Naturally confused: consumers’ perceptions of all-natural and organic pork products
- 1.5k Downloads
Consumers are bombarded with labels and claims that are intended to address their concerns about how food products are produced, processed, and regulated. Among those are the natural or all-natural claims and the certified organic label. In this study, two focus groups were conducted to explore consumers’ attitudes toward all-natural and organic pork and to gather their reactions to the USDA organic standards for meat, and the policy for natural claims. Results indicated that participants had positive associations with the terms “organic” and “all-natural” with exceptions regarding the trustworthiness of all-natural claims. Participants perceived the “no” labeling theme (no antibiotics, no hormones, no chemicals, etc.) often coupled with the all-natural label on pork products as identifying potential health and animal welfare risks. In response to the USDA standards and policies for labeling pork products as organic or all-natural, participants expressed confusion and had many unanswered questions.
KeywordsAll natural Consumer perceptions Marketing claims Organic label Naturally raised Pork Risk perceptions
- Agricultural Marketing Service. 2009. United States standards for livestock and meat marketing claims, naturally raised claim for livestock and the meat and meat products derived from such livestock. Federal Register 74: 3541–3545.Google Scholar
- Auriol, E., and S.G.M. Schilizzi. 2003. Quality signaling through certification: Theory and an application to agricultural seed markets. Working paper no 165, IDEI University of Toulouse, Toulouse, France.Google Scholar
- Boström, M., and M. Klintman. 2003. Framing, debating, and standardising “natural food” in two different political contexts: Sweden and the U.S. Score working paper No. 2003:3, Stockholm Center for Organizational Research, Stockholm, Sweden.Google Scholar
- California Institute for Rural Studies. 2005. Regulating organic: Impacts of the national organic standards on consumer awareness and organic consumption patterns. http://www.cirsinc.org/Documents/Pub1205.2.PDF. Accessed 17 July 2008.
- Food and Safety Inspection Service. 1999. Natural and organic claims. USDA FSIS website. http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/larc/Claims/Organic_Claims.htm. Accessed 5 June 2006.
- Food and Safety Inspection Service. 2006. Meat and poultry labeling terms. USDA FSIS website. http://www.fsis.usda.gov/Fact_Sheets/Meat_&_Poultry_Labeling_Terms/index.asp. Accessed 17 July 2008.
- Glaser, B. 1978. Theoretical sensitivity. Mill Valley, CA: The Sociology Press.Google Scholar
- Guba, E., and Y. Lincoln. 1989. Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
- Hwang, Y., B. Roe, and M.F. Teisl. 2005. An empirical analysis of United States consumers’ concerns about eight food production and processing technologies. AgBioForum 8: 40–49.Google Scholar
- Krueger, R.A. 1994. Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research, 2nd ed. Newberry Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
- Krueger, R.A., and M.A. Casey. 2000. Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research, 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
- Lincoln, Y., and E. Guba. 1985. Naturalistic inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
- Moran, S. 2006. The range gets crowded for natural beef. The New York Times, C1.Google Scholar
- Morgan, D.L. 1997. Focus groups as qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
- Morgan, D.L., and R.A. Krueger, eds. 1998. The focus group kit, vols. 1–5. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
- National Organic Program (NOP). 2002. Labeling and marketing information. USDA NOP website. http://www.ams.usda.gov/nop/FactSheets/LabelingE.html. Accessed 22 September 2007.
- NichePork.org. 2006. FAQ’s. United States Pork Checkoff Niche Pork website. http://nichepork.org/faqs3.aspx. Accessed 17 July 2008.
- Organic Trade Association. 2006. Organic sales continue to grow at a steady pace. OTA website. http://www.organicnewsroom.com/2006/05/organic_sales_continue_to_grow.html. Accessed 21 October 2007.
- Patton, M.Q. 2001. Qualitative research and evaluation methods, 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
- Waarden, F. 2006. Taste, traditions, transactions, and trust: The public and private regulation of food. In What’s the beef? The contested governance of European food safety, ed. C. Ansell and D. Vogel, 35–59. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Warner, M. 2006. When it comes to meat, ‘Natural’ is a vague term. The New York Times, C4.Google Scholar