The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at The current issue and full text archive

ve of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister www.emeraldinsight.com/0007-070X.htm

The “organic”
The European consumers’ food regime
understanding and perceptions
of the “organic” food regime 93
The case of aquaculture
Bernt Aarset, Suzanna Beckmann, Enrique Bigne,
Malcolm Beveridge, Trond Bjorndal, Jane Bunting,
Pierre McDonagh, Catherine Mariojouls, James Muir,
Andrea Prothero, Lucia Reisch, Andrew Smith,
Ragnar Tveteras and James Young
(Authors’ afWliations can be found at the end of the article)
Keywords Europeans, Consumers, Organic foods, Regulation
Abstract This paper explores consumer understanding and perception of organic food, with
speciWc reference to the relatively new concept of organic farmed salmon. Key themes associated
with the term “organic”and its meaning, as determined by consumers, are explored and the role of
labelling and regulatory authorities considered. Focus groups in Wve countries (UK, Germany,
Spain, Norway and France) consisting of 196 participants showed that most consumers are
confused about the meaning of the term organic and are largely unaware of the organic
certiWcation and labelling process. Many consumers were unsure, even sceptical about the concept
of organic farmed salmon and display a large amount of distrust in the regulatory process. The
implications for the concept of organic food and salmon production and directions for further
research are discussed.

Introduction
In many EU countries consumers are becoming more anxious about the food
they eat and are increasingly concerned with food production issues such as
food safety (Huang, 1995), quality (Haglund et al., 1999), health (Beharrel and
MacFie, 1991), the environment (Cudjoe and Rees, 1992; Haglund et al., 1999)
and animal welfare (Fearne and Lavelle, 1996). The range of organic produce
now not only contains fruits and vegetables and meat products, but has also
proliferated, extending to pulses, nuts, seeds, Xours, cereals, chocolate, ice
cream, beers, wines, fruit juices and dairy produce in addition to non-foods
such as aromatherapy essential oils, shampoos, conditioners, and cosmetics.
This may in part be attributable not only to consumers’ concern about the
British Food Journal
This research was carried out as part of an ongoing project funded by the European Union FAIR Vol. 106 No. 2, 2004
prgramme (DGXII-ELSA): “Organic Salmon Production and Consumption: Ethics, Consumer pp. 93-105
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
Perceptions and Regulation – CT98-3372” – Project Co-ordinator: James A. Young, University of 0007-070X
Stirling. DOI 10.1108/00070700410516784
BFJ health aspects of food and food safety (Opinion Research, 1990) but also to other
106,2 products absorbed by the body.
However, the food industry’s responsiveness to the dramatic growth in
consumer demand for organic foods (Eurofood, 1996) has been hampered by
long production lead times and also a widespread opinion that increased
demand is not being met by suppliers (Lactacz-Lahmann and Foster, 1997). In
94
some contrast to the situation in most other food sectors, volume growth in
organics has been dramatic; combined sales in the USA and EU, for example,
were worth US$9 billion in 1997 (Kapp, 1999). Between 1985 and 1990 the UK
market grew tenfold (Mintel, 1991), and by 55 per cent between 1999 and 2000
alone (Soil Association, 2000). In France, the sales of organic foods has risen by
30 per cent between 1995 and 1997 and there have been suggestions that
overall demand for organic produce in Europe has increased by 100 per cent
per annum in recent years (Norberg-Hodge, 2000). It has been estimated that
the European market for organic meats and dairy products will increase from
£1.1 billion in 1996 to £3.2 billion in 2002. Despite this, however, organic
production still only makes up 3 per cent of arable land production in the EU
(Soil Association, 2000).
In some market sectors supply-side constraints have generated trade
imbalances; for instance, most fruit and vegetables in the UK are imported
because of the shortfall of indigenous organic farms (Soil Association, 2000)
and the longer lead times necessary to change production methods for any
farmers so inclined. This UK trade imbalance has been exacerbated by a policy
of organic agricultural support less favourable than in most other European
countries. In Denmark, for example, the success of organic produce is due, at
least partially, to greater assistance from the state; greater governmental
support has also been forthcoming in Germany and the Netherlands (Cudjoe
and Rees, 1992).
Production of organic produce has also been encouraged by consumers’
willingness to pay price premiums. In the UK, this has been estimated to
amount to a 40 per cent mark-up in the case of fruit and vegetables (Source:
Consumers’ Association), a differential that encouraged abandonment of an
earlier sales promotion campaign by some UK supermarkets to match
standard agricultural products prices. Research also suggests consumers are
willing to pay price premiums for organic meat produce (Hutchins and
Greenhalgh, 1995).
In some EU regions, there is evidence that some consumers have become
increasingly concerned about the welfare and treatment of animals in
addition to the impact on their own health of eating meat products. This has
led to the introduction of organic meat and food products and foods
produced with animal welfare as a central proposition, for example, the
“Freedom Food” range monitored by the Royal Society for the Prevention of
Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) for companies’ treatment of animals in the UK.
More recent revelations concerning malpractice within slaughterhouses, and The “organic”
the scope for transmission of E-coli 1057 have fuelled further consumer food regime
concerns (Smithers and Bowcott, 1997) as well as the recent outbreak of foot
and mouth disease (FMD) in the UK. Yet, in marked contrast, the issue of
organic Wsh has received comparatively little attention. One reason for this
may be the fact that the vast majority of Wsh supplies still tend to come
from wild, capture Wsheries rather than Wsh farms. In this respect, Wsh may
95
still be regarded as somewhat unique. However, as the proportion of farmed
Wsh supplies increases, consumer concerns and awareness are increasingly
likely to mimic those that have emerged in other agricultural sectors (Aarset
et al., 1998; Girling, 2001).

The organic “problem”

Organic is a word interpreted by individuals in a variety of ways and
contexts. The term has many different meanings and interpretations and is
often associated and sometimes confused with terms such as “green”,
“ecological”, “environmental”, “natural” and “sustainable” (Hutchins and
Greenhalgh, 1995; McDonagh and Prothero, 1997; Schifferstein and Oude
Ophuis, 1998). For example, what is organic to one consumer may not be
organic to another and producers and regulators’ interpretations of the term
may differ from those of the consumer (Lilliston and Cummins, 1998). This
problem is also exacerbated by linguistic nuances. Likewise, consumers are
commonly confused about the meaning of the term organic (Hutchins and
Greenhalgh, 1995, 1997), while organic farming is said to be practised under
many different guises (Merrill, 1983). “Organic” has been used to describe
diverse products ranging from fruit and vegetables to dairy and animal
produce, as well as cereals, pulses and grains; indeed, as illustrated earlier,
in today’s marketplace new organic ranges are regularly introduced. Organic
labels are based on schemes operated by various certiWcation bodies such as
The Soil Association (UK), Debio (Norway) and Naturland (Germany).
Although there is a general deWnition of organic principles, there is
considerable variation in certifying bodies within each country. At the time
of writing there are seven certiWcation bodies in the UK, one in Norway,
three in France, 17 in Spain and nine in Germany (although some sources
indicate that up to 59 bodies in Germany are theoretically capable of organic
certiWcation).
Clearly, this diversity creates scope for ambiguity and problems with
monitoring activities and consistencies, simply because the certiWcation
scheme responsible for labelling something as organic will also inXuence the
meaning consumers take from the label. It is also important to note that despite
draft EU regulations for the organic production of animal products being
introduced in 1999 this regulation has yet to be formalised within the EU,
although legislation for fruit and vegetables has been in place since 1997.
BFJ Although there is no legislation, as yet, for organic farmed salmon, the
106,2 International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) does
have draft guidelines for organic aquaculture production (IFOAM, 1998) where
some producers have certiWed their salmon as being IFOAM accredited.
Organic meat and aquaculture regulation is at the draft stage in some EU states
at the time of writing and EU legislation would appear to be imminent:
96
certainly the need for standardisation is desirable from the consumers’
perspective. However, the danger is that any international standardisation or
legislation will be only that of the lowest common denominator, a factor that
may raise further issues as to the adequacy and sufWciency of the standard for
all the products concerned.
Eliciting consumers’ views is fundamental to understanding the
acceptability of any organic food (Hutchins and Greenhalgh, 1995),
particularly for a “new” organic product such as salmon. Indeed, there have
been many studies exploring consumer perceptions of organic foods in samples
of consumers from the UK (Hughes, 1995; Tregear et al., 1994), USA (Jolly et al.,
1989), Norway (Wandel and Bugge, 1997), Germany (Werner and Alvensleben,
1983), the Netherlands (Schifferstein and Oude Ophuis, 1998), Denmark
(Grunert and Juhl, 1995), Northern Ireland (Davies et al., 1995) and Ireland
(Roddy et al., 1996). These studies have shown that in general, the most
important reasons for buying organic food are health, food safety,
environmental concerns, animal welfare and a better taste, although there is
a dearth of cross-national research.
Consumer research in the organic Weld has tended to focus on arable
production and to a lesser extent animal products, there being very little
attention towards perceptions of organic Wsh and related issues. While the
principles of organic production are relatively straightforward for arable
production, the application of these principles in aquatic production
environments is arguably more problematic (Aarset et al., 1998). There are,
as yet, no EU regulations for aquaculture, not least because of unresolved
issues concerning animal welfare, feeds, chemical inputs and sustainability.
Despite this, there is interest in the production and marketing of organic
Wsh. Given this gap in understanding, and the potential contribution of
farmed Wsh products, this paper seeks to explore consumer perceptions of
organic foods to elucidate their meanings and interpretations of the term
organic, both generally and more speciWcally for organically farmed salmon.
Salmon is a particularly interesting case given its prominence among farmed
Wsh species. In many ways, salmon represents an innovative case study for
the whole organic aquatic foods sector as its volume and product portfolio
continues to expand. This paper reports the results of the Wrst phase of a
project undertaken in the UK, France, Spain, Germany and Norway
regarding consumer views, although industry actors, pressure groups,
certiWcation bodies and others were interviewed as a later part of the
research programme. This paper deals exclusively with the consumer views, The “organic”
however. food regime
The research study
One of the key objectives of the part of the study reported here was to explore
the following three research questions: 97
(1) What do consumers understand by the term organic?
(2) What are consumers’ perceptions of organic labelling and certiWcation?
(3) What are consumers’ perceptions of organic famed salmon?
While the Wrst research question has been investigated before it has not been
done in an international, cross-country study. Moreover, the project needed to
ascertain the orientation of the sample in respect of overall deWnition of the core
concept in order to put the investigation of the second and third research
questions into context.
A qualitative methodology was considered the most appropriate for the
study as the aim was to gain depth and understanding of the issues salient to
the consumer in an underresearched area (Geertz, 1979; Eisenhardt, 1989).
Qualitative techniques are also particularly useful when exploring potentially
sensitive issues (Hedges and Ritchie, 1987; Sykes, 1990) such as deWnitions and
ethics. Focus groups were considered the most effective data capture method as
a discursive impetus was deemed to be essential.
Focus groups were conducted in each country (eight in the UK and Wve each
in the other countries) over a period of Wve months in 1998/1999. Consumers
were chosen to represent the population of each state in terms of age and
gender distribution as far as possible given the qualitative nature of the study.
Informants were also required to have eaten Wsh within the last three months,
this ensured no outright hostility to the product category. In total, 40
consumers were involved in each country (50 in the UK).
Each session lasted between one to two hours and followed a protocol of
questions, developed according to standard guidelines (Krueger, 1988). The
consistency of methodologies and the need for comparable data was
obviously essential, thus, the interview schedule and topic guide were
designed and standardised by the team, as were the methods for data
collection, synthesis and analysis. All interviews were audio/video recorded
to facilitate data interrogation that was carried out using a standard
thematic analysis of the data in a manner broadly consistent with
grounded theory research. Again, this was standardised across
participating countries.

The research Wndings

The key issues and the most salient opinions and concerns are presented for
each country that participated in the study and are divided into the three
BFJ research themes identiWed in the previous section. Clearly, it is difWcult to do
106,2 justice to the richness of the data-set as a whole particularly in respect of
linguistic differences and nuances. The decision to summarise the data into
tabular form clearly represents reductionism in extremis, however, for the
purposes of this paper, it facilitates cross-national comparison and provides a
useful summary of a very large and rich data-set. Clearly, there are many other
98 issues and avenues that the data is capable of exploring; here the discussion is
conWned to the questions outlined above.

The meaning of organic

The organic certiWers state that there are essentially four principles that
underpin organic production (of animals): natural inputs; high welfare;
nutritious/healthy quality and sustainability. The consumers’ a priori
associations with the term organic are presented in Table I.
Clearly, the concept of “naturalness” is the most common recurrent
conceptualisation of organic. Despite the fact that no country yielded a large
number of “expert” consumers the four principles at the heart of organic
animal production did emerge in the sample as a whole, although all four
principles did not emerge very strongly in any one country and the
nutritious/safe principle was often implicit and rarely explicitly mentioned.
Animal welfare was only highlighted by a signiWcant proportion of German
respondents and did not feature signiWcantly in discussions until the concept
of organically farmed salmon was speciWcally addressed. The Wndings are
generally in line with previous research apart from the fact that nutritional
and health associations did not emerge very clearly in our study (Hughes,
1995; Tregear et al., 1994; Jolly et al., 1989; Wandel and Bugge, 1997; Werner
and Alvensleben, 1983; Schifferstein and Oude Ophuis, 1998; Grunert and
Juhl, 1995; Davies et al., 1995; Roddy et al., 1996). In other words “organic” is
used as a heuristic for naturalness and “greenness”. The Norwegian
ambivalence to the term was not based solely on ignorance or the exact
nature of organic standards but on a more thorough anecdotal knowledge of
the product in question and food production in general. The more the
consumer knows about food production systems the more questions are

France Germany Norway Spain UK

Common Natural High welfare Characterised Synonymous Freedom from

concepts and Limited Natural by confusion with ecological artiWcial
themes and human Environmentally and and natural inputs
terms when intervention kind ambivalence Non-use of Limiting
discussing Natural pesticides environmental
Table I. the essence of Not damage
What does organic the term environmentally
mean? organic damaging
raised when the term organic is applied appeared to be the message here The “organic”
(this is reXected in Table II). food regime
The issue of where these perceptions originate was also explored. Most
respondents in all the countries surveyed were unsure of the sources of the
ideas they had about organic food. The process can best be described as
accidental learning. People seem to build up a knowledge (whether accurate,
deep or not) of the meaning of the term over time via osmosis (Schulman
99
and Worrall, 1970). There was little evidence in our sample that many
individuals had consciously sought information on many occasions. On this
evidence, the organic movement, retailers and others may well have some
way to go before a more complete picture of what organic really means (or
means at the certifying level) is lodged in the mind of the European
consumer. Clearly, terms like organic will always have nuances of meaning
to different individuals and groups as stated above, particularly when the
international dimensions are concerned. However, this study seems to
suggest that regional variation is less than might be intuitively expected.
Surely, it is in the interests of the consumer and end-users’ interest groups to
possess a conceptualisation which is shared by the originators of the
concept.

Labelling and regulation

Obviously, attitudes to the labelling and regulatory regime were to some
extent a function of their level of understanding of the term organic (as
deWned by the regulators). Notwithstanding this fact, Table III demonstrates
a disconcerting lack of knowledge and trust in the regulatory environment.
The importance of trust in an exchange context has been is widely
acknowledged for some time (e.g. Anderson and Narus, 1990; Anderson and
Weitz, 1992; Andaleeb, 1995). The apparent mistrust evidenced here
appeared to be fuelled by cynicism about the motives of the food industry

France Germany Norway Spain UK

Views towards Should be Very ignorant Knowledgeable Unaware Quite ignorant
the concept of healthier of Wsh farming of practice salmon of Wsh farming
organically and taste practice Doubtful of farmed practice
farmed salmon better Concerns of suitability of Negative Doubtful of
Might be potential salmon for view of suitability of
too practices organic concept of salmon for
expensive related production farming Wsh organic
primarily to Organic production
personal health should taste Table II.
No “artiWcial” better Consumer perceptions
inputs should of organic farmed
be used at all salmon
BFJ France Germany Norway Spain UK
106,2
Views of Consumer easily Very Sceptical Label should Should be
current duped and sceptical Labelling as be indicator free from
regime of defrauded Consumer gimmick of quality government
labelling and Need for easily duped Limited Ignorant of input
100 regulation independent body and knowledge of current labels Sceptical
EU dimension defrauded regulatory Limited Unfamiliar
required at Unfamiliar system knowledge of with labels
legislative level with labels regulatory Limited
Generally aware Limited system knowledge of
of “Bio” label” knowledge of Would only regulatory
“Bio” labelling part regulatory trust system
of a trend/fashion system government
Limited knowledge certiWcation
of regulatory with high
Table III. system traceability
Views of regulation and Trust in “AB” factor
labelling label

(particularly in Norway, Germany and the UK), ignorance (particularly in

Spain where there are few organic producers), and scepticism about
independent certiWers and/or the government’s role (especially in the UK).
The French and Spanish were more trusting of their governments than the
other nationals in the study at the time of the research.
On this evidence the consumer appears embattled and alienated from the
system that provides it with food and ensures that that food is bona Wde.
Greater effort could be made to communicate simple and easily accessible
information to consumers (Bruhn et al., 1992) as current labelling schemes
appear ineffective and are seemingly confusing to most consumers. It appears
that the situation identiWed in some previous work is still pervasive (see
Hutchins and Greenhalgh, 1995). However, the problems associated with
concerted communication actions among all of the actors in the food
distribution chain is well documented and was graphically demonstrated
during the “mad cow” scares in the UK (Smith et al., 1997; Harris and
O’Shaughnessy, 1997; Smith et al., 1999).

Consumer perceptions of organic farmed salmon

A number of respondents from all countries questioned whether salmon that
was farmed could ever be organic, although they appeared less sceptical
about other farmed species, organic pigs for example. This might be due, in
part, to the fact that salmon is seen as a “wild” species. This is not
altogether surprising, given that wild capture Wsh supplies still greatly
outnumber those from farmed sources in the major international markets
(FAO, 2000). Indeed, many of the Spanish consumers and some from other
countries were unaware that the Atlantic salmon they ate was most likely to
be farmed. There were also some difWculties in deWning the term “artiWcial The “organic”
input” for many respondents, although it was generally seen as something food regime
that should be minimised or avoided. Some respondents felt that medication
could be an exception although German consumers in particular appeared
very concerned about their use. A number of speciWc issues relating to
stocking density, appropriate food inputs and other production concerns
were discussed in the groups.
101
As respondents in all countries found out more about current salmon
farming practices and proposed organic regimes during the course of the
discussions they either became more sceptical of the concept, more confused,
or both. This observation leaves the industry with a dilemma; education
about practices may well raise concerns and heighten doubts, while avoiding
education may only serve to store up problems for the future, leaving the
industry to the mercy of the media and the vagaries of supplies of current
stories in the food news larder. There is also the potential for farmed salmon
to affect general perceptions of organic food in a negative way if it is
perceived to be anything less than organic. Once again, the picture overall is
negative and provides little good news for regulators, producers or indeed
certiWers. Establishing credible standards for organic farmed salmon may
prove difWcult as most respondents were ignorant of current Wsh farming
practices and had a somewhat idealistic view of how Wsh are farmed. It may
be that a labelling scheme based on a “green” grading system would be
more appropriate than the use of the term organic for a Wsh product that has
been farmed. Such a scheme might at least enable a more accurate reXection
of the variation in green attributes on offer, rather than the more
dichotomous black or white communicated solely by a label’s presence or its
absence.

Conclusion
This paper has highlighted the lack of knowledge and confusion among EU
consumers surrounding the term organic as well as potential problems
associated with the continued growth of the organic product portfolio,
particularly with aquaculture. This work also raises a number of generic
questions about consumer education in terms of food production processes.
Clearly, consumers are not as well informed as they might be; this is partly
their own responsibility, but it is also the responsibility of governments,
certifying bodies, producers, retailers and the other actors in the food chain. In
the short term consumer ignorance may well serve the organic and aquaculture
industries well, but in the longer term there is the potential for media driven
exposures of “bad practice” or “deceipt” (Beardsworth, 1990).
The organic movement is left with a real challenge, which is only
exaggerated as the portfolio of products rapidly expands. On this and other
evidence the consumer uses the “organic” label as an heuristic and
BFJ consumption is at least partially driven towards it for negative reasons
106,2 (avoidance of mainstream food). Their knowledge of what it really means and
some of the compromises implicit in the regulations for organic animal
products (in particular) mean that there is a knowledge gap. However, past
research has shown that consumers are both confused by multiple sources of
information and fail to use all information they have been exposed to (Smith
102 et al., 1999; Cowley, 1994). Either the food providers and certiWers make more
efforts to communicate the exact nature of organic animal products or they face
a “reality gap” where unrealistic consumer expectations meet pragmatic
regulations. However, effective communication of complex issues remains
problematic (Yeaton et al., 1990; Bruhn et al., 1992) particularly where multiple
agencies are responsible i.e. producers, retailers, certiWers and industry bodies
(Smith et al., 1999).
This study was part of a project that explored many other related issues
in the consumer discussion groups and interviewed a number of industry
and interest group actors in each country. While the analysis of the latter
data is ongoing, the ultimate aim remains to synthesise the “demand side
view” with the “supply side view” in order to explore the potential for
enhanced consumer education in the future and to identify common ground
or intractable problems (conceptual or practical). The more holistic
perspective that such a synthesis would bring is considered to be
important in terms of both the policy measures and associated strategies
that might accompany new products as they are marketed. For the present,
however, there are a number of pressing questions for future research. What
are the views of other actors in the food chain to the issues raised above?
Are there countries/markets where some of the issues raised have been
resolved? What is the situation in other countries not surveyed? What has
been the impact of the proliferation of (non-organic) quality certiWcation
schemes (e.g. Farm Assured in the UK)? Clearly, there is scope for and a
need for further research in this area.

References
Aarset, B., Beveridge, M., Bjorndal, T., McDonagh, P., Muir, J., Prothero, A., Smith, A. and
Young, J. (1998), “Macromarketing and organic food: orienting research into organically
produced salmon”, in Schultz II, C.J. and Schroeder, J. (Eds.), Redoubling Efforts: Impact,
Challenges and Opportunities. Proceedings of 23rd Annual Macromarketing Conference,
Rhode Island, pp. 83-94.
Andaleeb, S.S. (1995), “Dependence relations and the moderating role of trust: implications for
behavioral intentions in marketing channels”, International Journal of Research in
Marketing, Vol. 12, pp. 157-72.
Anderson, E. and Weitz, B. (1992), “The use of pledges to build and sustain commitment in
distribution channels”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 29, pp. 18-34.
Anderson, J.C. and Narus, J.A. (1990), “A model of distributor Wrm and manufacturer Wrm
working partnerships”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54 No. 1, pp. 42-58.
Beardsworth, A.D. (1990), “Trans-science and moral panics: understanding food scares”, British The “organic”
Food Journal, Vol. 92 No. 5, pp. 11-16.
food regime
Beharrell, B. and MacFie, J.H. (1991), “Consumer attitudes to organic foods”, British Food Journal,
Vol. 93 No. 2, pp. 25-30.
Bruhn, C.M., Diaz-Knauf, K., Feldman, N., Harwood, J., Ho, G., Ivans, E., Kubin, L., Lamp, C.,
Marshall, M., Osaki, S., Stanford, G., Steinbring, Y., Valdez, I., Williamson, E. and
Wunderlich, E. (1992), “Consumer food safety concerns and interest in pesticide-related 103
information”, Journal of Food Safety, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 253-62.
Cowley, E.J. (1994), “Recovering forgotten information: a study in consumer expertise”, Advances
in Consumer Research, Vol. 21, pp. 58-63.
Cudjoe, F. and Rees, P. (1992), “How important is organic farming in Great Britain?”, Tijdschrift
voon Econ. en Soc. GeograWe, Vol. 83 No. 1, pp. 13-24.
Davies, A., Titterington, A.J. and Cochrane, C. (1995), “Who buys organic food? A proWle of the
purchasers of organic food in Northern Ireland”, British Food Journal, Vol. 97 No. 10,
pp. 17-23.
Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989), “Building theories from case study research”, Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 532-50.
Eurofood (1996), “UK supplies of organic food fail to meet demand”, Eurofood, January, p. 3.
FAO (2000), Yearbook of Fishery Statistics, available at: www.fao.org/W/, FAO, Rome.
Fearne, A. and Lavelle, D. (1996), “Segmenting the UK egg market: results of a survey of
consumer attitudes and perceptions”, British Food Journal, Vol. 98 No. 1, pp. 7-12.
Geertz, C. (1979), The Interpretation of Culture, Fontana Press, London.
Girling, R. (2001), “Is this Wsh or is it foul?”, Sunday Times Magazine, pp. 40-9.
Grunert, S.C. and Juhl, H.J. (1995), “Values, environmental attitudes, and buying of organic
foods”, Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 39-62.
Haglund, A., Johannson, L., Berglund, L. and Dahlstedt, L. (1999), “Sensory evaluation of carrots
from ecological and conventional growing systems”, Food Quality and Preference, Vol. 10
No. 2, pp. 23-9.
Harris, P. and O’Shaughnessy, N. (1997), “BSE and marketing communication myopia: daisy and
the death of the sacred cow”, Risk Decision and Policy, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 29-39.
Hedges, B. and Ritchie, J. (1987), Research and Policy: The Choice of Appropriate Research
Methods, SCPR, London.
Huang, C.L. (1995), “Consumer preferences and attitudes towards organically grown produce”,
European Review of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 331-42.
Hughes, D. (1995), “Animal welfare: the consumer and the food industry”, British Food Journal,
Vol. 97 No. 10, pp. 3-7.
Hutchins, R.K. and Greenhalgh, L.A. (1995), “Organic confusion: sustaining competitive
advantage”, Nutrition and Food Science, Vol. 95 No. 6, pp. 11-15.
Hutchins, R.K. and Greenhalgh, L.A. (1997), “Organic confusion: sustaining competitive
advantage”, British Food Journal, Vol. 99 No. 9, pp. 336-8.
IFOAM (1998), Basic Standards for Organic Production and Processing, International Federation
of Organic Agriculture Movements, Tholey-Theley.
Jolly, D.A., Schutz, H.G., Diaz-Knauf, K. and Johal, J. (1989), “Organic foods: consumer attitudes
and use”, Food Technology, Vol. 43 No. 11, pp. 60-6.
BFJ Kapp, C. (1999), “International food committee agrees on organic food guidelines”, The Lancet,
Vol. 354 No. 9175, p. 314.
106,2
Krueger, R.A. (1988), Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research, Sage, Newbury Park,
CA.
Lillisotn, B. and Cummins, R. (1998), “Organic vs `organic’: the corruption of a label”, The
Ecologist, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 195-201.
104 McDonagh, P. and Prothero, A. (1997), Green Management: A Reader, International Thomson
Business Press, London.
Merrill, M.C. (1983), “Eco-agriculture: a review of its history and philosophy”, Biological
Agriculture and Horticulture, Vol. 1, pp. 181-210.
Mintel (1991), “Mintel Food’s organic growth leaves a sweet taste”, Marketing, February, p. 20.
Norberg-Hodge, H. (2000), “Is organic enough?”, The Ecologist, Vol. 30 No. 7, p. 45.
Opinion Research (1990), Trends: Consumer Attitudes and the Supermarket, Opinion Research,
Food Marketing Institute, Washington, DC.
Roddy, G., Cowan, C.A. and Hutchinson, G. (1996), “Consumer attitudes and behaviour to organic
foods in Ireland”, Journal of International Consumer Marketing, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 41-63.
Schifferstein, H.N.J. and Oude Ophuis, P.A.M. (1998), “Health-related determinants of organic
food consumption in the Netherlands”, Food Quality and Preference, Vol. 9 No. 3,
pp. 119-33.
Schulman, G.I. and Worral, C. (1970), “Salience patterns, source credibility, and the sleeper
effect”, Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 371-82.
Smith, A.P., Young, J.A. and Gibson, J. (1997), “Consumer information and BSE: credibility and
edibility”, Risk, Decision and Policy, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 41-51.
Smith, A.P., Young, J.A. and Gibson, J. (1999), “How now, mad-cow? Consumer conWdence and
source credibility during the 1996 BSE scare”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 33
No. 11/12, pp. 1107-22.
Smithers, R. and Bowcott, O. (1997), “Major denies cover-up over E.coli link to abattoirs”, The
Guardian, March.
Soil Association (2000), Organic Food and Farming Report 2000, Soil Association, Bristol.
Sykes, W. (1990), “Validity and reliability in qualitative market research: a review of the
literature”, Journal of the Market Research Society, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 289-329.
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.
Wandel, M. and Bugge, A. (1997), “Environmental concern in consumer evaluation of food
quality”, Food Quality and Preference, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 19-26.
Werner, J. and Alvensleben, R.V. (1983), “Consumer attitudes towards organic food in Germany”,
Acta Horticulturae, Vol. 155, pp. 221-7.
Yeaton, W.H., Smith, D. and Rogers, K. (1990), “Evaluating understanding of popular press
reports of health research”, Health Education Quarterly, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 223-34.

Further reading
Latacz-Lohmann, U. and Foster, C. (1997), “From `niche’ to `mainstream’ – strategies for
marketing organic food in Germany and the UK”, British Food Journal, Vol. 99 No. 8,
pp. 275-82.
About the authors The “organic”
Bernt Aarset is at Foundation for Research in Economics and Business Administration,
Bergen, Norway. food regime
Suzanna Beckmann is at Copenhagen Business School, Frederiksberg, Demark.
Enrique Bigne is at University of Valencie, Valencia, Spain.
Malcolm Beveridge is at University of Stirling, Scotland, UK.
Trond Bjorndal is at Foundation for Research in Economics and Business Administration, 105
Bergen, Norway.
Jane Bunting is at University of Stirling, Scotland, UK.
Pierre McDonagh is at Dublin Institute of Technology, Dublin, Ireland.
Catherine Mariojouls is at Institut National Agronomique Paris Grignon, Paris, France.
James Muir is at University of Stirling, Scotland, UK.
Andrea Prothero is at University College Dublin, Co Dublin, Ireland.
Lucia Reisch is at University of Hohenheim, Hohenheim, Germany.
Andrew Smith is at Nottingham University Business School, Nottingham, UK.
Ragnar Tveteras is at Stavanger College, Stavanger, Norway.
James Young is at Univerity of Stirling, Scotland, UK.