Expense Specific foods Expense Positive feelings
Health issues Health issues Health issues Health issues
Chemical Expense Chemical Negative feelings
Trust Not known Trust No feelings

other methods. Moral categories were elicited by both the earlier work by examining attitudes to processed as well as
traditional task and open-ended beliefs in equal measure. fresh organic foods and more explicitly attempting to model
The second work package is designed to use these methods to the roles of affective and moral influences on choice. Early
elicit beliefs from consumers in the same three countries and to results from this project show that, as in previous studies,
develop and test a model of consumer behavior following the stated reasons for choice of organic foods are related mainly
basic structure of the TPB. This was conducted on the choice of to health, quality (including taste), and expense, and this was
organic apples and organic pizza, and the results are currently true for processed as well as for fresh organic foods. The
being analyzed. processed organic foods led to more negative responses than
Work on FRL has identified a number of segments (between the fresh foods, including issues of trust. The open-ended
five and seven) across European countries, some of which are emotions method yielded more responses related to feelings
shared across borders, while some are idiosyncratic. Work and emotions than the conventional method and therefore
package 3 will develop and apply methods for segmenting offers a means for examining these influences in more detail.
consumers based on FRL and MEC theory. Work is currently Future work will examine how well these affective responses
under way on this in Denmark, the United Kingdom, Germany, relate to intention and behavior and how they vary across
and Spain. both countries and consumer segments.
The insights, theories, and methods developed in the first There is a future need to test more rigorously the impacts of
three work packages will be brought together in the fourth work variables on behavior rather than relying on consumers’ own
package and tested in the United Kingdom, Sweden, Finland, ratings of what influences their behavior. The impacts of
Italy, Greece, Denmark, Germany, and Spain in order to attitudes and beliefs and also other potential types of influences,
provide knowledge on differences and commonalties across such as values and affective responses and also behavior-
member states. The member states included represent a geo- behavior relationships, need to be more systematically tested.
graphic spread across the EU and in particular include both There is also a need to investigate how consumers view different
northern and southern European states and also states varying forms of organic food, including processed foods.
greatly in market penetration of organic foods, from the highest
EU per capita expenditure on organic produce in Denmark to References and Notes
the lowest in Greece. 1. Ekelund, L. 1989.Vegetable consumption and consumer attitudes towards organically
grown vegetables—the case of Sweden. Acta Hortic 259, 163–172.
2. Wandel, M. and Bugge, A. 1997. Environmental concern in consumer evaluation of food
CONCLUDING REMARKS quality. Food Quality Pref. 8, 19–26.
3. Wilkins, J.L. and Hillers, V.N. 1994. Influences of pesticide residue and environmental
There have been a number of studies of the influences on concerns on organic food preference among food cooperative members and non-
members in Washington State. J. Nutr. Educ. 26, 26–33.
consumer purchasing and consumption of organic foods, and 4. von Alvensleben, R. 1998. Ecological aspects of food demand: the case of organic food
there are some consistent findings across these studies. Health in Germany. AIR-CAT 4th Plenary Meeting: Health, Ecological and Safety Aspects in
Food Choice 4, AIR-CAT, MATFORSK., As, Norway, pp. 68–79.
appears to be a more important influence on purchasing than 5. Grankvist, G. and Biel, A. 2001. The importance of beliefs and purchase criteria in the
the environment, but this differs between heavy and light users. choice of eco-labelled food products. J. Environ. Psychol. 21, 405–410.
6. Grunert, S.C. and Kristensen, K. 1995. Den Danske Forbruger og Økologiske Fødevarer.
The Swedish surveys showed a discrepancy between attitudes Working Papers in Marketing, No. 1, February, Department of Marketing, Odense
University, Denmark.
and behavior regarding organic foods. This discrepancy seems 7. Roddy, G., Cowan, C.A. and Hutchinson, G. 1996. Consumer attitudes and behaviour
to be explained by the fact that consumers do not consider to organic foods in Ireland. J. Int. Consumer Market 9, 41–63.
8. Fotopoulos, C. and Krystallis, A. 2002. Organic product avoidance: reasons for
‘‘organically produced’’ to be an important purchase criterion. rejection and potential buyers’ identification in a countrywide survey. Br. Food J. 104,
Also, organic foods are not perceived to surpass conventional 233–260.
9. Mathisson, K. and Schollin, A. 1994. Konsumentaspekter på Ekologiskt Odlade
ones regarding taste and shelf life (two qualities rated to be of Grönsaker—en jämförande studie (Consumer aspects on organic vegetables—a compar-
great importance) and because of the perceived premium prices ative study). Report No. 18, Department of Crop Production Sciences, Swedish
University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden.
of organic foods. Health benefits were demonstrated to be more 10. Tregear, A., Dent, J.B. and McGregor, M.J. 1994. The demand for organically grown
strongly related to attitudes and behavior toward organic foods produce. Br. Food J. 96, 21–25.
11. Zanoli, R. and Naspetti, S. 2002. Consumer motivations in the purchase of organic food:
than were perceived environmental benefits. However, the a means-end approach. Br. Food J. 104, 643–653.
12. Jolly, D. 1991. Differences between buyers and nonbuyers of organic produce and
frequency of performing environmentally friendly behaviors willingness to pay organic price premiums. J. Agribusiness 9, 97–111.
also contributed to the prediction of the purchase of organic 13. Soler, F., Gil, J.M. and Sánchez, M. 2002. Consumers’ acceptability of organic food in
Spain: results from an experimental auction market. Br. Food J. 104, 670–687.
foods. Thus, behavior-behavior correlations seem to be stronger 14. Torjusen, H., Lieblein, G., Wandel, M. and Francis, C.A. 2001. Food system orientation
than ‘‘belief’’-behavior correlations in this context of environ- and quality perception among consumers and producers of organic food in Hedmark
County, Norway. Food Quality Pref. 12, 207–216.
mental concerns. 15. Wandel, M. 1994. Consumer concern and behaviour regarding food and health in
The relationship between beliefs related to health and Norway. J. Consumer Studies Home Econ. 18, 203–215.
16. Land, B. 1998. Consumers’ Dietary Patterns and Desires for Change. Working paper no.
environmental benefits on the one hand and intention and 31/March 1998. Centre for Market Surveillance, Research and Strategy for the Food
behavior on the other will be further explored across European Sector, Aarhus School of Business, Aarhus, Denmark.
17. Fagerli, R.A. and Wandel, M. 1999. Gender differences in opinions and practices with
countries in the CONDOR project. This project also extends regard to a ‘‘healthy diet.’’ Appetite 32, 171–190.

358 Ó Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2005 Ambio Vol. 34, No. 4–5, June 2005
http://www.ambio.kva.se
18. Rozin, P., Fischler, C., Imada, S., Sarubin, A. and Wrzesniewski, A. 1999. Attitudes to
food and the role of food in life in the USA, Japan, Flemish Belgium and France:
possible implications for the diet-health debate. Appetite 33, 163–180. Richard Shepherd is a professor of psychology and codirector
19. Torjusen, H., Nyberg, A. and Wandel, M. 1999. Økologisk Produsert Mat: Forbrukernes of the Food, Consumer Behaviour and Health Research
Vurderinger og Bruksmønster (Organic Food: Consumers’ Perception and Dietary
Choices). SIFO Report 5, 1999. Statens Institutt for Forbruksforskning, Lysaker, Centre at the University of Surrey. He is a Fellow of the
Norway. ISNB 82-7063-354-2. British Psychological Society and Chartered Health Psychol-
20. Hutchins, R.K. and Greenhalgh, L.A. 1997. Organic confusion: sustaining competitive ogist. His research has centered on two main themes related
advantage. Br. Food J. 99, 336–338.
21. Makatouni, A. 2002. What motivates consumers to buy organic food in the UK? Br. to factors influencing human food choice and risk perception
Food J. 104, 345–352. and communication. The former has included the application of
22. Schifferstein, H.N.J. and Oude Ophuis, P.A.M. 1998. Health-related determinants of psychological models of attitude and attitude change to food
organic food consumption in the Netherlands. Food Quality Pref. 9, 119–133.
23. Harper, G.C. and Makatouni, A. 2002. Consumer perception of organic food choice and dietary change, while the latter has included work
production and farm animal welfare. Br. Food J. 104, 287–299. on trust, attitudes toward genetically modified foods, and risk
24. Bruce, Å. and Lindeskog, P. 2003. Livsmedelskvalitet—är det någon skillnad? In: Är
Eko Reko? Om Ekologiskt Lantbruk i Sverige. Johansson, B. (ed.). Formas, Stockholm, communication, including the role of uncertainty. He currently
Sweden, pp. 89-101. (In Swedish). leads an EU project on consumer attitudes toward organic food
25. Williams, C.M. 2002. Nutritional quality of organic foods: shades or grey or shades of and UK projects on ‘‘Attitudes to Genomics’’ and on
green. Proc. Nutr. Soc. 61, 19–24.
26. Wier, M. and Calverly, C. 2002. Market potential for organic foods in Europe. Br. Food communicating uncertainty on food chain risks in addition to
J. 104, 45–62. involvement in a range of projects on aspects of consumer
27. Klont, R. 1999. Growing organic foods. World Ingredients (May/June), 40–44. behavior. His address: Food, Consumer Behaviour and Health
28. Shepherd, R. 2001. Consumer attitudes towards organic foods in relation to perceived
food risks. Paper presented at Risk Perception, Risk Management and Risk Research Centre, Department of Psychology, University of
Communication: The Interface organized by ILSI Europe, Brussels, 21 February 2001. Surrey, Guildford, Surrey GU2 7XH, UK.
29. Grunert, S.C. and Juhl, H. J. 1995. Values, environmental attitudes, and buying of r.shepherd@surrey.ac.uk
organic foods. J. Econ. Psychol. 16, 39–62.
30. Von Alvensleben, R. and Altmann, M. 1986. Die Nachfrage nach alternativen
Nahrungsmitteln. Agarwirtschaft 35, 289–295. (In German). Maria Magnusson is researcher at the Department of Public
31. Latacz-Lohmann, U. and Foster, C. 1997. From ‘‘niche’’ to ‘‘mainstream’’—strategies Health and Caring Sciences at the University of Uppsala. Her
for marketing organic food in Germany and the UK. Br. Food J. 99, 275–282.
32. Gardner, G. and Stern, P.C. 1996. Environmental Problems and Human Behaviour. Allyn research has been focused on consumer perceptions of
and Bacon, Boston. organic and genetically modified foods. She is currently
33. Uusitalo, L. 1990. Consumer preferences for environmental quality and other social
goals. J. Consumer Policy 13, 231–251. working with the EU project CONDOR and a project concern-
34. Huang, C.L. 1996. Consumer preferences and attitudes towards organically grown ing simplifying strategies among consumers in their under-
produce. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 23, 331–342. standing of nutrition/health information. Her address: De-
35. Statistics Sweden. 2003. Befolkningens utbildning: efterfrågade tabeller och diagram
(http://www.scb.se/templates/Product____9565.asp). partment of Public Health and Caring Sciences, Section of
36. Statistics Sweden. 2004. Sveriges befolkning efter kön och ålder 31/12/2003 (http:// Caring Sciences, Uppsala University, Uppsala Science Park,
www.scb.se/templates/tableOrChart____78315.asp). SE-751 83 Uppsala, Sweden.
37. Magnusson, M.K., Arvola, A., Koivisto Hursti, U.-K., Åberg, L. and Sjödén, P.-O.
2001. Attitudes towards organic foods among Swedish consumers. Br. Food J. 103, 209– maria.magnusson@pubcare.uu.se
226.
38. Commission of the European Communities. 2004. European Action Plan for Organic Per-Olow Sjödén is professor at the Department of Public
Food and Farming. Commission of the European Communities, Brussels SEC(2004) 739.
39. Ajzen, I. 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav. Hum. Decision Processes Health and Caring Sciences at the University of Uppsala. He
50, 179–211. has been active in research areas concerned with factors
40. Shepherd, R. and Raats, M.M. 1995. Attitudes and beliefs in food habits. In: Food
Choice, Acceptance and Consumption. Meiselman, H.L. and MacFie, H.J.H. (eds.).
influencing food preferences and choice for more than
Blackie Academic and Professional, London, pp. 346–364. a decade. Professor Sjödén is head of the consumer research
41. Grunert, K.G. 1995. Food quality: a means-end chain perspective. Food Quality Pref. 6, section of the large-scale research program Food 21: Sustain-
171–176.
42. Steenkamp, J-B.E.M., ter Hofstede, F. and Wedel, M. 1999. A cross-national
able Agriculture, financed by the Foundation for Strategic
investigation into the individual and national-cultural antecedents of consumer Environmental Research. His research interests also encom-
innovativeness. J. Marketing 63, 55–69. pass consumer responses to genetically modified foods and
43. Askegaard, S. and Brunsø, K. 1999. Food-related life styles in Singapore: preliminary
testing of a Western European research instrument in Southeast Asia. J. Euromarketing consumer attitudes toward organic foods. His address: De-
7, 65–86. partment of Public Health and Caring Sciences, Section of
44. Grunert, K. G., Brunsø, K. and Bredahl, L. 1998. Food-related lifestyle in France and Caring Sciences, Uppsala University, Uppsala Science Park,
Germany. In: New Developments and Approaches in Consumer Behaviour Research.
Balderjahn, I., Mennicken, C. and Vernette, E. (eds.). Schäffer Poeschel/Macmillan, SE-751 83 Uppsala, Sweden.
Stuttgart, pp. 1–15. per-olow.sjoden@pubcare.uu.se
45. Brunsø, K. and Grunert, K.G. 1998. Cross-cultural similarities and differences in
shopping for food. J. Business Res. 42, 145–150.
46. Raats, M.M., Shepherd, R. and Sparks, P. 1995. Including moral dimensions of choice
within the structure of the Theory of Planned Behavior. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 25, 484–
494.
47. Sparks, P., Shepherd, R. and Frewer, L.J. 1995. Assessing and structuring attitudes
toward the use of gene technology in food production: the role of perceived ethical
obligation. Basic Appl. Soc. Psychol. 16, 267–285.
48. Tuorila-Ollikainen, H., Lahteenmaki, L. and Salovaara, H. 1986. Attitudes, norms,
intentions and hedonic responses in the selection of low salt bread in a longitudinal
choice experiment. Appetite 18, 99–106.
49. Acknowledgments: Part of the work described in this paper has been carried out with
financial support from the Commission of the European Communities, specific RTD
program ‘‘Quality of Life and Management of Living Resources,’’ ‘‘Consumer Decision
Making on Organic Products (CONDOR).’’ It does not necessarily reflect its views and
in no way anticipates the Commission’s future policy in this area. Magnusson and
Sjödén’s studies were supported by grants from the Swedish Foundation for Strategic
Environmental Research to the program FOOD-21: Sustainable Agriculture.

Ambio Vol. 34, No. 4–5, June 2005 Ó Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2005 359
http://www.ambio.kva.se