IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v20y2000i5p735-746.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Comparison of Organic and Conventional Fresh Produce Buyers in the Boston Area

Author

Listed:
  • Pamela R. D. Williams
  • James K. Hammitt

Abstract

Food safety concerns and the demand for organically grown produce have increased significantly in the United States over the last decade. Key differences in lifestyle characteristics, food safety attitudes and beliefs, perceived food safety risks, and valuation of health risk reductions between organic and conventional food buyers remain largely unknown, however. To better characterize how buyers of organic fresh produce differ from their conventional counterparts, over 700 food shoppers were sampled from ten major retail stores in the Boston area. Survey results show that self‐reported organic buyers are more likely than conventional buyers to engage in a variety of health‐promoting and environmentally friendly behaviors. Organic buyers are less trusting of federal food safety agencies than are conventional buyers, and perceive greater benefits associated with organically grown produce than do their conventional counterparts. Further, organic buyers have significantly higher risk perceptions than do conventional buyers for food safety hazards associated with conventionally grown produce. Compared to conventional buyers, organic produce buyers also perceive significant risk reductions associated with switching to organically grown produce and are willing to pay a higher price to reduce perceived food safety risks. Few sociodemographic differences between buyer types were observed, possibly due to how organic and conventional food stores were matched. Survey findings highlight the need for greater public education about a range of food safety issues and farming practices to ensure that consumers are making informed decisions in the marketplace.

Suggested Citation

  • Pamela R. D. Williams & James K. Hammitt, 2000. "A Comparison of Organic and Conventional Fresh Produce Buyers in the Boston Area," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(5), pages 735-746, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:20:y:2000:i:5:p:735-746
    DOI: 10.1111/0272-4332.205066
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/0272-4332.205066
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/0272-4332.205066?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Batte, Marvin T. & Hooker, Neal H. & Haab, Timothy C. & Beaverson, Jeremy, 2007. "Putting their money where their mouths are: Consumer willingness to pay for multi-ingredient, processed organic food products," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 145-159, April.
    2. Némethová Jana & Dubcová Alena & Nagyová Ľudmila & Kramáreková Hilda, 2017. "Ecological Farming in Slovakia and Its Regional Disparities," European Countryside, Sciendo, vol. 9(4), pages 746-768, December.
    3. Haroon Qasim & Liang Yan & Rui Guo & Amer Saeed & Badar Nadeem Ashraf, 2019. "The Defining Role of Environmental Self-Identity among Consumption Values and Behavioral Intention to Consume Organic Food," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(7), pages 1-22, March.
    4. Prentice, Catherine & Chen, Jue & Wang, Xuequn, 2019. "The influence of product and personal attributes on organic food marketing," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 70-78.
    5. Sevtap ÜNAL & F. Görgün DEVECİ & Tuğba YILDIZ, 2019. "The main aim of this study is determining which consumption motives and personal and social factors affect organic food buying decisions. Ajzen’s Planned Behavior Theory (TPB) is used to explain consu," Istanbul Business Research, Istanbul University Business School, vol. 48(1), pages 1-35, May.
    6. Schröckl, R., 2012. "Wie sensibel reagieren deutsche Verbraucher auf Preisänderungen bei Bio- Eiern? Eine Nachfrageanalyse mit Haushaltspanel-Daten," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 47, March.
    7. Ozge Dinc‐Cavlak & Ozlem Ozdemir, 2021. "Comparing the willingness to pay through three elicitation mechanisms: An experimental evidence for organic egg product," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 37(4), pages 782-803, October.
    8. Jihee Hwang & Jihye You & Junghoon Moon & Jaeseok Jeong, 2020. "Factors Affecting Consumers’ Alternative Meats Buying Intentions: Plant-Based Meat Alternative and Cultured Meat," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(14), pages 1-16, July.
    9. Idda, Lorenzo & Madau, Fabio A. & Pulina, Pietro, 2008. "The Motivational Profile of Organic Food Consumers: a Survey of Specialized Stores Customers in Italy," 2008 International Congress, August 26-29, 2008, Ghent, Belgium 43946, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    10. Tuncay Turan TARABOĞLU & Tuğba Nur TOPALOĞLU & Serdar YAMAN, 2019. "The Effects of Macroeconomic Indicators on Leveraged Forex Volume: Evidence from Turkey," Istanbul Business Research, Istanbul University Business School, vol. 48(2), pages 160-175, November.
    11. Muhammad Ishtiaq Ishaq, 2018. "Testing Sustainable Consumption Behavior in Italy and Pakistan," European Journal of Business Science and Technology, Mendel University in Brno, Faculty of Business and Economics, vol. 4(1), pages 93-104.
    12. Tianjun Feng & L. Robin Keller & Liangyan Wang & Yitong Wang, 2010. "Product Quality Risk Perceptions and Decisions: Contaminated Pet Food and Lead‐Painted Toys," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(10), pages 1572-1589, October.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:20:y:2000:i:5:p:735-746. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.