Advertisement

Organic Agriculture

, Volume 7, Issue 3, pp 315–327 | Cite as

Country-of-origin preferences for organic food

  • Alexander SchjøllEmail author
Article

Abstract

Consumers in almost any country seem to prefer domestic food compared to foreign food. One reason for this finding is probably consumers believe foreign food to be of lower standard than domestic food. In the last years, international agreements about organic products have led to harmonization of regulations allowing organic food produced in one country to be sold as organic in another. A hypothesis is then whether consumers view a foreign food product with the identical organic label as a domestic counterpart as equivalent substitutes. This study uses an online choice experiment with conventional and organic veal to investigate country-of-origin preferences for organic meat. The results show that despite the fact that the organic label assures consumers that the meat has been produced under the same organic regulations the willingness to pay for organic meat depends greatly on the country of origin. Hence, common international labels for organic food do alleviate the huge skepticism toward foreign food.

Keywords

Consumer preferences Country-of-origin labeling Domestic bias Choice experiment 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This study is financed by the Foundation for Research Levy on Agricultural Products and the Agricultural Agreement Research Fund (grant no. 190424). I would like to thank Frode Alfnes, Lisbet Berg, Svein Ole Borgen and an anonymous referee for useful comments.

References

  1. Alfnes F, Rickertsen K (2003) European consumers’ willingness to pay for US beef in experimental auction markets. Am J Agric Econ 85(2):396–405. doi: 10.1111/1467-8276.t01-1-00128 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alphonce R, Alfnes F (2012) Consumer willingness to pay for food safety in Tanzania: an incentive-aligned conjoint analysis. Int J Consum Stud 36(4):394–400. doi: 10.1111/j.1470-6431.2011.01067.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Animalia (2015) Kjøttets tilstand 2015. Status i norsk kjøtt- og eggproduksjon. http://flashbook.no/animalia/kjottetstilstand15/#/1. Accessed 21 2016
  4. Constanigro M, Thilmany McFadden D, Kroll S, Nurse G (2011) An in-store valuation of local and organic apples: the role of social desirability. Agribusiness 27(4):465–477. doi: 10.1002/agr.20281 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Costanigro M, Kroll S, Thilmany D, Bunning M (2014) Is it love for local/organic or hate for conventional? Asymmetric effects of information and taste on label preferences in an experimental auction. Food Qual Prefer 31:94–105. doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2013.08.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ehmke MD, Lusk JL, Tyner W (2008) Measuring the relative importance of preferences for country of origin in China, France, Niger, and the United States. Agric Econ 38(3):277–285. doi: 10.1111/j.1574-0862.2008.00299.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. European Commission (2007) Council Regulation (EC) No. 834/2007 of 28 June 2007 on Organic production and labelling of organic products and repealing regulation (EEC) No. 2092/9.1Google Scholar
  8. European Commission (2011) Council Regulation No. 1169/2011 on the Provision of Food information to consumers, amending Regulations No. 1924/2006 and No. 1925/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Commission Directive 87/250/EEC, Council Directive 90/496/EEC, Commission Directive 1999/10/EC, Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, Commission Directives 2002/67/EC and 2008/5/EC and Commission Regulation No 608/2004Google Scholar
  9. Eurostat (2013) Meat production and foreign tradeGoogle Scholar
  10. Gracia A, Barreiro-Hurlé J, López-Gálan B (2014) Are local and organic complement or substitutes? A consumer preferences study for eggs. J Agric Econ 65(1):49–67. doi: 10.1111/1477-9552.12036 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Grane JH, Boys KA (2012) Agricultural trade and the GATT/WTO: does membership make a difference? Am J Agric Econ 94(1):1–24. doi: 10.1093/ajae/aar087 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Heidenstrøm N, Jacobsen E, Borgen SO (2011) Seleksjon og ignorering. Forbrukerstrategier for å manøvrere i merkemangfoldet. Oppdragsrapport no. 2-2011. National Institute for Consumer Research (SIFO), Oslo. http://www.sifo.no/files/file77467_oppdragsrapport_2-2011.pdf. Accessed 13 Oct 2015
  13. Hempel C, Hamm U (2016) How important is local food to organic-minded consumers? Appetite 96:309–318. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2015.09.036 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Hensher D, Rose JM, Green WH (2005) Applied choice analysis: a primer. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Illichmann R, Abdulai A (2013) Analysis of consumer preferences and willingness-to-pay for organic food products in Germany. In: Contributed paper presented at the AAEA Annual Meeting, Washington. http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/150980/2/Illichmann_Abdulai_AAEA%202013.pdf Accessed 13 Oct 2015
  16. Kim R, Suwunnamek O, Toyoda T (2008) Consumer attitude towards organic labeling schemes in Japan. J Int Food Agrbus Mark 20(3):55–71. doi: 10.1080/08974430802157622 Google Scholar
  17. Kjærnes U, Poppe C, Lavik R (2005) Trust, distrust and food consumption. Project report no. 15-2005. National Institute for Consumer Research (SIFO), OsloGoogle Scholar
  18. Korn A, Hamm U (2014) Differentiation of rearing systems: is there a market for organic beef from extensive suckler cow husbandry? In: Rahman, G Aksoy U (Eds.) Proceedings of the 4th ISOFAR Scientific Conference, Istanbul, p 449–451. http://www.isofar.org/isofar/images/conferences/2014_owc/OWC14%20proceedings%20Volume%202%20web.pdf Accessed 8 Apr 2016
  19. Kuhfeld WF (2010) Marketing research methods in SAS: experimental design, choice, conjoint, and graphical techniques. SAS Institute, CaryGoogle Scholar
  20. Lavik R (2006) Grensehandelen 2006 - enkelte utviklingstrekk. Hurtigstatistikk fra SIFO-survey 2006. Prosjektnotat no. 4-2006. National Institute for Consumer Research (SIFO), OsloGoogle Scholar
  21. Lim KH, Hu W, Maynard LJ, Goddard E (2013) U.S. consumers’ preference and willingness to pay for country-of-origin-labeled beef steak and food safety enhancements. Can J Agric Econ 61(1):93–118. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-7976.2012.01260.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Loureiro ML, Umberger WJ (2005) Assessing consumer preferences for country-of-origin labeling. J Agric Appl Econ 37(1):49–63. doi: 10.1017/S1074070800007094 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lu Y (2013) Consumer preference for eggs from enhanced animal welfare production systems: a stated choice analysis. In: Contributed paper at the AAEA Annual Meeting, Washington. https://atrium.lib.uoguelph.ca/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10214/7467/Lu_Yiqing_Aug_2013_MSc.pdf?sequence=1. Accessed 13 Oct 2015
  24. Lusk JL, Briggeman BC (2009) Food values. Am J Agric Econ 9(1):184–196. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8276.2008.01175.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lusk JL, Fields D, Prevatt W (2008) An incentive compatible conjoint ranking mechanism. Am J Agric Econ 90(2):487–498. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8276.2007.01119.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mennecke BE, Townsend AM, Hayes DJ, Lonergan SM (2007) A study of the factors that influence consumer attitudes toward beef products using the conjoint market analysis tool. J Anim Sci 85(10):2639–2659. doi: 10.2527/jas.2006-495 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Mey BJV (2004) The globalization of food and how Americans feel about it: results of two surveys. J Food Distr Res 35(1):6–17. purl.umn.edu/27128
  28. Norwegian Agricultural Agency (2016) Produksjon og omsetning av økologiske landbruksvarer. Rapport for 2015. Rapport no. 12/2016. https://www.slf.dep.no/no/miljo-og-okologisk/okologisk-landbruk/om-okologisk-landbruk/publikasjoner/_attachment/52164?_ts=15388c01cc8&download=true. Accessed 21 Apr 2016
  29. Oikos 2012 Økologisk mat stadig rimeligere! http://www.oikos.no/aktuelt/okologisk-mat-stadig-rimeligere.aspx. Accessed 13 Oct 2015
  30. Onozaka Y, Thilmany McFadden D (2011) Does local labeling complement or compete with other sustainable labels? A conjoint analysis of direct and joint values for fresh produce claims. Am J Agric Econ 93(3):693–706. doi: 10.1093/ajae/aar005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Peterson HH, Li X (2011) Consumer preferences for product origin and processing scale: the case of organic baby food. Am J Agric Econ 93(2):590–596. doi: 10.1093/ajae/aaq153 Google Scholar
  32. Pozo V, Saak A, Peterson HH (2009) Product origin and reputation for quality: the case of organic foods. In: Contributed Paper presented at the AAEA Annual Meeting, Milwaukee. http://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/6553621.pdf. Accessed 15 Sept 2015
  33. Realini CE, Font i Furnolsa M, Sañudob C, Montossic F, Olivera MA, Guerreroa L (2013) Spanish, French and British consumers’ acceptability of Uruguayan beef, and consumers’ beef choice associated with country of origin, finishing diet and meat price. Meat Sci 95(1):14–21. doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2013.04.004 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Shi L, Gao Z, House LA (2011) Consumer WTP for blueberry attributes: a hierarchical Bayesian approach in the WTP Space. In: Contributed Paper presented at the AAEA Annual Meeting, Pittsburgh. http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/103524/2/AAEA%20paper%20Shi.pdf. Accessed 15 Sept 2015
  35. Statistics Norway (2013a) Table 08460: cross border trade. Number of same day trips and expenditure. Statistics Norway (SSB), OsloGoogle Scholar
  36. Statistics Norway (2013b) Table 07459: population, by sex and one-year age groups. Statistics Norway (SSB), OsloGoogle Scholar
  37. Statistics Norway (2013c) Table 08921: persons 16 years and older, by sex age and level of education. Statistics Norway (SSB), OsloGoogle Scholar
  38. Statistics Norway (2013d) Table 07752: households, by type of household and total household income. Statistics Norway (SSB), OsloGoogle Scholar
  39. Statistics Norway (2014) Table 08811: external trade in goods, by commodity group, country and mode of transport. Statistics Norway (SSB), OsloGoogle Scholar
  40. Stolz H (2011) Attitudes and behaviour towards food attributes and organic food – a triangular methodological investigation of occasional organic consumers. Dissertation, University of Kassel, Faculty of Organic Agricultural Sciences, Kassel. http://orgprints.org/20679. Accessed 13 Oct 2015
  41. Synovate MMI (2012) Norske Spisefakta 2012. Synovate MMI, OsloGoogle Scholar
  42. Taha FA, Hahn WF (2013) Did the U.S BSE and EU27 HPAI outbreaks affect EU meat exports? Paper presented at the AAEA & CAES Joint Annual Meeting Washington DC. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.476.7161&rep=rep1&type=pdf. Accessed 16 Mar 2016
  43. Tonsor GT, Schroeder TC, Lusk JL (2013) Consumer valuation of alternative meat origin labels. J Agric Econ 64(3):676–692. doi: 10.1111/1477-9552.12010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Train K (2009) Discrete choice methods with simulation, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Umberger WJ, Feuz DM, Calkins CR, Sitz BM (2003) Country-of-origin labeling of beef products: U.S. consumers’ perceptions. J Food Distr Res 34(3):103–116Google Scholar
  46. United States Department of Agriculture (2009) Country of origin labeling. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Washington. http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/cool. Accessed 13 Oct 2015
  47. United States Department of Agriculture (2012) European Union and United States agree to historic new partnership on organic trade. News Release no. 0051.12. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Washington. http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?contentid=2012/02/0051.xml. Accessed 13 Oct 2015
  48. Wägeli S, Hamm U (2015) Consumers’ perception and expectations of local organic food supply chains. Org Agric. doi: 10.1007/s13165-015-0130-6 Google Scholar
  49. Wägeli S, Janssen M, Hamm U (2015) Organic consumers’ preferences and willingness-to-pay for locally produced animal products. Int J Con Stud 40(3):357–367. doi: 10.1111/ijcs.12262 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. World Trade Organization (2014) Merchandise trade by commodity. World Trade Organization (WTO), GenevaGoogle Scholar
  51. Zheng Y, Li X, Peterson HH (2013) In pursuit of safe foods: Chinese preferences for soybean attributes in soymilk. Agribusiness 29(3):377–391. doi: 10.1002/agr.21342 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Consumption Research Norway - SIFOOslo and Akershus University College for Applied Sciences (HiOA)OsloNorway
  2. 2.Akershus University College for Applied Sciences (HiOA)OsloNorway

Personalised recommendations