Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
related protection-motivation theory (R. W. Rogers, 1975) have been applied to organic food
purchase. The protection-motivation theory assumes that a motivation to protect oneself
against health or other threats results from the evaluation of two factors: (a) how big is the
threat for me personally and (b) how effective are coping measures I can take. The threat
appraisal depends on the perceived severity of the threat and the perceived vulnerability.
Highest threat appraisals occur therefore when a threat is connected to severe consequences
and a person considers him/herself to be vulnerable. The threat appraisal can be reduced if
the threat is connected to some kind of behaviour which is intrinsically or extrinsically
rewarded (e.g., eating sweets). A high threat appraisal alone is however not enough to
motivate protection measures. In addition a person has to come to the conclusion that
coping strategies are effective in reducing the threat (response efficacy), feasible (self-
efficacy) and not too costly. Taking organic meat consumption as an example, a motivation
to buy organic meat would develop if a person perceives a relevant threat with severe
consequences (e.g., being infected with Creutzfeld-Jakob disease when eating BSE infected
meat), perceives herself as being vulnerable (e.g., being a frequent meat eater), perceiving
the option to buy organic meat as effective (e.g., no infection with BSE in organic meat),
feasible (e.g., there is organic meat sold in the local supermarket) and not too costly (e.g.,
premium for organic meat is affordable).
Verhoef (2005) used variables of the protection motivation theory to explain preference for
organic meat and found that fear of health related consequences of consumption of
conventional meat is a relevant predictor. Scarpa & Thiene (2011) used the protection
motivation theory constructs to identify sub-groups of Italian people buying organic carrots.
Based on protection motivation theory they identified three classes of people: (a) the first
and with 60% largest class consisted of people that had both a high threat appraisal (threat
of pesticide residues in conventional carrots) and a high coping appraisal (buying organic
carrots helps and is feasible), (b) a second class of 25% with high coping appraisal but low
threat appraisal (which should show some action, “just to be sure”), and (c) a small class of
15% with low threat and coping appraisal. A class with high threat appraisal and low
coping appraisal was not found.
7. Perception and use of organic food labels
Food labels on organic food have been discussed in section 4 already as a trust-building
aspect in the purchase of organic produce, especially if the purchase is made in an
environment that is not trusted per se (e.g., a supermarket). All over the world, hundreds if
not thousands of organic food labels exist, varying a lot in what they certificate and who the
administering authority is. You can find labels only valid for certain lines of products (e.g.,
specific organic wine labels), labels that are used across the whole range of food products,
labels that are assigned only in one country or region, labels that are used across country
borders, labels that are assigned by independent organizations or governmental
organizations, labels that are assigned by the food industry itself or interest organizations,
additional organic food labels that are supermarket chain specific and so on. The standards
for each label are different so that organic products often carry a selection of several labels
(e.g., the general European Union organic food label in addition to the local label with
stricter standards). This large variation leads to potential confusion of customers about
standard behind eco-labels and mistrust might be a result. In a review article Pedersen &
Neergard (2006) show that a large majority of consumers indicate that there were too many
Search WWH ::
Custom Search