<%BANNER%>

Comparison of Consumers' Perceptions of Organic Products between the United States and Poland

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0043711/00001

Material Information

Title: Comparison of Consumers' Perceptions of Organic Products between the United States and Poland
Physical Description: 1 online resource (126 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Grzelak, Pawel Kazimierz Mr
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2011

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: consumer -- development -- farming -- market -- organic -- perception
Food and Resource Economics -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Food and Resource Economics thesis, M.S.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: To explore further the potentials of organic agriculture it is important to know what is the meaning of organic farming and organic products for consumers. Good knowledge about consumers' perception for organic products may improve the ability of development of efficient policies related to promotion of the organic market, product development and marketing strategies so it will lead to efficient solutions. The United States (Florida) and Poland are interesting examples in which the level of organic market development varies and allows to test whether consumer perceptions of organic food products varies with market development. A survey was conducted at the University of Florida (US) and at the Warsaw University of Life Sciences (Poland). The findings indicate that students from the United States and Poland have different perceptions of organic products. Some of these differences are likely explained by the different level of market development of organic markets. The lack of development of organic market in Poland was observed as respondents rated the availability of organic products as low. Potential consumers of these products have to face higher prices of organics, likely resulting in lower popularity of these products. Polish consumer wanted to buy organics because of some quality characteristics, because it is something new and it is good for the environment. General knowledge about organic food was high, and was similar to knowledge of U.S. respondents. As knowledge had a significant and positive impact on consumption of organic foods, it seems that education and increases in awareness would help further development of organic market in Poland. The organic market in the United States can be characterized by higher level of development than in Poland. Organic products are common and available in most of the supermarkets. U.S. respondents did not find price for organics as a barrier to purchase. They may consider it as paying for some additional attributes (quality characteristics) of organics in which they believe. At the same time U.S consumers may believe, like the fact the organic farming is environmentally friendly, were not strong enough reasons to increase frequency of the consumption of organics. However U.S. consumers mentioned the importance of supporting local organic farmers. Further research may find that by changing the paradigms and by explaining the importance of additional potential benefits of purchasing organic products (especially the fact that it may be environmentally friendly) organic market in the United States can have still many opportunities for further development.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Pawel Kazimierz Mr Grzelak.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.)--University of Florida, 2011.
Local: Adviser: House, Lisa O.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2011
System ID: UFE0043711:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0043711/00001

Material Information

Title: Comparison of Consumers' Perceptions of Organic Products between the United States and Poland
Physical Description: 1 online resource (126 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Grzelak, Pawel Kazimierz Mr
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2011

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: consumer -- development -- farming -- market -- organic -- perception
Food and Resource Economics -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Food and Resource Economics thesis, M.S.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: To explore further the potentials of organic agriculture it is important to know what is the meaning of organic farming and organic products for consumers. Good knowledge about consumers' perception for organic products may improve the ability of development of efficient policies related to promotion of the organic market, product development and marketing strategies so it will lead to efficient solutions. The United States (Florida) and Poland are interesting examples in which the level of organic market development varies and allows to test whether consumer perceptions of organic food products varies with market development. A survey was conducted at the University of Florida (US) and at the Warsaw University of Life Sciences (Poland). The findings indicate that students from the United States and Poland have different perceptions of organic products. Some of these differences are likely explained by the different level of market development of organic markets. The lack of development of organic market in Poland was observed as respondents rated the availability of organic products as low. Potential consumers of these products have to face higher prices of organics, likely resulting in lower popularity of these products. Polish consumer wanted to buy organics because of some quality characteristics, because it is something new and it is good for the environment. General knowledge about organic food was high, and was similar to knowledge of U.S. respondents. As knowledge had a significant and positive impact on consumption of organic foods, it seems that education and increases in awareness would help further development of organic market in Poland. The organic market in the United States can be characterized by higher level of development than in Poland. Organic products are common and available in most of the supermarkets. U.S. respondents did not find price for organics as a barrier to purchase. They may consider it as paying for some additional attributes (quality characteristics) of organics in which they believe. At the same time U.S consumers may believe, like the fact the organic farming is environmentally friendly, were not strong enough reasons to increase frequency of the consumption of organics. However U.S. consumers mentioned the importance of supporting local organic farmers. Further research may find that by changing the paradigms and by explaining the importance of additional potential benefits of purchasing organic products (especially the fact that it may be environmentally friendly) organic market in the United States can have still many opportunities for further development.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Pawel Kazimierz Mr Grzelak.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.)--University of Florida, 2011.
Local: Adviser: House, Lisa O.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2011
System ID: UFE0043711:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 COMPARISON OF CONSUMERS' PERCEPTIONS OF ORGANIC PRODUCTS BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND POLAND By PAWEL GRZELAK A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIRE MENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2011

PAGE 2

2 2011 Pawel Grzelak

PAGE 3

3 To my f amily

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS First and foremost, I am very grateful to my promot e r Dr Lisa House for h er support, guidance, patience and encouragement. I would also like to thank to Prof. Dr. ir. Wim Verbeke and Dr. Filiep Vanhonacker for guidance and help. Especially big thanks are due to Dr. ir. Mariusz Maciejczak who was always showing me huge benefits of studying abroad. I would never have made it this far in life without the support of my friends and family. I thank my mother and father for giving me the emotional support needed to complete this educational journey. I thank also Gosia who was there from the start of this international program to obtain our education in agricultural economics. These two years have been much easier with her support. Lastly, I would like to thank to Prof. Dr. ir. Guido Van Huylenbroeck and to faculty of B ioscience Engineering at the Ghent University for giving me the chance to pursue the Atlantis Program.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 7 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 10 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................ ................................ ........................... 11 ABSTRAC T ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 12 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 14 Overview of Organic A griculture ................................ ................................ .............. 14 Problem Statement ................................ ................................ ................................ 16 Thesis O bjective ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 17 Hypotheses ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 18 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................ ................................ ........................... 19 The Organic Market in Poland ................................ ................................ ................. 19 The Organic Market in Florida ................................ ................................ ................. 21 Previous Studies on Consumer Perception of Organic P roducts ............................ 23 Differences B etween Conventional and Organic Food P roducts ...................... 24 Consumer Knowledge about Organic Food P roducts ................................ ....... 28 Consumer P erceptio ns of Organic Food P roducts ................................ ............ 29 Willingness To Pay (WTP) ................................ ................................ ............... 31 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 33 3 DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS ................................ ................................ ...................... 37 Me thodology ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 37 Results ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 38 Tables ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 48 4 METHODS, THEORETICAL MODEL AND MODEL SPECIFICATIONS ................ 76 Methods ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 76 Theoretical Model ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 76 Ordered Pro bit Model (Ordered Probability Model) ................................ ................. 77 Model Specification ................................ ................................ ................................ 79 Expected Results ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 81 5 EMPiRICAL MODEL ................................ ................................ ............................... 86 Ordered Probability Model Results ................................ ................................ .......... 86 Personal Characteristics and L ifestyle ................................ .............................. 86

PAGE 6

6 Purchase Frequency Habits of Organic Food P roducts ................................ .... 88 Knowl edge and Beliefs about Organic F arming ................................ ................ 88 Attitudes Towards Purchase and Consumption of Organic Food P roducts ...... 89 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 94 6 CONCLUSIONS ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 97 Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 97 Comparison of the Level of Development of Organic M arkets ................................ 97 Comparison of the Perception of Organic P roducts ................................ ................ 99 Final R emarks ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 103 APPENDIX: QUESTIONNAIRE ................................ ................................ ................... 106 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ .............................. 121 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ .......................... 126

PAGE 7

7 LIST OF TABLES Table page 3 1 Standing of the students at the University of Florida ................................ ........... 48 3 2 Standing of the students at the Warsaw University of Life Sciences .................. 49 3 3 Education of mothers of the respondents at the University of Florida ................. 49 3 4 Education of fathers of the respondents at the Univ ersity of Florida ................... 49 3 5 Education of mothers of the respondents at the Warsaw University of Life Sciences ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 50 3 6 Education of fat hers of the respondents at the Warsaw University of Life Sciences ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 50 3 7 Subjective opinion of the respondents about their eating habits at the University of Florida ................................ ................................ ............................ 51 3 8 Subjective opinion of the respondents about their eating habits at the Warsaw Univerity of Life Sciences ................................ ................................ ...... 52 3 9 Rating of the behavior of students fr om the University of Florida ........................ 53 3 10 Rating of the behavior of students from Warsaw University of Life Sciences ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 53 3 11 Yesterday diet of the respondents at the University of Florida ............................ 54 3 12 Yesterday diet of the respondents at the Warsaw University of Life Sciences ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 54 3 13 Physical activity of the students at the UF ................................ .......................... 55 3 14 Physical activity of the students at the WULS ................................ ..................... 56 3 15 Consumpti on frequency of organic products at the UF ................................ ....... 56 3 16 Consumption frequency of organic products at the WULS ................................ 57 3 17 Type of organic p roducts purchased by students from the UF ............................ 57 3 18 Type of organic products purchased by students from the WULS ...................... 57 3 1 9 Are you eat ing more or less organic food products compared to last year? Students from the UF ................................ ................................ .......................... 58 3 20 Are you eating more or less organic food products compared to 5 years ago? students from the UF ................................ ................................ ................. 58

PAGE 8

8 3 21 Are you eating more or less organic food products compared to last year? Students from the WULS ................................ ................................ .................... 58 3 22 Are you eating more or l ess organic food products compared to 5 years ago? Students from the WULS ................................ ................................ ........... 59 3 23 Where students for the UF purchase organics? ................................ .................. 59 3 24 Where students for the WULS purchase organics? ................................ ............ 59 3 25 How much students knew about organic foods the UF ................................ ..... 60 3 26 How much s tudents knew about organic foods the WULS ............................... 60 3 27 The level of certainty of students from the UF ................................ .................... 61 3 28 The level of certainty of students from the WULS ................................ ............... 62 3 29 Knowledge about organic farming the UF ................................ ......................... 63 3 30 Knowledge about organic farming the WULS ................................ ................... 63 3 31 Beliefs related to organic farming and organic food products students from the UF ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 64 3 32 Beliefs related to organic farming and organic food products students from the WULS ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 65 3 33 Sources to obtain information about organic products at the UF ........................ 66 3 34 Sources to obtain information about organic products at the WULS ................... 67 3 35 Indication how much do students trust to the information about organics from different sources? the UF ................................ ................................ ......... 68 3 36 Indication how much do students trust to the information about organics from different sources? the WULS ................................ ................................ .... 69 3 37 Factors for purchasin g organic products students from the UF ........................ 70 3 38 Factors for purchasing organic products students from the WULS ................... 71 3 39 Barrier s for purchasing organic products the UF ................................ .............. 72 3 40 Barriers for purchasing organic products the WULS ................................ ......... 73 3 41 The level of easine ss to find organics the UF ................................ ................... 73 3 42 The level of easiness to find organics the WULS ................................ ............. 74 3 43 The question Is there a need to g o to a special store or location to purchase organic foods? the UF ................................ ................................ ...... 74

PAGE 9

9 3 44 The question Is there a need to go to a special store or location to purchase organic foods? the WULS ................................ ................................ 74 3 45 Willingness to pay for organics the UF ................................ ............................. 74 3 46 Willingness to pay for organics the WULS ................................ ........................ 75 3 47 Feelings during consumption of organics the UF ................................ .............. 75 3 48 Feelings during consumption of organics the WULS ................................ ........ 75 4 1 Variables used in the Ordered Probit Model ................................ ....................... 84 5 1 Ordered Probability Model Results ................................ ................................ ..... 95 5 2 Summary of Marginal Eff ects for Ordered Probability Model .............................. 96

PAGE 10

10 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 2 1 Share of organic sales by marketing c hannel, 1991, 1998, and 2006 ................ 36

PAGE 11

11 LIST OF ABBREVIATION S CAP Common Agricultural Policy (European Union) CSA Community Supported Agriculture ERS Economic Research Service FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations FiBL Research Institute of Organic Agriculture IFOAM The International Federation o f Organic Agriculture Movements ITC International Trade Centre PMR PMR Publications Research C enter SL Fo undation Ecology & Agriculture (Stiftung kologie & Landbau) USDA U nited S tates Department of Agriculture

PAGE 12

12 Abstract o f Thesis Presented t o t he Graduate School o f The University o f Florida I n Partial Fulfillment o f t he Requirements f or t he Degree o f Master of Science COMPARISON OF CONSUMERS' PERCEPTIONS OF ORGANIC PRODUCTS BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND POLAND By Pawel Grzelak December 2011 Chair: Lisa House Major: Food and Resource Economics To explore furt her the potentials of organic agriculture it is important to know what is the meaning of organic farming and organic products for consumers. Good perception for organic products may improve the ability of development of efficient policies related to promotion of the organic market, product development and marketing strategies so it will lead to efficient solutions. The United States (Florida) and Poland are interesting examples in which the level of organic market development vari es and allows to test whether consumer perceptions of organic food products varies with market development. A s urvey was conducted at the University of Florida (US) and at the Warsaw University of Life Sciences (Poland). The findings indicate that s tudent s from the United States and Poland have different perceptions of organic products. Some of these differences are likely explained by the different level of market development of organic markets. The lack of development of organic market in Poland was obse rved as respondents rated the availability of organic products as low. Potential consumers of these products have to face higher prices of organics, likely resulting in lower

PAGE 13

13 popularity of these products. Polish consumer wanted to buy organics because of s ome quality characteristics, because it i s something new and it is good for the environment. General knowledge about organic food was high, and was similar to knowledge of U.S. respondents. As knowledge had a significant and positive impact on consumption of organic foods, it seems that education and increases in awareness would help further development of organic market in Poland. The organic market in the United States can be characterized by higher level of development than in Poland. Organic products ar e common and available in most of the supermarkets. U.S. respondents did n o t find price for organics as a barrier to purchase. They may consider it as paying for some additional attributes (quality characteristics) of organics in which they believe. At the same time U.S consumers may believe, like the fact the organic farming is environmentally friendly, were not strong enough reasons to increase frequency of the consumption of organics. However U.S. consumers mentioned the importance of supporting local or ganic farmers. Further research may find that by changing the paradigms and by explaining the importance of additional potential benefits of purchasing organic products (especially the fact that it may be environmentally friendly) organic market in the Uni ted States can have still many opportunities for further development.

PAGE 14

14 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Overview of O rganic A griculture Environmental protection and sustainable rural development have gained re systems in recent years. One of the systems of agriculture which may be considered as consistent with present changes is organic farming. There are many definitions which explain what organic farming is. The International Federation of Organic Agricultu re Movements -IFOAM -ecosystems and people. It relies on ecological processes, biodiversity and cycles adapted to local conditions, rather than the use of inputs with adverse effects. Organic agriculture combines tradition, innovation and science to benefit the shared (IFOAM, 2011) The area of land under organic production has sign ificantly increased in recent years Based on the SL Survey (Willer & Yussefi, 2000) in 2000 about 26 million acres (10.5 million hectares) were managed organically worldwide. Today there are more than 1.8 million organic producers in the world, who pro duce on almost 92 million acres (37.2 million ha), including conversion areas. This accounts for 0.9% of all agricultural land. Organic farming has also gained popularity with consumers as evidenced by the growth in the organic market. According to the IT C study (Willer & Yussefi, 2000), in 1997 the biggest markets for organic products world wide were in the USA, Europe and Japan. In this group the market volume was 11 billion USD (7.7 million Euros) in that time. In 2009, the value of global organic marke t was about 54.9 billion USD

PAGE 15

15 (38.38 million Euros). The United States, Canada and Europe constitute about 97% of global revenues in the organic food products trade. According to the Economic Research Service (ERS) of the United States Department of Agricu lture, in 2008, 4.8 million acres (1.9 million hectares) of agricultural land were managed organically in the United States. In 2009, the value of the organic market in the United States was approximately $23 billion US (16.1 billion Euros) (U.S. Departmen t of Agriculture, 2011) This accounts for approximately 2.5% of total food sales in the United States. According to the Organic Trade Association (OTA), there has been growth of organic market about 20% annually since the 1990s. (Organic Trade Association 2006) However, the largest organic market in the world exists in the European Union. The value of organic market in EU 27 was nearly 26 billion USD (18 billion Euros) in 2008 (Pinckaers et al. 2010) Growth in the popularity of organic farming was supp orted by a number of policies which aided the development of the organic sector in the EU. In 1991, common regulations related to organic farming were implemented (European Commission, 1991). In 1993, organic agriculture became part of the agri environment al programs of the common agricultural policy ( the CA P). This resulted in an increase in the area managed organically. In 1985, there were only 6,000 organic producers. Today, 257,665 producers (FiBL, 2011) manage land in an organic way. They occupy almost 4% of the total agricultural area in EU (20.62 million acres / 8.34 million ha). Though there have been policy changes to support organic agriculture, and much growth in the area, the level of organic market level development is not evenly spread across t he EU27. New members, especially the countries which joined the

PAGE 16

16 European Union in or after 2004 can be characterized as having a dynamic but still low level of organic market development in comparison to the EU15 countries. Problem Statement Growth in org anic markets in the United States and in European Union may lifestyles (promotion of a healthier lifestyle) or the growth in awareness of consumers regarding food quality. Also, co nsumer awareness of the need for environment protection is increasing. Organic farming is often considered by consumers as environmental friendly, and this may result in more attention given by consumers to organic farming. Growth in the popularity of or ganic farming can be also connected to a number of policies which have aided the development of the organic sector. Organic agriculture was often promoted by a lot of countries in their domestic policies, for example, by financial subsidies for organic far mers, specific extension activities or promotion in media. But at the same time, there are still many differences related to economic and social environment for organic farming around the world. They are related to various requirements regarding organic pr oduction, certification, legislation or marketing and to different perceptions of organic products by consumers. These differences, as well wit h demographic ones, create a situation in which organic farming has non homogenous meanings for consumers in diff erent parts of the world. This can cause some problems in creation of policies or marketing activities which could support organic farming in an efficient and proper way. products, development of efficient policies related to promotion of the organic market,

PAGE 17

17 product development and marketing strategies can be difficult and may lead to Biemans, 2011). By providing proper and clear information about demand for organic products, the chances for fur ther development of organic market are increased. The future of organic agriculture will, to a large extent, depend on consumer demand (Bonti Ankomah & Yiridoe, 2006) However, consumer perception of organic farming may be related to the level of organic ma rket development in a specific location Growth in the popularity of organic products may be correlated with more positive perception of organics and greater intentions to buy them. The United States (Florida) and Poland are interesting examples in which t he level of organic market development varies, allowing us to test whether consumer perceptions of organic food products varies with market development. Thesis O bjective The objectives of this paper are to investigate: t he level of market development in t wo specific locations in terms of value of the market and access to places where organic food products can be purchased, f requency of purchasing habits of organic food consumers, c onsumer perception towards the purchase and consumption of organic food prod ucts, differences in the lifestyles of consumers who consume or do not consume organic food, differences or similarities in consumer characteristics and perceptions of organic food products between the two markets analyzed in this paper, a nd correlat ions between consumer perceptions and the level of market development. Additionally, this paper will try to answer the question: What are the chances for further development of organic markets, given the findings of our study of consumer perceptions of o rganic food products in each location?

PAGE 18

18 Hypotheses The following specific hypotheses will be tested: I) Gainesville (Florida) and Warsaw represent different levels of development of organic markets in terms of sales and availability of organic products, II) Consum ers in Gainesville (Florida) and Warsaw have different perceptions of organic food products, and, III) There is a correlation between level of development of the organic market and intentions to purchase organic products by consumers. Testing these hypothes es will require the use of several research methods. A survey was created to analyze the characteristics (demographics, lifestyle etc.) of the respondents and their perceptions of organic products. The survey was conducted to obtain data for further analys is employing an Ordered Probability Model. The model was created to analyze the consumption frequency of organics in the United States and in Poland. Finally, results fr om a review of the literature, survey results, and the Ordered Probability Model will b e integrated into a discussion concerning consumer perceptions of organic products between the United States and Poland, as well as conclusions regarding correlations between these perceptions and the level of organic market development.

PAGE 19

19 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW The Organic Market in Poland In 1990 there were only 27 organic farms in Poland. For these farmers, organic farming was not only a method of production but also a passi on, since there was generally a lack of any support for organic farmer s. Since 2000, the number of organic farms in Poland has increased and has become more dynamic. This growth was connected to the accession of Poland into the EU and implementation of European agro environmental programmes of the Rural Development Plan. Si nce 2004, organic farmers have been able to receive subsidies for the amount of land managed organically, which has supported their income. By 2010, there were 20,956 organic farms in Poland with average size about 61.2 acres (~25 ha). In total, organic f arms in 2010 accounted for 1,281,303 acres ( 518,527 ha). This represents 2.8% of the total agricultural land in Poland (Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, 2011) At the same time, there was also growth in the number of processing plants for org anic products, though this growth was not as large as in the number of organic farms. In 2005 and 2006, the number of organic processing plants increased by 8 0% and 70%, respectively. In two years, 2008 and 2009, growth rates were much smaller, 15% and 18% respectively (PMR, 2010) In recent years there has been a significant change in consumer awareness of food quality and safety, and the environment. However, change in awareness has been slow and it has not significantly influenced the development of the Polish organic market. According to the Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL), the value of the Polish organic market in 2009 was 71.55 million USD (50 million Euros) 1 It is estimated that the Polish organic market is growing about 15 20% year by year. 1 Euro/USD = 0.6988

PAGE 20

20 EuroMonitor states that in 2010 the value was 84.3 million USD (58.9 million Euros) (EuroMonitor, 2011) However, according to PMR Publications, the value of the Polish organic market reached 143.1 million USD (100 million Euros) in 2009 (PMR, 201 0) These numbers suggest that the potential for further development of the Polish organic market is significant. In Western Europe, the organic market constitutes more than 2.5% of the total food market (0.2% in Poland). There are also estimates that the value of the Polish organic market will reach 5.72 billion USD (4 billion Euros) in 2013. There are several reasons for the low level of development of the Polish organic market. The costs of distribution are high and prices of organic products are high as well. The Polish organic market also faces the problem of the export of organic products. A lot of companies and organic producers have decided to export their products, which is often easier and more profitable than trying to sell to Polish consumers (S zeremeta, 2006) The most popular organic products in Poland are fruits and vegetables, their preserves and other products. However, more organic products are becoming available: meat, milk and dairy products, eggs, wine, honey and spices. Distribution cha nnels in the Polish organic market are significantly differentiated. Direct sale and specialized shops are the most popular distribution channels. There are more than 400 specialized shops with organic food in Poland. There are many disadvantages with this situation, such as unfavorable organic shop location, low percentage of organic food with organic certification, and high prices. Also, the Polish market seems to be unprepared for any significant share of sales of organic food through supermarkets. Large retailers often require large quantities of high quality organic products in professional packaging Biemans, 2011)

PAGE 21

21 Moreover, compared to Western Europe, the assortment of organic food in supermarkets is still very poor. The reasons for this are related to insufficient demand for organic products, a lack of promotion of organic farming in Pola nd, and a system of subsidies for organic farmers which does not function as well as it was expected to. Organic subsidies influenced the growth of the number of organic farms, but there was no impact on the overall level of development of the Polish organ ic market (Grzelak, 2009) The Organic Market in Florida Florida is located in the southeastern part of the United States. The United States Census Bureau estimates the population of Florida of 18 million people. Florida has the area of 65,755 square miles (170,305 km2) and it ranks 22 nd among the 50 U.S. states in size. Agriculture is very significant sector in the economy of Florida. In 2007, there were 40,000 farms which together with all agricultural, food manufacturing, and natural resource industries generated added value of $20.4 billion USD (14.25 billion Euros) (Hodges, Rahmani, & Mulkey, 2008) The average size of 85% of these farms is around 180 acres (72,84 ha). Average income of most of the farms (75%) is less than $25,000 (17,470 Euros) (USDA N ASS, 2008) Agriculture is the 2 nd largest industry in Florida. Florida produces most of the citrus fruit grown in the United States (in 2006, 67% of all citrus in the US was produced on farms in Florida). Other important products are: sugarcane, strawberr ies, tomatoes, celery, sweet corn and green beans. According to U.S census data, in 2007 were 172 organic farms which covered 8079 acres (3272 ha), with sales at $4.34 million (3.03 million Euros). Most (around 86%) of the land was devoted to fruits and ve getables (2007 Census of Agriculture,

PAGE 22

22 2009) Organic growers in Florida produce a wide range of crops: vegetables (25% of total acreage and primary production on 38% of organic farms), sprouts, citrus, micro greens, blueberries, tropical fruits, chestnuts and herbs (Austin & Chase, 2003) Organic products are becoming more and more popular and accessible in the Florida market. According to Dimitri and Green (Dimitri & Green 2003) organic produce is sold in 73% of the conventional markets. Retailing of org anic products has changed in the last decade. Initially, natural foods stores were the main place for purchasing organic food. Now, almost half of all organic foods are purchased in conventional supermarkets or club stores (Figure 2 1) (Dimitri & Oberholtz er, 2009) Also the level of competition increased significantly. Traditional purveyors of organic foods (natural foods stores) have had to contend with the presence of new companies that sell their products not only in natural products stores but also sup ermarkets like Costco Wholesale. While fruits and vegetables account for the largest sales of organic products, sales of dairy products, beverages, packed and prepared foods and breads i ncreased from 54% in 199 7 to 63 % total organic sales sin 2008 (Dimit ri & Oberholtzer, 2009) Rapid growth in demand is causing periodic shortages of organic products in the market. Organic farms in Florida are often not able to meet existing demand as their numbers and levels of production are still too low. This is why ma ny of the regional and national retail chains are buying organic products outside of Florida or even importing them from foreign producers. This has affected the financial security of smaller organic farms in Florida. Income from sales of certified organic products are for many small, diversified, family owned farms a significant contribution to their income (Nguyen et al. 2008)

PAGE 23

23 One of the answers for small certified organic farmers in Florida to the challenge from imports (both U.S. and foreign) is to wo rk together to become more competitive in local markets and especially in indirect markets. There are two main channels through which Florida organic producers can become more competitive direct markets and indirect markets. Direct markets include farme rs' markets, roadside stands, pick your own operations, and Community Supported Agriculture (CSA). In 2007 there were around 58 pick your own (Nguyen et al. 2008) In case of indirect markets, farmers can choos e between brokers, terminal market firms, and retail outlets. The most well known terminal markets are: the Pompano State Farmers' Ma rket and the Miami Produce Center. Organic farmers in Florida can also sell their products directly to consumers through sm all, independent grocery stores, such as Mother Earth or through larger grocery chains such as Whole Foods Market or Publix Also, more and more restaurants are purchasing organic products. This is a good opportunity for farmers. They can sell their orga nic products directly to restaurants or they can use foodservice distributors such as FreshPoint Inc. (Nguyen et al. 2008) Previous S tudies on C onsumer P erception of O rganic P roducts Interest in organic farming and organic food products in the world is growing significantly. This is connected to the fact that many consumers are more concerned about the quality of their lives and their relationship to the environment. This has spawned concerns about a set of issues related to conventional agricultural pr actices, food safety, human health, and environmental safety. Consumer demand is one of the drivers of the increasing development of

PAGE 24

24 attitudes and motivations, the organic s ector can more effectively respond to this shifting market dynamic. The organic sector can create efficient and effective market strategies related to product development and promotion of organic food consumption (Bonti Ankomah & Yiridoe, 2006) Consumer b eliefs and attitudes towards organic food products vary by specific locations. Numerous studies concerning the demand for organic and conventional food products have been conducted. They highlight several important aspects of the market for organic foods: Differences between conventional and organic food products Consumer knowledge about organic food products Consumer perceptions of organic food product Differences b etween Conventional and Organic Food P rod ucts Organic products are purchased for different reasons. There has been long debate from perspective of both the supply side and the demand side about differences between organically and conventionally grown food products. While purchasing of organic foo ds, many consumers assume that organic products have some unique characteristics in comparison to conventionally produced foods ( Bonti Ankomah & Yiridoe, 2006) However, a lot of people do not buy organic food products because for them there is no any sign ificant difference between organic and conventional products Nevertheless, several studies have been conducted which show that there are differences between organic and conventional products. These differences may or may not be important to some consumers (Bonti Ankomah & Yiridoe, 2006) A number of studies have focused on yields. The most common conclusion is that yields decrease when a farmer converts from conventional to organic production. However, this depends on the several other aspects of the farm such as the intensity

PAGE 25

25 of previous conventional production, specific properties of the land or the experience of the farmers (FAO, 2003) Research reported that the yields of organic cereals 10 30% were lower than under conventional production (FAO, 2003 ) Organic vegetables yields were 20 50% lower than those conventionally produced. A significant decline in yields ( 75%) was reported in case of potatoes (Bonti Ankomah & Yiridoe, 2006) A s urvey of Statistics Canada conducted a study on 11 thousand organ ic farms in fruit and vegetables production. In general, most of the farms reported lower yields than their conventional counterparts. In the case of some fruits and vegetables some exceptions were noticed (Parsons, 2002) For example yields of organic blu eberries were 38% higher than that of conventional blueberries. Moreover, according to FAO (FAO, 2003) in some regions in Bolivia, India and Kenya, yields from organic production were significantly higher than those from conventional farms. This is probabl y due to good management practices after converting from low input conventional to organic practices. In case of profitability it is difficult to find many long term studies. This is due to the fact that profitability of organic farms depend significantly and his ability to manage organic farm. However, the price premiums that organic foods generally receive can influence significantly the viability of the organic farms. Even with lower yields, with the price premium for the organic productio n farmers can stay profitable. But at the same time high price premiums can affect consumer demand for organic products. If prices for organic products could be reduced, this would significantly affect and increase demand, because the price el asticity of organic products is much higher than for conventional products (Wier & Calverley, 2002)

PAGE 26

26 Price is usually the most significant determinant of demand (Gil et al. 2002). However, according to Cue utilization theory, consumers evaluate a product q uality by considering direct (for example physical attributes) and indirect indicators (for example product price). In case of organic products, direct indicators can be sometimes difficult to detect (Bonti Ankomah & Yiridoe, 2006) Moreover, frequent buye rs of organic food consider other aspects that are related to health and the organic buyers consider more elements of the food system than just the price of the product They pay attention to how food was produced and handled and how these methods affected people, animals and the environment in the long term (Torjusen et al. 2001) It is a fact that price can be one of the ways to highlight the quality of organic produc ts. Most of the studies confirmed high price premiums for organic products. They vary due to differences in the level of organic market development. It can be assumed that the higher the level of market development, more organic products on the market, th is would decrease the price of organic products. conventionally grown products are also related also to noneconomic goods, for example, nutrition, sensory appeal, and food safety. Stu dies have shown that when consumers purchase organic products, they pay significant attention to factors like product appearance, taste, freshness and shelf life (Kihlberg & Risvik, 2007) However, some studies have shown that there are no differences in s ensory characteristics between conventionally and organically grown organic products (Zhao et al., 2007 ; Chen, 2009) Another feature that attracts consumers of organic foods is that they are produced without using fertilizers and pesticides. In general, consumers prefer

PAGE 27

27 organic products because they have lower levels of chemical residues and more nutrients. Because of this they think that organic products are safer and healthier compared to conventional (Hoefkens et al. 2009) In the literature there is an ongoing debate concerning healthiness and safety of organic food Biemans, 2011) There are no clear data which can show higher content of nutrients in organic versus conventional products (Williams, 2002) Some of the studies state that for e xample organic food products contain more vitamin C, but at the same time other research showed the opposite (Magkos et al. 2003) Also, many studies state that the nutrient content and sensory characteristics depend mostly on the region, soil type, crop variety, climate, or post harvest practices, and not on whether or not chemicals are used in production (Bonti Ankomah & Yiridoe, 2006 ; Biemans, 2011) Similar findings come from research related to the chemical and microbial contamination (Lo & Matthews, 2002) There are no clear data which state that organically grown food products are free from any contamination. In fact, some researchers state that organic products sometimes can have lower level of safety due to possibility of contamination during processing in the places in which conventional products are also used. Organic products are also exposed to contamination from patho gens such as Salmonella species and E. coli because of the use of animal manure as a fertilizer (Bonti Ankomah & Yiridoe, 2006) In general, among researchers on the healthfulness of organic foods, some researchers conclude that organic foods are more healt hy (Grankvist & Biel, 2001) while others find that this is not the case (Azurra & Paola, 2009 ; Naspetti & Zanoli, 2006 ; Monaco et al. 2007 ; Williams, 2002)

PAGE 28

28 Consumer Knowledge about Organic Food P roducts Many studies regarding consumer awareness and know ledge about organic products have been conducted. Consumer awareness and knowledge are very significant in the improving attitudes towards organic foods and in the decision making process of choosing between competing goods (Stobbelaar et al. 2006 ; Biemans, 2011) Organic products possess credence characteristics. C redence characteristics mean that utility is difficult or impossible for the consumer to ascertain. That is, even after the purchase and consumption of organic products, consumers may not know if these products were organically or conventionally grown (Owusu & Anifori Owusu, 2010) Good information about organic products is, then, a very significant factor in the decision to buy them. Studies comparing levels of awareness and know ledge about organic foods and organic farming indicate strong geographical differences. In developed countries like in Western Europe or in the US, consumer awareness is high. But there are also some differences. In Europe, buyers and non buyers of organi c pro ducts understand the concept of differences in how consumers evaluate whether foods are organic or not (Bonti Ankomah & Yiridoe, 2006) Lack of understanding about b e a significant reason why some people do not buy organic (Roitner Schobesberger et al. 2008 ; Padel & Foster, 2005 ; Biemans, 2011). For example, some studies suggest that many consumers have problems with recognizing the symbols and logos of organic farming. They also do not know what are the tasks of institutions responsible for certification (Bonti Ankomah & Yiridoe, 2006) However, an organic logo does play a significant role in recognition of organic products by consumers. In some countries, organic labels can cause confusion

PAGE 29

29 especially when organic farming is not so popular and standardization of requiremen ts related to organic production does not exist (Padel & Foster 2005) It is clear that consumer awareness and knowledge about organic food is very important to the organic market. With growth in awareness and knowledge, the demand for organic food can i ncrease. It will result in further development of organic markets. It can influence in positive ways not only new and young organic markets but also existing well developed organic markets by providing more detailed knowledge related to organically grown f ood to consumers (Radman, 2005 ; Biemans, 2011) Consumer P erceptions of O rganic F ood P roducts referred to as a process claim, not a product claim. Despite the process claim, consumers often perceive org anic products as representing an environmentally friendly mode of production as well as having certain intrinsic quality and safety (Vindigni et al. 2002) purc hasing decisions. There is an essential difference between attitudes and perceptions. Attitudes relate to likes or dislikes. Consumers can have positive or negative feelings about organic food products. On the other hand, perceptions are related to beliefs Perceptions are what a buyer thinks about specific products (Bonti Ankomah & Yiridoe, 2006) Most of the studies on consumer attitudes state that organic products are perceptions of organic food and quality of organic products are positive they have good feelings about organic products (Magnusson et al., 2001; Conner, 2004 ;

PAGE 30

30 Monaco et al. 2007 ; Zhao, 2007 ; Kihlberg & Risvik, 2007 ; Pellegrini & Farinello, 2009) Also, consumers u sually feel that their private (egoistic) benefits (health and safe food products) are higher than any social (altruistic) benefits of organic farming (more environmental friendly production). However, it is difficult to generalize about consumer attitude s about organic farming. This is because the studies that have been conducted are usually related to specific group of consumers and organic products, specific regions or food stores. Yet, each study offers additional knowledge about consumer attitudes tow ards organic farming and provides findings which can be useful for consumers and policy research in the future. Consumer preferences for organic food products are related to beliefs that es are influenced by what they believe about the health, food safety and environmental characteristics of organics, as well as by p roduct characteristics such as taste, freshness, appearance, color and other sensory characteristics (Bourn & Prescott, 2002) products. It has been observed that in general there are some primary factors considered in the purchase of organic products. Most of the studies in European Union reported that f reshness, health, food safety and environmental concerns were at the top of the preference ranking (S andalidou & Baourakis, 2002; Azurra & Paola, 2009) However, consumers in United States and in Canada consider taste and other quality characteristics to b e the most significant factors affecting their demand. That is, buyers of organic products pay more attention to the quality of the product than to price premium which they had to pay. However, several other studies had contrasting

PAGE 31

31 results. These suggest t hat the most significant barriers to purchase organic products were the price premiums and the lack of availability of organic products (O'Donovan & McCarthy, 2002 ; Hill & Lynchehaum, 2002 ; Hughne r et al. 2007 ; Aertsens et al. 2009 ; Biemans, 2011) In sum, insufficient supply of organic products, seasonality, problems with higher labor costs, lack of knowledge about organic production and difficulties related to transition from conventional to organic farming are the main pr oblems in the process of development of organic markets and marketing strategies of organic products (Gil et al. 2002) Nevertheless, respondents to the survey used in this study were consistent about willingness to purchase locally grown organic products They seem to place more trust when the place of production is closer. They seem to assume that they can verify the quality of producers and their products personally (Naspetti & Zanoli, 2006) Willingness To Pay (WTP) Willingness to pay (WTP) is a furthe r aspect in a comparison between could be defined as the sum of money representing the difference between (Gil et al. 2002) Consumer willingness to pay is an important aspect in organic farming due to the usually lower yields from organic farming, which results in producers selling of products with price premiums to ensure profitability. Many studies related to WTP have been conducted. Results vary depending on the country, the group of the respondents, and especially the chosen organic product. In general, WTP decreases with increase of premium price (Gil et al. 2002).

PAGE 32

32 But at the same tim e prices for organic products can increase with preferred specific attributes, e.g., freshness. However there are no clear results regarding whether consumers perceive organic products as normal or luxury goods. Further, it is difficult to determine which products that have higher price premiums attract consumers more (Bonti Ankomah & Yiridoe, 2006) Some research states that consumers generally will accept price premiums higher than 15 20 % (Pellegrini & Farinello, 2009 ; Bonti Ankomah & Yiridoe, 2006) It i s mainly social and demographic factors which affect the level of prices consumers are willing to pay for organic products. For example, willingness to pay higher prices for organic food is related to (Urena, Bern abeu, & Olmeda, 2008) Women are more willing to buy organic food products. This is understandable because women are more often responsible for purchasing food for the household and know more about nutrition and food safety (O'Donovan & McCarthy, 2002 ; Pel legrini & Farinello, 2009 ; Aertsens et al. 2009) Interestingly, however, men will accept higher premium price for organic products than will women (Wandel & Bugge, 1997 ). WTP for organic products is high in younger groups of consumers due to better educat ion regarding environment and food quality However, older consumers who have more financial power to buy organic products and who are at a higher health risk are also willing to pay premiums (Bonti Ankomah & Yiridoe, 2006) Other results show a correlatio n between level of income and willingness to buy organic products but s ome studies have reported that up to a certain level of income consumers are more willing to buy organic products, but other studies could not prove this correlation (Aertsens et al. 2 009) Studies have also reported that the higher the level of education, the higher the willingness to buy organic products (Yue

PAGE 33

33 et al., 2008; Pellegrini & Farinello, 2009) But because higher education is usually correlated with higher income, these studie s are not definitive. In general, results concerning age and education have not been consistent when considering whole body of research (Arbindra et al. 2005 ; Aertsens et al. 2009) Summary This chapter has focused on description of organic markets which exist in the United States and in Poland. Additionally the previous researches related to consumer perception of organic products were presented. The first part noted that there are many differences in terms of the level of development of organic market between the United States and Poland. This growth is evidenced by the monetary value of both markets. In 2009, the value of the organic market in the United States was approximately $23 billion US (16.1 billion Euros) (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2011) This accounts for approximately 2.5% of total food sales in the United States. The value of the Polish organic market reached 143.1 million USD (100 million Euros) in 2 009 (PMR, 2010) suggesting that the level of development is still low. The organic mar ket constitutes only about 0.2% of the total food market. It results in low availability and variety of organic products. Organics in Poland can be also characterized by high prices. The second part of this chapter focused on the presentation of previous studies related to the consumer perceptions of organic products. Previous studies show that the perception of organics varies among consumers. Most of the studies on consumer attitudes state that organic products are considered as safer, healthier and mor of organic products are positive they have good feelings about organic products. They often perceive organics as having better taste, freshness, appearance and

PAGE 34

34 color. However in the literature there is an ongoing debate concerning healthiness and safety of organic food. Some researchers conclude that organic foods are healthier while others find that this is not the case. There are no clear data which can show higher content of n utrients in organic or conventional products. There are also no clear differences in sensory characteristics between conventionally and organically grown organic products. Many studies state that the nutrient content and sensory characteristics depends mos tly on the region, soil type, crop variety, climate, or post harvest practices, and not on whether or not chemicals are used in production. This chapter has focused also on specific demographic characteristics of consumers which can influence on their perc eption of organics. It was reported that consumers have different willingness to pay (WTP) for organic products. In general, WTP decreases with increase of premium price. But at the same time prices for organic products can increase with preferred specific attributes, e.g., freshness. Further, it is difficult to determine which products that have higher price premiums attract consumers more. However the most significant barriers to purchase organic products were the price premiums and the lack of availabili ty of organic products. Studies reported that women are more willing to buy organic food products. This is understandable because women are more often responsible for purchasing food for the household and know more about nutrition and food safety. Other st udies show a correlation between level of income and willingness to buy organic products. Studies have also reported that the higher the level of education, the higher the willingness to buy organic products. But because higher education is usually correla ted with higher income, these studies are not definitive. In general, results

PAGE 35

35 concerning age and education have not been consistent when considering whole body of research. The next chapter will present the methodology and the description of the results of a survey which was conducted among students in the United States and in Poland. The survey was created to analyze the characteristics (demographics, lifestyle etc.) of the respondents and their perceptions of organic products. This survey was conducted al so to get the data for further analysis (the Ordered Probability Model) which will be analyzed in further chapters.

PAGE 36

36 Figure 2 1 Share of organic sales by marketing channel, 1991, 1998, and 2006 [Natural Foods Merchandise r, various issues: Nutrition Business Journal, 2004; and Organic Trade Association, 2006]

PAGE 37

37 CHAPTER 3 DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS Methodology A survey was designed to test the objectives of this study. The aim of this questionnaire wa s to gain information on consumer perceptions and frequency of consumption of organic foods in the United States and Poland. To collect data in both the United States and Poland, an e mail survey was administered to students at the University of Florida (U F) in Gainesville, United States and at Warsaw University of Life Sciences SGGW (WULS), Poland. The survey was administered in both countries during April and May 2011. There were 34 questions. Questions were divided into four groups to investigate: 1) Purchase frequency habits of organic food products 2) Beliefs about organic food products 3) Attitudes towards purchase and consumption of organic food products 4) Personal characteristics and lifestyle Several types of questions and scales have been u sed. The questionnaire contains closed ended and matrix questions. There is only one yes/no question related to availability of organics in the place where respondents live. However questionnaire contains several questions with multiple choices. These que stions investigate frequency of consumption of organics, easiness to buy them, willingness to pay for organic products and demographics of the respondents (education and gender). Additionally several scaled questions were used. Likert scale was used in fou r questions related to opinions of the respondents about their eating behavior, knowledge about organic products and the barriers to purchase organics. There were also several different scales. One of them was related to the level of importance of factors which respondents take into account during purchasing

PAGE 38

38 organics. Scales were also used in questions related to eating habits of the respondents and their feelings during consumption of organics. Respondents have been also asked to use scale in the question which investigate their level of certainty about their knowledge about organics. Last two questions with scales describe trust to mentioned sources. Matrix questions were us ed in the questionnaire to investigate for example the lifestyle and the health of the respondents (their diet, amount of physical activity and types of diseases that they have). There are also two matrix questions which were related to the percentage of t he purchase of the products which are organic and to the frequency of purchasing organics in specific places. Last question was open ended question which respondents could use to write their comments or remarks related to the content of questionnaire. Resu lts At UF, the questionnaire was sent to three groups using a convenience (88%) successfully comple ted the survey. The second group was from a course 137 (51%) completed the survey. The final group consisted of graduate students from the Food and Resource Economics Depar tment. Of 76 graduate students, 8 completed the survey. In total, 392 respondents started the survey, however only 274 (69%) successfully completed the survey. 14 respondents started, but did not complete the survey, and an additional 119 did not complete a validation question

PAGE 39

39 correctly. The validation question asks respondents to enter a specific answer to a specific question to ensure they are properly reading the questions before answering. The majority of students (81%) were from the College of Agricult ural and Life Sciences. Other colleges included Liberal Arts and Sciences (11.36%) Business Administration, Engineering, Health and Human Performance, Law, Medicine, Pharmacy and Public Health an d Health Professions. Not surprisingly since the classes were for undergraduate students, most of the respondents (97%) were the undergraduate students. Among this, 66% were in their Junior or Senior terms and 31% were Freshman or Sophomores. Three percent of the students were pursuing their Master, PhD or equivalen t graduate degrees (Table 3 1). At Warsaw University of Life Sciences (WULS) the questionnaire was sent to students using convenience sampling method. In total, 269 respondents started the survey, however only 134 (50%) successfully completed the survey. Additionally 36 students did not complete a validation question correctly. The majority of students (95%) were from the Faculty of Economic Sciences Other faculties included Faculty of Veterinary Medicine Faculty of Wood Technology Interfaculty Studies of Regional Planning Interfaculty Studies of Commodity Science and Faculty of Applied Informatics and Mathematics Most of the students were pursuing their master degree (5 5%). However 45% of respondents were undergraduate students. One percent of the students were pursuing their PhD degree (Table 3 2). Demographic information was collected to determine if these characteristics could be used to explain organic food preferenc es. As a proxy for income, data was

PAGE 40

4 0 reflect their purchasing power, and they are unlikely to know their parents household incomes). In the United States fathers had more edu cation than mothers of the students (Table 3 3). Fifty three percentages fathers and 49% of mothers had a Bachelor or Advanced degree from college. However at the same time there were more fathers (27%) without the college degree (high school or less than high school completed) than mothers (23%) (Table 3 4). In Poland mothers had more education than fathers of the students (Table 3 5). Thirty three percentages mothers had a Bachelor or Advanced degree from collage comparing to 27% in case of fathers (Table 3 6) Out of the 274 respondents from the United States, 56% were female, while 44% were male. However 70% of Polish students were female and 30% were male. As expected, the majority of students in the United States were of similar ages, with about 82% bor n between 1988 and 1992. The most numerous group was born in 1990 (26%). In case of Poland more than 70% of students were born between 1987 and 1989. The most numerous group was born in 1988 (31%). Respondents were asked about their lifestyle to investigat e possible correlations between the type of lifestyle and perception of organic foods. In the United States 89% of the respondents (75% in case of Poland) are aware of that food choices affect their health. (Table 3 7). At the same time 93% U.S. students a greed that some foods have a beneficial effect on health (84% in Poland). Though they may recognize the difference between healthy foods and less healthy, in the United States 42% of the students are not choosing the healthiest option during shopping. In P oland this behavior is related to 39% of the respondents. Additionally 66% responde nts in the United States do no t want to give up the foods that they like even

PAGE 41

41 if these foods are not the best option for their health. In Poland fewer students (55%) behave in this way (Table 3 8). In question 21 most of the students (between 60 80%) rated their eating habits, knowledge of nutrition and healthy behaviors, nutritional quality of their diet, the level of physical activity and overall physical health now and ove r the past 5 years as a 9). Polish students were more critical. Between 60 (Table 3 10). To determine if their self rating of eating habits was sound, respondents w ere asked to identify the types of food eaten the previous day. Most of the U.S. students had fruit, fruit juice, green salad or cooked vegetables more than once the previous day (Table 3 11). The consumption of French fries, potato chips, hamburgers, hot dogs or sausages or cookies was lower. In case of Polish students results were very similar (Table 3 12). Another measure of health is physical activity. Approximately 40% of the students stated that they take part in different physical activities three or more times per week (Table 3 13). The level of physical activity of Polish students was significantly lower. Approximately less than 30% of the students stated they do sport three or more times per week (Table 3 14). In next sections respondents were aske d questions related to organic farming and organic products. Questions were divided into several groups referred to purchase frequency habits of organic food products, beliefs about organic food products and attitudes towards purchase and consumption of or ganic food products. Almost 40% of respondents in the United States stated that they eat organic food products less than once a month. (Table 3 15). However 32% of the students eat organic food once per week or more often. 8% of the respondents eat organic food

PAGE 42

42 once or several times per day. In Poland frequency of consumption of organics among students was lower than in the United States. Forty percentages of the students eat organics less than once a month. However 20% of the students eat organic food once per week or more often (Table 3 16). Among organic foods, fruits and vegetables were the most popular. There also appears to be an increasing trend in consuming organic foods (Table s 3 17 and Table 3 18). In the United States 60 % of the respondents state d they bought more organic products than 5 years ago (Table 3 20) and 29% bought more organic foods than in last year (Table 3 19). The results for Polish students are almost the same (Table s 3 21 and Table 3 22) Supermarkets and grocery stories were the m ost popular sources of organic food products in the United States (Table 3 23). More than 20% of respondents purchase organic products in supermarkets and grocery stores once or more times per week. Specialty grocery stores and organic food stores are also important, with 5 6% of the respondents shopping at these locations once or more per week. Direct sales from a farm, farmers market and owned organic gardens were also mentioned but purchase frequency was lower. In Poland, specialty food stores/organic fo od stores, farmers markets and own organic garden were the most popular sources of organic food products. Supermarkets were also significant but not as in the United States (Table 3 24). To determine how much students knew about organic foods, they were as ked both to rate their knowledge (subjective knowledge) and to answer a series of true/false questions to test their knowledge In most cases respondents in both countries were critical in terms of information which they possess (Table s 3 25 and 3

PAGE 43

43 26). Mos t of the students disagreed with the statement that they know more about organic food than the average person. They also mostly disagreed that they have a lot of knowledge to assess the quality of organic products. On the objective knowledge test, responde nts both had to identify if they each answer. In the United States the distribution of the level of certainty was similar. Nearly half (between 40 50%) of respondents 27 and Table 3 28). Almost the same percentage (around 25%) of students assumed their level of e level of certainty was higher. More in case of almost all statements. Eight true false questions were asked. In general it can be said that students in the United St ates (Table 3 29) and in Poland (Table 3 20) have similar level of knowledge about organic products and organic farming in general. One of the items that most respondents answered correctly was whether or not organic farmers are allowed to use synthetic pe sticides. In this case in the United States and in Poland, over 80% of the respondents answered correctly. Other question was answered correctly by the majority of students included that: flavor enhancers are not allowed in organic products (75% in case of U.S. students and 90% in case of Polish students answered correctly) (Table 3 28). Sixty six percentages of U.S. students and 83% of Polish students knew that organic farmers cannot use synthetic fertilizers for their crops. Moreover 63% of students in th e United States and 75% students in Poland were aware o f the fact that o rganic farmers cannot use genetically modified seeds. At the same time 76% of U.S. students and 73% of Polish students knew that every

PAGE 44

44 year, for verification, organic farms are inspect ed to see if all requirements of organic farming are being met. Students in the United States had better knowledge related to the fact that organic farmers have to comply with all other legal rules valid for conventional farmers. Eighty seven percentages o f them indicated that (70% in case of Polish students). There were not any differences in case of the knowledge related to the fact that 'organic in conversion' means a farm is being in the process of transition to organic and does not need to comply with all rules associated with organic farming. Half of the students in the United States and in Poland stated that. However Polish students knew better (94% of them) that organic products cannot be irradiated to prolong their shelf life. In the United States 7 3% of the students indicated that. Respondents were also asked about their beliefs related to organic farming and organic food products. Students in both countries answered similarly to most of the statements (Table 3 31 and 3 32). A significant number of respondents (60 70%) agreed or strongly agreed that organic products do not contain or contain less unwanted substances (eg. Pesticides and nitrates) than conventional products. A large part of respondents believe that there is a greater biodiversity (inse cts, plants, weeds ...) on and around organic farms and there is less contamination of groundwater than on conventional farms. Between 45 49% of respondents chose a lmost 60% of healthier than conventional. In Poland almost 80% indicated that organic products are healthier. In the United States students also believe that organic food products contain more nutrients Poland the number of the students who stated this is higher (60%). At the same time,

PAGE 45

45 s are among the most controlled products. In addition to asking about beliefs, the respondents were asked how often they use specific sources of information about organic products (Table 3 33 and Table 3 34). In both countries the least popular sources of information were organic farming certification services, organic farmers, organic shops and scientists (doctors or nutritionists). Between 60 70% percent of the respondents had never used these sources. Students stated that they obtain information from oth er organic consumers or by people responsible for demonstrations of organic food in supermarkets. In these cases, between 30 50% of the respondents stated they use these sources of ion about organic food products are organic product labels, media (newspapers, television, radio), own internet search and friends and family. Only about 20 30% of the respondents stated they had never used these sources. At the same time around 50% of the In addition to use of these information sources, respondents were asked how much they trust the information from these sources (Table 3 35 and Table 3 36). The results were in contrast with the answ ers in the previous question. Almost 60% of the respondents stated organic farming certification services, even thought was one of the least popular sources of information. At the same time they did not trust the media, though it was one of the most popular sources of information. Nearly three quarters (75%) of the respondents stated they trust completely or trust slightly Scientists (Doctor, Nutritionist), but again, they do not obtain information from this sourc e as often. Organic farmers, organic product labels, own internet search and friends and family were as source that was

PAGE 46

46 the respondents. The next subject covered in the survey was about consumers attitudes towards purchase and consumption of organic food products. Respondents were asked how important specific factors were in the decision to purchase organic food products. In the United States the most important factors we re freshness, high quality, and the fact that organic products are perceived as healthier (Table 3 37). A large part of respondents also put a high level of importance on the fact that organic farms are not allowed to use synthetic fertilizers, that organi c production is environmentally friendly, and that organic farms are inspected. Respondents put less importance on factors like taste, lack of GMO in organic foods, and the idea that organic foods can be better for the children. The last two are not surpri sing as many students were unaware GMOs are not allowed in organic food and that this age group is unlikely to have children of their own yet. The idea that organic farming is something different, modern or trendy was not perceived as important. Other fact ors that were rated lower than the previous were: products are produced in specific location, supporting organic farmers or lack of trust in conventional production. In case of Poland the results were very similar (Table 3 38). The most significant factor in the decision to purchase organic was that organics are healthier and better quality products. The biggest difference was related to freshness of organics. In the United States it was the most important factor but in Poland it was not. Like in the United States, polish respondents do not mention the factors that organics are modern, trendy or something different as important in the decision to buy them. In addition to identifying reasons to purchase, participants were asked to identify barriers to purchas ing organic food products. In the United States the most

PAGE 47

47 important barriers were costs and availability of organic products, as well as lack of information about organic farming (Table 3 39). Respondents agreed also that lack of advertising of organic food products, lack of trust in organic food, and little difference between organic and conventional products are important barriers. The results in Poland were similar but one important d ifference was found (Table 3 40). Polish respondents mentioned that one of the most significant barriers to purchase organics is: too much effort to find and buy organics. This is analogous with the results from next question in which respondents were asked how easy is it for them to find organic foods in their area. In the U nited States products (Table 3 majority (72%) of the respondents do not need to go to a special store or locat ion to purchase organic food products. U.S. respondents assumed that in general finding and purchasing organic food products is not difficult (Table 3 43). In Poland respondents answered oppositely (Table 3 42). Almost 47% of them stated that it is polish respondents stated that they have to go to a special store or location to purchase organics (Table 3 44). To determine if respondents were willing to pay more for organ ic foods, they were asked a t what price difference they would select organic food products over conventional products. Respondents were able to select from several levels of price difference which varied from a 50% discount compared to conventional product s to a 100% price premium compared to conventional products (F igure 14). In the United States of the respondents chose the price difference between 0 10% and 11 50% compared to conventional products (Table 3 45). One quarter (26%) of the

PAGE 48

48 respondents stated they would select organic products if they have the same price as conventional. The largest group of students (30%) would purchase organic products if their price is up to, but not more than, 10% higher than conventional. At the same time 24% of the respo ndents were willing to accept up to a 50% price premium for organic products compared to conventional. Polish respondents answered similarly (Table 3 46). The largest group of Polish students (48%) would purchase organics if their price is up to, but not m ore than, 10% higher than conventional. Twenty six percentages of respondents would pay the same price for organics as for conventional products. At the same time 19% of the respondents in Poland would pay 10 50% premium price compared to conventional prod ucts. Finally, respondents were asked to identify how they feel when they consume organic products. There was a scale where they had to choose between specific feelings: Bad Good, Dissatisfied Satisfied Unpleasant Pleasant, Sad Cheerful and Negativ e Positive. In general they had very positive feelings (Table 3 47 and Table 3 48). They feel good, pleasant and satisfied. Respondents did n o t express their opinion about if they felt sad or cheerful during consumption of organic products. Tables Table 3 1 Standing of the students at the University of Florida Answer Response % Freshman or Sophomore 84 31% Junior or Senior 180 66% Graduate student, pursuing a Masters or equivalent 3 1% Graduate student, pursuing a PhD or equi valent 6 2% Total 273 100%

PAGE 49

49 Table 3 2 Standing of the students at the Warsaw University of Life Sciences Answer Response % Freshman or Sophomore 12 13% Junior or Senior 30 32% Graduate student, pursuing a Masters or equi valent 52 55% Graduate student, pursuing a PhD or equivalent 1 1% Total 95 100% Table 3 3 Education of mothers of the respondents at the University of Florida Answer Response % Less than high school 14 5% High School degre e or equivalent 50 18% Some college or technical school beyond high school 76 28% Bachelor degree from college 84 31% Advanced degree from college 49 18% Total 273 100% Table 3 4 Education of fathers of the respondents at the University of Florida Answer Response % Less than high school 16 6% High School degree or equivalent 58 21% Some college or technical school beyond high school 56 21% Bachelor degree from college 70 26% Advanced degree from college 73 27% Total 273 100%

PAGE 50

50 Table 3 5 Education of mothers of the respondents at the Warsaw University of Life Sciences Answer Response % Less than high school 11 11% High School degree or equivalent 27 28% Some college or technical sch ool beyond high school 27 28% Bachelor degree from college 6 6% Advanced degree from college 25 26% Total 96 100% Table 3 6 Education of fathers of the respondents at the Warsaw University of Life Sciences Answer Response % Less than high school 11 12% High School degree or equivalent 21 22% Some college or technical school beyond high school 37 39% Bachelor degree from college 1 1% Advanced degree from college 25 26% Total 95 100%

PAGE 51

51 Table 3 7 Subjective opinion of the respondents about their eating habits at the University of Florida Question Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Agree Strongly Agree Responses Mean My food choices affect my health 1.88% 0.38 % 7.52% 31.58% 58.65% 266 4.45 Some foods have a beneficial effect on my health 0.75% 0.38% 6.02% 38.72% 54.14% 266 4.45 to give up the foods that I like 1.50% 10.90% 21.05% 46.62% 19.92% 266 3.73 I have control of my health no matter what I eat 9.77% 30.83% 22.93% 27.82% 8.65% 266 2.95 I always choose the healthiest option, even if it is more expensive 10.53% 32.33% 25.94% 25.19% 6.02% 266 2.84

PAGE 52

52 Table 3 8 Subjective opinion of the respondents abo ut their eating habits at the Warsaw University of Life Sciences Question Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Agree Strongly Agree Responses Mean Some foods have a beneficial effect on my health 1.03% 5.15% 9.28% 53.61% 30.93% 97 4.08 My food choices affect my health 2.08% 10.42% 12.50% 37.50% 37.50% 96 3.98 to give up the foods that I like 5.15% 23.71% 18.56% 38.14% 14.43% 97 3.33 I always choose the healthiest option, even if it is more expensive 14.43% 24.74% 28.87% 2 3.71% 8.25% 97 2.87 I have control of my health no matter what I eat 11.34% 35.05% 29.90% 20.62% 3.09% 97 2.69

PAGE 53

53 Table 3 9 Rating of the behavior of students from the University of Florida Question Very Bad Bad Neither Good nor Bad Good Very Good Responses Mean Knowledge of healthy behaviors: 2 8 33 138 85 266 4.11 Overall physical health over the past 5 years: 2 11 49 124 80 266 4.01 Knowledge of nutrition: 2 6 54 137 67 266 3.98 Overall physical health in t he present: 2 11 56 128 69 266 3.94 Level of physical activity: 4 28 55 118 61 266 3.77 Nutritional quality of your diet: 6 30 68 138 24 266 3.54 Eating habits: 6 38 59 140 23 266 3.51 Table 3 10 Rating of the behavior of stud ents from Warsaw University of Life Sciences Question Very Bad Bad Neither Good nor Bad Good Very Good Responses Mean Level of physical activity: 0 10 21 47 19 97 3.77 Overall physical health in the present: 0 5 23 62 7 97 3.73 Overall physical health over the past 5 years: 0 8 20 60 9 97 3.72 Knowledge of healthy behaviors: 0 8 28 52 9 97 3.64 Knowledge of nutrition: 0 14 22 52 9 97 3.58 Nutritional quality of your diet: 1 13 26 51 6 97 3.49 Eating habits: 1 12 30 50 4 97 3.45

PAGE 54

54 Table 3 11 Yesterday diet of the respondents at the University of Florida Question 0 times 1 times 2 times 3 or more times Responses Mean Eat fruit? 29.06% 42.26% 21.51% 7.17% 265 2.07 Eat cooked vegetables? 35.09% 41.13% 16.98% 6.79% 265 1.95 Drink milk? 36.60% 40.38% 18.49% 4.53% 265 1.91 Drink fruit juice? 41.13% 38.11% 15.09% 5.66% 265 1.85 Eat out in a restaurant, fast food place, diner, cafeteria, etc? 44.53% 37.74% 15.47% 2.26% 265 1.75 Eat a green salad? 55.09% 36.23% 7.17% 1.5 1% 265 1.55 Drink soda? 66.29% 21.97% 6.82% 4.92% 264 1.50 Eat cookies, doughnuts, pie or cake? 58.87% 33.96% 6.42% 0.75% 265 1.49 Eat F rench fries or potato chips? 65.91% 28.41% 4.92% 0.76% 264 1.41 Eat a hamburger, hot dog, or sausage? 80.00% 15.47% 4.15% 0.38% 265 1.25 Table 3 12 Yesterday diet of the respondents at the Warsaw University of Life Sciences Question 0 times 1 times 2 times 3 or more times Responses Mean Eat fruit? 37.50% 30.21% 15.63% 16.67% 96 2.11 Drink fruit juice? 34.38% 35.42% 19.79% 10.42% 96 2.06 Eat a green salad? 25.00% 51.04% 20.83% 3.13% 96 2.02 Eat cookies, doughnuts, pie or cake? 36.46% 45.83% 13.54% 4.17% 96 1.85 Drink milk? 45.83% 39.58% 10.42% 4.17% 96 1.73 Eat cooked vegetables? 52.08% 34.38% 11.46% 2.08% 96 1.64 Drink soda? 59.38% 26.04% 10.42% 4.17% 96 1.59 Eat out in a restaurant, fast food place, diner, cafeteria, etc? 82.29% 14.58% 2.08% 1.04% 96 1.22 Eat a hamburger, hot dog, or sausage? 87.50% 9.38% 2.08% 1.04% 96 1.17 Eat Fre nch fries or potato chips? 89.58% 8.33% 1.04% 1.04% 96 1.14

PAGE 55

55 Table 3 13 Physical activity of the students at the UF Question 0 days 1 day 2 days 3 days 4 days 5 days 6 7 days Responses Mean Take part in any other type of physica l activity for at least 10 minutes? 13.26% 9.85% 19.70% 14.77% 9.09% 12.50% 20.83% 264 4.17 Walk or bicycle for at least 30 minutes at a time? (Include Walking or bicycling to or from class or work.) 17.36% 8.30% 11.32% 20.00% 10.94% 15.85% 16.23% 265 4.1 1 Exercise or participate in sports activities for at least 20 minutes that made you sweat and breathe hard, such as basketball, jogging, swimming laps, tennis, fast bicycling, or similar aerobic activities? 24.53% 12.45% 20.75% 15.47% 7.92% 6.42% 12.45% 265 3.39 Do stretching exercises, such as toe touching, knee bending, or leg stretching? 25.76% 10.98% 15.91% 21.59% 6.82% 10.23% 8.71% 264 3.38 Do exercises to strengthen or tone your muscles, such as push ups, sit ups, or weight lifting? 30.94% 15.09% 13.58% 17.74% 6.04% 9.06% 7.55% 265 3.10

PAGE 56

56 Table 3 14 Physical activity of the students at the WULS Question 0 days 1 day 2 days 3 days 4 days 5 days 6 7 days Responses Mean Walk or bicycle for at least 30 minutes a t a time? (Include Walking or bicycling to or from class or work.) 14.58% 10.42% 23.96% 20.83% 14.58% 5.21% 10.42% 96 3.68 Take part in any other type of physical activity for at least 10 minutes? 22.92% 25.00% 12.50% 21.88% 6.25% 3.13% 8.33% 96 3.06 Exe rcise or participate in sports activities for at least 20 minutes that made you sweat and breathe hard, such as basketball, jogging, swimming laps, tennis, fast bicycling, or similar aerobic activities? 32.29% 22.92% 19.79% 14.58% 6.25% 1.04% 3.13% 96 2.55 Do stretching exercises, such as toe touching, knee bending, or leg stretching? 52.08% 21.88% 10.42% 7.29% 3.13% 2.08% 3.13% 96 2.06 Do exercises to strengthen or tone your muscles, such as push ups, sit ups, or weight lifting? 66.67% 15.63% 8.33% 5.21% 1.04% 2.08% 1.04% 96 1.69 Table 3 15 Consumption frequency of organic products at the UF Answer Response % Less than Once a Month 107 40% Once a Month 37 14% 2 3 Times a Month 38 14% Once a Week 28 11% 2 4 Times a Week 34 13% Everyday 18 7% Several times per day 4 2% Total 266 100%

PAGE 57

57 Table 3 16 Consumption frequency of organic products at the WULS Answer Response % Less than Once a Month 46 47% Once a Month 22 23% 2 3 Times a Month 10 10% 2 3 Times a Month 11 11% 2 4 Times a Week 5 5% Everyday 1 1% Several times per day 2 2% Total 97 100% Table 3 17 Type of organic products purchased by students from the UF Question Do not purchase organic 0% 1 10% 11 50% 51 99% 100% Responses Mean Vegetables 41.35% 27.07% 17.67% 11.28% 2.63% 266 2.07 Fruits 42.48% 27.07% 16.54% 9.77% 4.14% 266 2.06 Milk and Dairy 57.52% 12.03% 11.65% 11.28% 7.52% 266 1.99 Eggs 55.26% 17.67% 10.90% 8.65% 7.52% 266 1.95 Meat 63.40% 16.60% 10.19% 6.42% 3.40% 265 1.70 Bread 71.43% 14.29% 7.14% 4.51% 2.63% 266 1.53 Table 3 18 Type of organic products purchased by students from the WULS Question Do not purchase organic 0% 1 10% 11 50% 51 99% 100% Responses Mean Eg gs 28.87% 21.65% 23.71% 9.28% 16.49% 97 2.63 Vegetables 31.25% 26.04% 22.92% 15.63% 4.17% 96 2.35 Fruits 34.02% 31.96% 15.46% 15.46% 3.09% 97 2.22 Bread 48.45% 24.74% 14.43% 10.31% 2.06% 97 1.93 Milk and Dairy 46.39% 36.08% 7.22% 6.19% 4.12% 97 1.86 M eat 50.00% 29.17% 12.50% 6.25% 2.08% 96 1.81

PAGE 58

58 Table 3 19 Are you eating more or less organic food products compared to last year? Students from the UF Answer Response % I buy more organic products now 78 29% I buy as many org anic products as before 148 56% I buy less organic products now 40 15% Total 266 100% Table 3 20 Are you eating more or less organic food products compared to 5 years ago? students from the UF Answer Response % I buy more or ganic products now 160 60% I buy as many organic products as before 68 26% I buy less organic products now 38 14% Total 266 100% Table 3 21 Are you eating more or less organic food products compared to last year? Students fro m the WULS Answer Response % I buy more organic products now 26 27% I buy as many organic products as before 63 65% I buy less organic products now 8 8% Total 97 100%

PAGE 59

59 Table 3 22 Are you eating more or less organic food products compared to 5 years ago? Students from the WULS Answer Response % I buy more organic products now 60 62% I buy as many organic products as before 29 30% I buy less organic products now 8 8% Total 97 100% Table 3 23 Where students for the UF purchase organics? Question Never Less than Once a Month Once a Month 2 3 Times a Month Once a Week Severa l times a Week Daily Response s Mea n Supermarkets/Grocer y stores 23.31 % 19.17 % 16.17 % 19.17 % 18.80 % 3.01% 0.38 % 266 3.25 Specialty grocery stores 58.65 % 16.92 % 10.90 % 6.77% 4.89% 1.88% 0.00 % 266 1.88 Farmers markets 60.90 % 21.80 % 8.27% 5.64% 3.38% 0.00% 0.00 % 266 1.69 Organic food stores 65.79 % 14.66 % 9.02% 6.02% 4.14% 0.38% 0.00 % 266 1.69 Own organic garden 85.34 % 6.39% 3.01% 2.26% 2.26% 0.75% 0.00 % 266 1.32 Direct sales from a farm 85.71 % 9.02% 1.88% 1.13% 1.88% 0.38% 0.00 % 266 1.26 Table 3 24 Where students for the WULS purchase organics? Question Never Less than Once a Month Once a Month 2 3 Times a Month Once a Week Several times a Week Daily Mean Supermarkets/Grocery stores 32.99% 23.71% 10.31% 16.49% 10.31% 4.12% 2.06% 2.68 Specialty grocery stores 35.05% 16.49% 14.43% 9.28% 12.37% 10.31% 2.06% 2.87 Organic food stores 68.04% 1 9.59% 7.22% 1.03% 2.06% 0.00% 2.06% 1.58 Direct sales from a farm 67.01% 17.53% 2.06% 6.19% 2.06% 2.06% 3.09% 1.77 Farmers markets 22.68% 19.59% 16.49% 20.62% 14.43% 4.12% 2.06% 3.05 Own organic garden 38.14% 13.40% 11.34% 12.37% 5.15% 13.40% 6.19% 2.98

PAGE 60

60 Table 3 25 How much students knew about organic foods the UF Question Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Agree Strongly Agree Responses Mean Compared to an average person, I know a lot about organic pro ducts. 18.11% 23.77% 30.57% 22.64% 4.91% 265 2.72 I know a lot about how I should assess the quality of organic products 19.17% 32.33% 25.19% 20.30% 3.01% 266 2.56 People consider me an expert in the field of organic food products 40.98% 28.57% 25.19% 5 .26% 0.00% 266 1.95 Table 3 26 How much students knew about organic foods the WULS Question Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Agree Strongly Agree Mean People consider me an expert in the field of organic food products 50.52% 25.77% 18.56% 2.06% 3.09% 1.81 I know a lot about how I should assess the quality of organic products 17.53% 29.90% 35.05% 12.37% 5.15% 2.58 Compared to an average person, I know a lot about organic products. 14.43% 24.74% 23.71% 3 1.96% 5.15% 2.89

PAGE 61

61 Table 3 27 .The level of certainty of students from the UF Question Very low Low Average High Very high Mean Organic farmers are allow to use synthetic pesticides 9.30% 15.89% 36.82% 22.87% 15.12% 3.19 Organi c farmers have to comply with all other legal rules valid for conventional farmers. 6.20% 13.18% 48.45% 20.16% 12.02% 3.19 Organic farmers use synthetic fertilizers for their crops 8.49% 16.22% 40.93% 22.78% 11.58% 3.13 Organic farmers may use geneticall y modified seeds 6.56% 19.69% 42.08% 18.15% 13.51% 3.12 Every year, for verification, organic farms are inspected to see if all requirements of organic farming are being met 7.36% 16.28% 48.45% 21.71% 6.20% 3.03 Flavor enhancers are allowed in organic p roducts 8.11% 20.46% 42.47% 19.69% 9.27% 3.02 Organic products can be irradiated to prolong their shelf life 12.06% 24.12% 38.52% 19.07% 6.23% 2.83 'Organic in conversion' means a farm is being in the process of transition to organic and does not need to comply with all rules associated with organic farming 12.45% 31.13% 42.02% 11.28% 3.11% 2.61

PAGE 62

62 Table 3 28 The level of certainty of students from the WULS Question Very low Low Average High Very high Respo nses Mean Flavor enhancers are allowed in organic products 3.16% 10.53% 25.26% 37.89% 23.16% 95 3.67 Organic products can be irradiated to prolong their shelf life 5.15% 10.31% 26.80% 38.14% 19.59% 97 3.57 Organic farmers are allow to use synthetic pes ticides 4.21% 10.53% 30.53% 35.79% 18.95% 95 3.55 Organic farmers use synthetic fertilizers for their crops 7.37% 10.53% 28.42% 34.74% 18.95% 95 3.47 Organic farmers may use genetically modified seeds 10.53% 11.58% 32.63% 25.26% 20.00% 95 3.33 Every yea r, for verification, organic farms are inspected to see if all requirements of organic farming are being met 6.19% 19.59% 32.99% 32.99% 8.25% 97 3.18 Organic farmers have to comply with all other legal rules valid for conventional farmers. 4.12% 20.62% 46 .39% 18.56% 10.31% 97 3.10 'Organic in conversion' means a farm is being in the process of transition to organic and does not need to comply with all rules associated with organic farming 11.46% 27.08% 34.38% 19.79% 7.29% 96 2.84

PAGE 63

63 Table 3 29 Knowledge about organic farming the UF Question True Untrue Responses Organic farmers are allow to use synthetic pesticides 17.80% 82.20% 264 Flavor enhancers are allowed in organic products 25.00% 75.00% 264 Organic products c an be irradiated to prolong their shelf life 27.10% 72.90% 262 Organic farmers use synthetic fertilizers for their crops 33.96% 66.04% 265 Organic farmers may use genetically modified seeds 36.98% 63.02% 265 'Organic in conversion' means a farm is being in the process of transition to organic and does not need to comply with all rules associated with organic farming 51.71% 48.29% 263 Every year, for verification, organic farms are inspected to see if all requirements of organic farming are being met 76. 60% 23.40% 265 Organic farmers have to comply with all other legal rules valid for conventional farmers. 87.55% 12.45% 265 Table 3 30 Knowledge about organic farming the WULS Question True Untrue Responses Mean Organic produ cts can be irradiated to prolong their shelf life 5.15% 94.85% 97 1.95 Organic farmers use synthetic fertilizers for their crops 16.67% 83.33% 96 1.83 Organic farmers may use genetically modified seeds 23.96% 76.04% 96 1.76 'Organic in conversion' means a farm is being in the process of transition to organic and does not need to comply with all rules associated with organic farming 55.67% 44.33% 97 1.44 Organic farmers have to comply with all other legal rules valid for conventional farmers. 70.10% 29.9 0% 97 1.30 Every year, for verification, organic farms are inspected to see if all requirements of organic farming are being met 72.16% 27.84% 97 1.28 Organic farmers are allow to use synthetic pesticides 79.38% 20.62% 97 1.21 Flavor enhancers are allo wed in organic products 89.69% 10.31% 97 1.10

PAGE 64

64 Table 3 31 Beliefs related to organic farming and organic food products students from the UF Question Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Agree Str ongly Agree Responses Mean Organic products contain less unwanted substances (eg. Pesticides and nitrates) than conventional products 1.13% 7.55% 19.62% 50.57% 21.13% 265 3.83 Organic products are healthier than conventional products 4.53% 12.45% 26.42% 39.25% 17.36% 265 3.52 There is a greater biodiversity (insects, plants, weeds ...) on and around organic farms compared to conventional farms 1.51% 11.70% 38.11% 42.26% 6.42% 265 3.40 Organic products do not contain residues of synthetic pesticides 3.77 % 18.11% 23.77% 44.53% 9.81% 265 3.38 There is less contamination of groundwater on organic farms than conventional farms 3.77% 18.11% 33.58% 34.72% 9.81% 265 3.29 Organic products taste better than conventional products 9.06% 15.47% 41.13% 24.15% 10.19% 265 3.11 Organic products are among the most controlled products 4.15% 22.26% 36.23% 33.96% 3.40% 265 3.10 Organic products contain more nutrients (eg. vitamins and minerals) than conventional products 7.17% 24.15% 32.45% 27.92% 8.30% 265 3.06 Organic products contain more harmful fungi than conventional products 7.92% 36.98% 44.15% 9.43% 1.51% 265 2.60

PAGE 65

65 Table 3 32 Beliefs related to organic farming and organic food products students from the WULS Question Strongly Di sagree Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Agree Strongly Agree Responses Mean Organic products are healthier than conventional products 0.00% 2.06% 14.43% 42.27% 41.24% 97 4.23 Organic products contain less unwanted substances (eg. Pesticides and nitrat es) than conventional products 0.00% 4.12% 9.28% 46.39% 40.21% 97 4.23 Organic products do not contain residues of synthetic pesticides 0.00% 3.09% 16.49% 51.55% 28.87% 97 4.06 Organic products are among the most controlled products 1.03% 3.09% 20.62% 47 .42% 27.84% 97 3.98 Organic products contain more nutrients (eg. vitamins and minerals) than conventional products 1.03% 8.25% 28.87% 38.14% 23.71% 97 3.75 Organic products taste better than conventional products 1.03% 15.46% 21.65% 36.08% 25.77% 97 3.70 There is less contamination of groundwater on organic farms than conventional farms 5.15% 11.34% 27.84% 34.02% 21.65% 97 3.56 There is a greater biodiversity (insects, plants, weeds ...) on and around organic farms compared to conventional farms 2.06% 1 5.46% 30.93% 32.99% 18.56% 97 3.51 Organic products contain more harmful fungi than conventional products 4.12% 13.40% 53.61% 23.71% 5.15% 97 3.12

PAGE 66

66 Table 3 33 Sources to obtain information about organic products at the UF Question Never Rarely Sometimes Quite Often Very Often Responses Mean Friends, family 23.68% 26.32% 31.58% 13.53% 4.89% 266 2.50 Organic product labels 31.20% 18.05% 27.44% 18.05% 5.26% 266 2.48 Own internet search 33.83% 16.54% 28.57% 15.79% 5.26% 26 6 2.42 Media (newspapers, television, radio) 26.69% 25.19% 33.46% 12.41% 2.26% 266 2.38 Other organic consumers 44.36% 16.92% 29.32% 8.27% 1.13% 266 2.05 Scientists (Doctor, Nutritionist) 50.38% 18.80% 21.43% 7.52% 1.88% 266 1.92 Demonstrations in supe rmarkets 45.49% 24.44% 24.06% 4.89% 1.13% 266 1.92 Organic shops 61.28% 15.04% 15.79% 6.77% 1.13% 266 1.71 Scientific magazines 60.53% 18.05% 15.41% 5.26% 0.75% 266 1.68 Organic farmers 64.29% 16.17% 14.29% 4.89% 0.38% 266 1.61 Organic farming certific ation services 72.56% 12.41% 10.90% 2.26% 1.88% 266 1.48

PAGE 67

67 Table 3 34 Sources to obtain information about organic products at the WULS Question Never Rarely Sometimes Quite Often Very Often Responses Mean Friends, family 21.65% 19.59% 27.84% 20.62% 10.31% 97 2.78 Media (newspapers, television, radio) 20.62% 19.59% 30.93% 24.74% 4.12% 97 2.72 Own internet search 31.96% 17.53% 23.71% 19.59% 7.22% 97 2.53 Organic product labels 32.99% 17.53% 26.80% 17.53% 5.15% 97 2 .44 Other organic consumers 32.99% 21.65% 28.87% 12.37% 4.12% 97 2.33 Demonstrations in supermarkets 36.08% 26.80% 24.74% 9.28% 3.09% 97 2.16 Organic farmers 44.33% 29.90% 16.49% 6.19% 3.09% 97 1.94 Scientists (Doctor, Nutritionist) 51.55% 18.56% 23.71 % 3.09% 3.09% 97 1.88 Organic shops 55.67% 20.62% 15.46% 5.15% 3.09% 97 1.79 Organic farming certification services 62.89% 17.53% 13.40% 4.12% 2.06% 97 1.65

PAGE 68

68 Table 3 35 Indication how much do students trust to the information about organics from different sources? the UF Question Distrust Distrust slightly Neither trust nor distrust Trust slightly Trust completely Responses Mean Scientists (Doctor, Nutritionist) 2.26% 3.76% 20.68% 34.59% 38.72% 266 4.04 Org anic farming certification services 3.01% 4.89% 33.08% 39.47% 19.55% 266 3.68 Organic product labels 2.26% 9.77% 27.07% 47.37% 13.53% 266 3.60 Organic farmers 3.01% 6.02% 35.71% 46.24% 9.02% 266 3.52 Friends, family 3.38% 7.52% 37.59% 43.98% 7.52% 266 3 .45 Own internet search 3.01% 10.15% 37.97% 41.35% 7.52% 266 3.40 Organic shops 2.63% 10.53% 40.98% 39.47% 6.39% 266 3.36 Other organic consumers 4.14% 10.90% 44.36% 37.97% 2.63% 266 3.24 Demonstrations in supermarkets 4.14% 16.17% 48.50% 26.69% 4.51% 266 3.11 Media (newspapers, television, radio) 6.77% 26.69% 38.35% 25.94% 2.26% 266 2.90

PAGE 69

69 Table 3 36 Indication how much do students trust to the information about organics from different sources? the WULS Quest ion Distrust Distrust slightly Neither trust nor distrust Trust slightly Trust completely Responses Mean Organic farming certification services 1.03% 4.12% 26.80% 47.42% 20.62% 97 3.82 Scientists (Doctor, Nutritionist) 1.03% 3.09% 28.87% 50.52% 16.49% 97 3.78 Friends, family 0.00% 2.06% 31.96% 51.55% 14.43% 97 3.78 Organic product labels 0.00% 7.22% 36.08% 49.48% 7.22% 97 3.57 Other organic consumers 0.00% 6.19% 38.14% 50.52% 5.15% 97 3.55 Own internet search 1.03% 8.25% 46.39% 39.18% 5.15% 97 3.39 O rganic shops 4.12% 9.28% 45.36% 36.08% 5.15% 97 3.29 Organic farmers 3.09% 13.40% 44.33% 35.05% 4.12% 97 3.24 Media (newspapers, television, radio) 8.25% 20.62% 48.45% 20.62% 2.06% 97 2.88 Demonstrations in supermarkets 9.28% 38.14% 43.30% 7.22% 2.06% 9 7 2.55

PAGE 70

70 Table 3 37 Factors for purchasing organic products students from the UF Question Very Unimporta nt Somewhat Unimporta nt Neither Important nor Unimporta nt Somewh at Important Very Importa nt Respons es Mean Organic products are fresher 5.66% 5.66% 19.62% 37.74% 31.32% 265 3.83 Organic products are healthier 6.04% 5.66% 20.00% 36.98% 31.32% 265 3.82 Organic farming is environmentally friendly 7.55% 6.42% 15.47% 41.51% 29.06% 265 3.78 Organic farms are inspe cted 6.79% 4.15% 21.89% 40.00% 27.17% 265 3.77 Organic food has better quality 9.06% 4.15% 19.62% 38.11% 29.06% 265 3.74 Synthetic pesticides are not allowed in production 9.47% 5.30% 22.35% 36.74% 26.14% 264 3.65 Organic food has better taste 8.30% 9.0 6% 29.43% 32.45% 20.75% 265 3.48 Organic food is better for my children 13.96% 4.53% 26.42% 32.45% 22.64% 265 3.45 I am supporting organic farmers 11.70% 11.32% 29.81% 26.79% 20.38% 265 3.33 Genetic modification is not allowed in organic foods 13.21% 9. 81% 26.79% 32.83% 17.36% 265 3.31 Organic products are produced in a particular location 13.21% 13.58% 39.25% 24.53% 9.43% 265 3.03 I do not trust conventional production 15.09% 15.85% 47.92% 15.09% 6.04% 265 2.81 It's something different 20.83% 12.12% 42.05% 21.59% 3.41% 264 2.75 Organic farming is modern & trendy 28.41% 16.67% 34.47% 16.29% 4.17% 264 2.51

PAGE 71

71 Table 3 38 Factors for purchasing organic products students from the WULS Question Very Unimportant Somewhat Unimport ant Neither Important nor Unimportant Somewhat Important Very Important Responses Mean Organic products are healthier 3.09% 2.06% 12.37% 48.45% 34.02% 97 4.08 Organic food has better quality 4.12% 3.09% 14.43% 48.45% 29.90% 97 3.97 Synthetic pesticides are not allowed in production 5.15% 2.06% 17.53% 44.33% 30.93% 97 3.94 Organic farming is environmentally friendly 5.15% 5.15% 17.53% 44.33% 27.84% 97 3.85 Organic food has better taste 4.12% 6.19% 21.65% 44.33% 23.71% 97 3.77 Organic farms are inspecte d 5.15% 6.19% 19.59% 51.55% 17.53% 97 3.70 Organic food is better for my children 8.25% 6.19% 18.56% 41.24% 25.77% 97 3.70 Organic products are fresher 5.15% 6.19% 24.74% 42.27% 21.65% 97 3.69 Genetic modification is not allowed in organic foods 7.22% 7 .22% 25.77% 32.99% 26.80% 97 3.65 I am supporting organic farmers 14.43% 17.53% 35.05% 22.68% 10.31% 97 2.97 I do not trust conventional production 10.31% 17.53% 51.55% 16.49% 4.12% 97 2.87 Organic products are produced in a particular location 13.40% 1 5.46% 52.58% 12.37% 6.19% 97 2.82 It's something different 20.62% 12.37% 44.33% 19.59% 3.09% 97 2.72 Organic farming is modern & trendy 32.99% 24.74% 29.90% 9.28% 3.09% 97 2.25

PAGE 72

72 Table 3 39 Barriers for purchasing organic prod ucts the UF Question Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Agree Strongly Agree Responses Mean Cost 1.50% 4.51% 9.77% 39.47% 44.74% 266 4.21 Availability 3.38% 17.29% 21.05% 48.12% 10.15% 266 3.44 Trust 4.15% 17.36% 30.94% 36.60% 10.9 4% 265 3.33 Too little information 4.14% 18.80% 30.08% 40.23% 6.77% 266 3.27 Lack of advertising of organic farming and organic products 5.26% 18.42% 33.83% 34.59% 7.89% 266 3.21 Too much effort 3.38% 25.56% 34.21% 25.56% 11.28% 266 3.16 Reliability 4. 89% 18.80% 38.35% 32.33% 5.64% 266 3.15 Little or no difference between organic and conventional products 8.27% 20.68% 30.83% 31.95% 8.27% 266 3.11 Appearance of the product 6.39% 23.68% 30.45% 31.20% 8.27% 266 3.11 Insufficient variety 5.64% 19.92% 39. 47% 30.83% 4.14% 266 3.08 Taste 7.89% 24.81% 29.70% 30.45% 7.14% 266 3.04 Too many organic labels 4.89% 26.32% 45.49% 18.42% 4.89% 266 2.92 It is in fashion 15.41% 27.07% 33.83% 16.54% 7.14% 266 2.73

PAGE 73

73 Table 3 40 Barriers for purchasing organic products the WULS Question Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Agree Strongly Agree Responses Mean Cost 1.03% 4.12% 8.25% 38.14% 48.45% 97 4.29 Availability 2.06% 10.31% 24.74% 45.36% 17.53% 9 7 3.66 Too much effort 4.12% 12.37% 22.68% 42.27% 18.56% 97 3.59 Too little information 1.03% 15.46% 29.90% 40.21% 13.40% 97 3.49 Lack of advertising of organic farming and organic products 5.15% 17.53% 29.90% 38.14% 9.28% 97 3.29 Insufficient variety 2.06% 24.74% 31.96% 32.99% 8.25% 97 3.21 Too many organic labels 6.19% 9.28% 50.52% 28.87% 5.15% 97 3.18 Trust 7.22% 19.59% 35.05% 30.93% 7.22% 97 3.11 Reliability 7.22% 27.84% 29.90% 25.77% 9.28% 97 3.02 Appearance of the product 9.28% 24.74% 35.05% 2 4.74% 6.19% 97 2.94 Little or no difference between organic and conventional products 11.34% 26.80% 32.99% 20.62% 8.25% 97 2.88 Taste 13.40% 21.65% 36.08% 22.68% 6.19% 97 2.87 It is in fashion 16.49% 26.80% 37.11% 14.43% 5.15% 97 2.65 Table 3 41 The level of easiness to find organics the UF Answer Response % Very Difficult 4 2% Difficult 15 6% Neither easy, nor difficult 59 22% Easy 135 51% Very Easy 53 20% Total 266 100%

PAGE 74

74 Table 3 42 The level of easiness to find organics the WULS Answer Response % Very Difficult 9 9% Difficult 36 37% Neither easy, nor difficult 23 24% Easy 24 25% Very Easy 5 5% Total 97 100% Table 3 43 The question Is there a need to go to a special store or location to purchase organic foods? the UF Answer Response % Yes 72 27% No 194 73% Total 266 100% Table 3 44 The question Is there a need to go to a special store or location to purchase organic foods? the WULS Answer Response % Yes 74 76% No 23 24% Total 97 100% Table 3 45 Willingness to pay for organics the UF Answer Response % > 50% discount compared to conventional 17 6% 1 49% discount compared to conventional 19 7% the same price 68 26% 0 10% premium compared to conventional 82 31% 11 50% premium compared to conventional 63 24% 51% 99% premium compared to conventional 14 5% > 100% premium compared to conventional 2 1% Total 265 100%

PAGE 75

75 Tabl e 3 46 Willingness to pay for organics the WULS Answer Response % > 50% discount compared to conventional 0 0% 1 49% discount compared to conventional 7 7% the same price 25 26% 0 10% premium compared to conventional 47 48% 11 50% premium compared to conventional 18 19% 51% 99% premium compared to conventional 0 0% > 100% premium compared to conventional 0 0% Total 97 100% Table 3 47 Feelings during consumption of organics the UF Question 1 2 3 4 5 Responses Mean Bad:Good 1.50% 0.75% 30.83% 28.57% 38.35% 266 4.02 Dissatisfied:Satisfied 2.26% 2.63% 30.83% 31.95% 32.33% 266 3.89 Unpleasant:Pleasant 1.88% 1.50% 36.09% 30.45% 30.08% 266 3.85 Sad:Cheerful 1.50% 1.13% 48.87% 21.80% 26.69% 266 3 .71 Negative:Positive 1.50% 0.75% 37.59% 29.32% 30.83% 266 3.87 Table 3 48 Feelings during consumption of organics the WULS Question 1 2 3 4 5 Responses Mean Bad:Good 0.00% 1.03% 29.90% 30.93% 38.14% 97 4.06 Dissatisfied:Sa tisfied 0.00% 3.13% 39.58% 32.29% 25.00% 96 3.79 Unpleasant:Pleasant 1.03% 1.03% 41.24% 36.08% 20.62% 97 3.74 Sad:Cheerful 0.00% 0.00% 43.30% 32.99% 23.71% 97 3.80 Negative:Positive 1.03% 0.00% 35.05% 41.24% 22.68% 97 3.85

PAGE 76

76 CHAPTER 4 MET HODS, THEORETICAL MO DEL AND MODEL SPECIF ICATIONS Methods This chapter consists of two parts, 1) the development and administering of an online survey and 2) analysis of the data obtained from the survey. Initially, background research on the organic food m arket and a review of past studies about consumer perceptions of organic products was conducted. This information was then used to create the online questionnaire. The results obtained from this survey were analyzed through econometric modeling. Theoretica l Model Neoclassical economics is a theoretical methodology which explains prices, outputs and income distributions in markets through demand and supply. Markets are thought to achieve two general goals: to maximize the utility by income constrained indivi duals and to maximize the cost constrained profits of the companies given available information and factors of production. Additionally, neoclassical demand theory says demand is a function of income, information, the price of a good, the prices of other g oods, government policy and other socioeconomic and demographic elements (Perloff, 2004). The demand for organic food was analyzed by asking respondents about the frequency of consumption of organic products. Data in this research was collected by using t he survey instrument (online questionnaire) which was presented and discussed in the previous chapter. This data is then used to conduct an Ordered frequency of consumption of organic products (the dependent variable). This analysis uses many variables to test their impact on the dependent variable. These variables include attitudes, perceptions and knowledge of the respondents about organic

PAGE 77

77 products. There are also questions related to socioeconomic and demographic information about the respondents. Ordered Probit Model (Ordered Probability Model) The approach used to estimate models with a dependent variable which is ordinal but not continuous is the ordered response model. This method uses a probit created by two researchers who worked in bio statistics (Aitchison and Silvey 1957). It was first used in social sciences in the work of two politica l scientists, McKelvey and Zavoina (1975). The ordered probit model relies on the idea of a continuous metric which underlies the ordinal responses observed in the analysis. The basic probit model is shown in Equation 4 1. (4 1) is a continuous variable which is a linear combination of a set of predictors, X. Additionally represents the vector of regression coefficients which we want to estimate. The variable is related to ordinal categories coded for example as 0, 1, 2, 3, ontinuous response decreases in the k th interval (Equation 4 1, 4 2, 4 3 and 4 5): (4 2) (4 3) (4 4) (4 5)

PAGE 78

78 n parameters food by students, there are unknown threshold parameters Y* (i=0, 1, 2), with y values specified as: Y = 0 if consumers do not consume organic food products Y = 1 if consumers consume organic products monthly Y = 2 if consumers consume organic products weekly Y = 3 if consumers consume organic products daily Y* will be estimated with other parameters. In the situation where there is an intercept coefficient in the m odel, parameter Y0* is normalized to a value 0 and k 1 additional parameters will be estimated with Xs. The probabilities of observing Y, given X are written as (Equation 4 6 ): (4 6) is the normal density function. The probabili ties for each ordinal response that is observed in the model with 4 responses (0, 1, 2, 3) will be given as (Equation 4 7, 4 8, 4 9 and 4 10 ): (4 7) (4 8) (4 9) (4 10) The marginal eff ects of the independent variables on the probabilities are also observed. They vary from the values of the coefficients estimates. The marginal effects are related to the values of all independent variables. They are calculated as follows (Equation 4 11 ):

PAGE 79

79 (4 11) The sum of the marginal effects equals zero. Typical marginal effects are calculated at the mean of the variable. However, in the case of dummy variables, a different way must be used to compute marginal effects as the mean is not relevant. In this case, the difference of the two resulting probabilities when the dummy variable is equal to its two values 0 and 1 is used. Model Specification The model used for this study is the Ordered Probability Model. This model is used to compare the frequency of organic consumption between Florida (U.S.) and Polish students. The dependent variable for the Ordered Probability Model is the frequency of consumption of organic food products. The model uses several socioeconomic, demographic a nd habit independent variables (Table 4 1). SPSS and LIMDEP were used to compute the model. The specification for the Ordered Probability Model is as follows: Freqcons = Gender, GenderI, Eatbehav1, Eatbehav1I, Eatbehav2, Eatbehav2I, Eatbehav3, Eatbehav3I, Eatbehav4, Eatbehav4I, Yestgood, YestgoodI, Yestbad, YestbadI, Country, Superm, SupermI, Orgstore, OrgstoreI, Directorg, DirectorgI, Farmarkt, FarmarktI, Subjknow, SubjknowI, Objknow, ObjknowI, Factdifferent, FactdifferentI, Factsupport, FactsupportI, Fact qualit, FactqualitI, Factpest, FactpestI, Facthealth, FacthealthI, Factenvir, FactenvirI, Barravail, BarravailI, Barrcost, BarrcostI, Barrvariet, BarrvarietI, Barrinfo, BarrinfoI, Easyfind, EasyfindI, Primary, PrimaryI, WTP, WTPI

PAGE 80

80 The dependent variable is related to the consumption frequency of organic food products. Model is checking how the dependent variable is behaving by being influenced by independent variables. Independent variables used in the model can be divided into several groups. The first grou p is related to demographics (gender) and the lifestyle of the respondents. Respondents could present their opinion about what they think about their diets (Eatbehav1, Eatbehav2, Eatbehav3, and Eatbehav4). At the same time they were assessed about their di ets on the day before of the survey (Yestgood and Yestbad). The next group of variables was related to the purchase frequency habits of organics. This includes variables which represent places in which organic products can be purchased by respondents, (Sup erm, Orgstore, Directorg, Farmarkt). Then there are variables which represent the knowledge of respondents about organic farming and organic products. The first variable may be described as subjective (Subjknow) because it represents about their knowledge about organics. The second variable in this group may be considered as objective because it includes the score of respondents about their knowledge about organic farming (Objknow). The next group of variables is related to attitudes t owards purchase and consumption of organics. Six factors for the purchase of organics were included: that organics are something different, that buying organic provides the opportunity to support organic farmers, that the quality of organic food is greate r, that there is a lack of pesticides in organic production, that there are health benefits of eating organics, and that organic farming is environmentally friendly (Factdifferent, Factsupport, Factqualit, Factpest, Facthealth, Factenvir).

PAGE 81

81 Variables which represent the barriers to purchase of organic farming were also used in the model. They include lack of availability, high costs, insufficient variety and lack of information about organic farming (Barravail, Barrcost, Barrvariet, Barrinfo). The model also contains variables which describe the opinions of respondents about how easy is to find organic products in their area (Easyfind). Another variable is related to the question whether the respondents are the primary shoppers in their househo lds (Primary). One of the final variables used in the model is the willingness organic products. Variables variables between countries. In other words, it means that there are possible differences or similarities in case of specific variables between countries which can be significant to the co nsumption frequency of organic products. Expected Results It is expected that many variables will affect the frequency of consumption of they consume that food. There are two types of knowledge measured in this study: opinions about their knowledge about organic products. Objective knowledge is related to factual knowledge about organics which re spondents possess. It would be reasonable to assume that respondents who subjectively rate their own knowledge about organic food products higher will consume them more often. Also, respondents who have higher objective knowledge about organic products ma y

PAGE 82

82 consume organic products more f requently, although if they do no t, this may mean that their objective knowledge is not pro organic. There are also several factors which would be expected to have an impact on frequency of consumption. For example, if a re spondent sees purchasing organic food as a means of supporting farmers, or believes that organic food is of better quality, they may be more likely to purchase organics more frequently. Other factors include if the participant believes: a) that organic pro ducts are produced without synthetic pesticides, b) that organic foods are healthier, c) that organic farming is environmentally friendly, or d) that organic products are something new and different. Similarly, if respondents feel barriers to purchasing or ganics exist, they may be likely to purchase organics less frequently. Examples of such barriers include: cost, insufficient variety, too little information and lack of availability of organics. There is also an assumption that those who do not see lack of availability of organic as a barrier (i.e., perceive that organic products are easy to find) are expected to consume organic products more frequently. A similar assumption is related to costs of organics. Those who are willing to more likely value attribu tes of organic products higher than the attributes of conventional products would be expected to consume organic food more frequently. For many people, organic products are considered to have h igh quality and health benefits People who ate healthy prod ucts on the day before the survey may be in the group which pays a lot of attention to their diet so they may consume organic food more frequently. Demographic variables are also expected to impact the frequency of consumption of organic foods. Gender has been assumed to influence frequency of consumption of organic products significantly (O'Donovan & McCarthy, Irish

PAGE 83

83 consumer preference for organic meat, 2002) It is expected that women pay more attention to what they buy as they are frequently the primary shopper. There are also expectations related to differences between countries in which the survey was conducted. Because of the different level of development of the organic market between Poland and Florida, Polish respondents are expected to have more li mited knowledge about organic products. Moreover, it is more difficult to find organic products in Poland. This may result in lower frequency of consumption of organic products. The next chapter focuses on the description of statistical results of the mod el. It presents differences between the United States and Poland in terms of impact of specific independent variables on the consumption frequency of organic products.

PAGE 84

84 Table 4 1 Variables used in the Ordered Probit Model Variable Definition of variable Coding Freqcons Frequency of consumption of organic food = 0 if consumers do not consume organic food products = 1 if consumers consume organic products monthly = 2 if consumers consume organic products weekly = 3 if consumers consume orga nic products daily Gender Gender Female = 1, Male = 0 GenderI Interaction of gender and country = 0 if Country = PL = Gender if Country = US Eatbehav1 Eating behavior My food choices affect my health Ranges from 1 to 5 Eatbehav1I ting behavior and country = 0 if Country = PL = Eatbehav1 if Country = US Eatbehav2 Eating behavior I always choose the healthiest option, even if it is more expensive Ranges from 1 to 5 Eatbehav2I ting behavior I always choose the healthiest = 0 if Country = PL = Eatbehav2 if Country = US Eatbehav3 Eating behavior I have control of my health no matter what I eat Ranges from 1 to 5 Eatbehav3I In I have control of my health no = 0 if Country = PL = Eatbehav3 if Country = US Eatbehav4 Eating behavior Ranges from 1 to 5 Eatbehav4I Interac = 0 if Country = PL = Eatbehav4 if Country = US Yestgood Good diet on the day before the survey Ranges from 0 to 5 YestgoodI = 0 if Country = PL = Yestgood if Country = US Yestbad Bad diet on the day before the survey Ranges from o to 5 YestbadI = 0 if Country = PL = Yestbad if Country = US Country Country Poland or the United States (FL) Poland (PL) = 0, United States (US) = 1 Superm Place where individual purchase organic food supermarket Ranges from 1 to 5 SupermI = 0 if Country = PL = S uperm if Country = US Orgstore Place where individual purchase organic food organic food store Ranges from 1 to 5 OrgstoreI = 0 if Country = PL = Orgstore if Country = US Directorg Place where individua l purchase organic food direct sales from a farm Ranges from 1 to 5 DirectorgI = 0 if Country = PL = Directorg if Country = US Farmarkt Place where individual purchase organic food farmers markets Ranges from 1 to 5 FarmarktI = 0 if Country = PL = Farmarkt if Country = US Subjknow Subjective knowledge (opinion) of individual about organic farming and organic products Ranges from 1 to 5 SubjknowI Inter = 0 if Country = PL = Subjknow if Country = US Objknow Objective knowledge of individual about organic farming and organic products Ranges from 1 to 8 ObjknowI = 0 if Country = PL = Objknow if Country = US Factdifferent Factor for purchasing organic products It's something different Ranges from 1 to 5 FactdifferentI = 0 if Country = PL = Factdiffere nt if Country = US

PAGE 85

85 Table 4 1 C ontinued Factsupport Factor for purchasing organic products I am supporting organic farmers Ranges from 1 to 5 FactsupportI = 0 if Country = PL = Factsu pport if Country = US Factqualit Factor for purchasing organic products Organic food has better quality Ranges from 1 to 5 FactqualitI = 0 if Country = PL = Factqualit if Country = US Factpest Factor for purchasing organic products Synthetic pesticides are not allowed in production Ranges from 1 to 5 FactpestI = 0 if Country = PL = Factpest if Co untry = US Facthealth Factor for purchasing organic products Organic products are healthier Ranges from 1 to 5 FacthealthI = 0 if Country = PL = Facthealth if Country = US Factenvir F actor for purchasing organic products Organic farming is environmentally friendly Ranges from 1 to 5 FactenvirI and country = 0 if Country = PL = Factenvir if Country = US Barravail B arrier for purchasing organic products Availability Ranges from 1 to 5 BarravailI = 0 if Country = PL = Barravail if Country = US Barrcost Barrier for purchasing organic products Cost Ranges from 1 t o 5 BarrcostI = 0 if Country = PL = Barrcost if Country = US Barrvariet Barrier for purchasing organic products Insufficient variety Ranges from 1 to 5 BarrvarietI = 0 if Country = PL = Barrvariet if Country = US Barrinfo Barrier for purchasing organic products Too little information Ranges from 1 to 5 BarrinfoI = 0 if Country = PL = Barri nfo if Country = US Easyfind Level of difficulty to find organic products Easy = 1 Difficult = 0 EasyfindI country = 0 if Country = PL = Easyfind if Country = US Primary Variable which st ates if individual is the primary shopper in the household or not Primary shopper = 1 Not primary shopper = 0 PrimaryI = 0 if Country = PL = Primary if Country = US WTP Willingness to pay of the individual for organic products Ranges from 0 to 3 WTPI = 0 if Country = PL = WTP if Country = US

PAGE 86

86 CHAPTER 5 EMP I RICAL MODEL Ordered Probability Model Results The Ordered Probability Model was used to investigate the consumption of organic food products. Frequency of consumption was calculated on the basis of a question that asked the respondents how often they eat organic food products. The assumption is made that consumption of organic foods less than once per mo nth is equivalent to not consuming organic food at all. Observations with missing information were deleted leaving 349 usable observations. Statistical results are divided into four parts, 1) Personal characteristics and lifestyle 2) Purchase frequency hab its of organic food products 3) Knowledge and beliefs about organic farming 4) Attitudes towards purchase and consumption of organic food products. The results of the ordered probit analysis were explanatory, with the model making correct predictions 68.48 % of the time compared to the naive prediction of 60.17%. The results of the ordered probability analysis revealed interesting information (results shown in Table 5 1 and Table 5 2). Variables are reported as statistically significant at a confidence level of 90% or greater. Personal Characteristics and L ifestyle included in the model. For example, gender did not affect the frequency of consumption of organic products. It was expected that women will consume more organic products as they normally care more about their diet and they are often more responsible for shopping for a hou seholds (O'Donovan & McCarthy, 2002). But female respondents in this survey were mainly undergraduate studen ts and most of them were living on their own. This may have decreased the impact of gender on the frequency of consumption of organics.

PAGE 87

87 However, males and females had been asked about their eating behavior. There were two types of questions. The student s had been asked several questions related to the opinion about their eating behavior. At the beginning they were asked if food choices may affect their health. This variable was significant to the frequency of consumption of organics but did not behave in the manner expected. Students in both countries said they will eat organic food less frequently if they said that the food they eat can influence their health. However, U.S. s tudents, who indicated they do no t want to give up foods they like to eat, even if they are not healthy foods, were 11.92% more likely to consume organic food more frequently. F i r st may mean that they appreciate, for example, the taste of organics so they include these foods in their diet. For Polish students this variable was not sta tistically significant which may mean that reasons other than taste influences their consumption of organics. ve control of my consumption of organic food products. In the second type of questions related to eating behavior, respondents were asked about their diet on the day before tak ing the survey. Students reported which of different types of foods they ate in the previous day, and these foods were then divided into two groups representing a healthy diet and a less healthy diet. Those who ate less healthy foods the previous day eat o rganics less frequently. However, those who did eat healthy foods the previous day were more likely to consume organic foods more frequently. This held true for respondents in both countries.

PAGE 88

88 Polish respondents who ate more healthy foods on the day before are 7.65% (0.98% in case of U.S. students) more likely to consume organics more frequently. Purchase Frequency Habits of Organic Food P roducts To consume, organic products have to be purchased. Students indicated several places where they buy organics. Th the decision to consume organic products in both countries. Though differences exist between the two countries, this is mostl y related to the fact that there is a different organization of the retail market between the two countries. In the United States, the retail market consists mainly of large supermarket chains. Supermarket chains are also popular in Poland (their significa nce is increasing), but a large proportion of respondents indicated they do their primary shopping in small grocery stores or at With further development of organic markets in Poland a higher significance of superm arkets as the source of organic products is expected. The possibility to find organics in supermarkets may grow the consumption of organics due to increase in their availability, popularity, assortment and possible lower price for consumers. Knowledge and Beliefs about Organic F arming Some differences related to the beliefs and knowledge about organic farming and organic food products between the U.S. and Polish students were observed. Students were asked how much they think they know about organic farming This variable is related to the opinion of the respondents about their knowledge and called e knowledge A positive relationship between this opinion and the frequency of consumption of organic food was found only for U.S. student s. This indicates that students in the United States who believe they know more about

PAGE 89

89 organic production are 14.85% more likely than an average person to consume organic food more frequently. On the other hand this variable was not statistically related to the decision to frequency of consumption of organics in Poland. Polish and U.S. students were also evaluated on how much they actually know about organic farming in general. This variable was statistically related to the consumption frequency of organic p roducts. However, there were also differences in this case. Students in Poland are 8.78% more likely to consume organics more frequently if they have better knowledge about organic farming. This relationship shows that in Poland, where the level of organic market development is still very low (compared to the United States), there is still large potential for organic production. More knowledge may also translate into higher consumption of organic foods and further development of the organics market in Polan d. The relationship had been expected to be similar as well for the U.S. students, but in the United States, the relationship is small and opposite. It may mean that knowledge of organics can be not pro organic for the U.S. student s so it may create negat ive image of organic farming. Having different knowledge and beliefs about organic products, respondents may be also characterized by different purchasing factors for organic food products. Attitudes Towards Purchase and C ons umption of Organic Food P rodu cts Among the reasons for consumption, there were different relationships to the frequency of consumption of organic food for students from the two countries. Polish students were 14.05% more likely to eat organic food if they stated they consume these pr oducts because they are something new. Students from the United States presented an opposite attitude. This can be explained by the fact that organic food is still not common in Poland. There is willingness among students to try

PAGE 90

90 something new and different from conventional products. In case of United States, thought organic food was new, th ey were already showing a lack of interest, and were less likely to be organic purchasers. Another factor which influenced the decision to buy organic food was significant only for U.S. students. Students from the United States said that they buy organic b ecause they want to support organic farmers. They are 16.54% more likely to consume organic products more frequently if this factor is important for them. Respondents in the United States may support organic farmers because they assume they are small, loca l farmers, and the support goes directly to them, which may often not be true. Polish consumers, knowing that organic farmers in Poland receive financial subsidies, may pay less attention to the income of organic farmers while purchasing organic food. How ever, there were not many differences between Polish and U.S. students in this variable did not behave in the manner expected. The literature suggests that organic food s being produced without synthetic pesticides are one of the drivers for buying organic products (Hoefkens et al. 2009) This analysis suggests that in both the United States and Poland other factors have more of an impact on consumption frequency of organ ic products. significant impact on the consumption frequency of Polish and U.S., but in opposite ways. The fact that organic farming may positively affect the environment was a conv incing reason for Polish students to consume organics more frequently. They

PAGE 91

91 are 25.13% more likely to consume organics more frequently in this case. Students from the United States who thought organic farming is environmentally friendly were less likely to consume organic products as much. It may mean that U.S. students who said organic farming was environmentally friendly were not motivated enough to purchase organic products because of that. frequency of organic food. Some differences between U.S. and Polish students in case of barriers for purchasing organics were found. The higher cost of orga nic products had an impact on the decision to buy organics less frequently, but only for Polish students. Polish students were 14.47% more likely to consume organics less frequently if they say Th is may be explained by the lower income of Polish students in comparison to students in the United States. U.S. students did not find higher cost of organic food as a barrier. It is interesting that U.S. students are even more likely to buy organic if they are aware of higher costs for organics. This situation may be explained by better financial situation of U.S. students. At the same time they may find a higher price for organic as paying for some additional value or attributes of organic food in which th ey believe in. They may also be more aware about these attributes than students in Poland. It is also worth mentioning that the low level of development of the organic market in Poland may create much higher prices of organic products than in the United St ates. In Poland, the lack of organic products on the market, lack of suppliers and the underdeveloped organic market chain is likely the cause these higher prices.

PAGE 92

92 With further development of the organic market, prices for organic products in Poland should be more stable and their variety may increase. Students in both countries would buy organics more frequently if the variety was better. They are 12.56% more likely to eat organics less frequently if they agree that ts is the barrier to purchasing organics. This problem is especially important to Poland where the market is still not developed. Again it shows that demand for organic food exists, but that one of the essential problems is lack of variety. Also interestin g is the fact that availability of organic products as the barrier did not influence the consumption frequency of organics. It was expected that students, especially in Poland, would react to the lack of availability of organic products by indicating they purchase less frequently. Availability was not a barrier for U.S. students. This may be understandable, given the fact that in the United States organic products are available in almost all supermarkets. may mean that students from both countries would consume organics more frequently if a greater variety of organics is easy available fo r purchasers. However, students in the United States and Poland did present different attitudes in terms of the relationship between frequency of consuming organics and ease of finding organic products in their area. This variable did not behave in the man ner expected in case of Polish respondents. They consume organics less frequently if they say that it is easy to find these products in their area. It may be that people who consume organics less frequently do not have an idea about lack of availability o f organic products. In other words, only the people

PAGE 93

93 who are interested in consumption of organics know how difficult is to find these products in Poland. In the survey only 30% of Polish students admitted that it is easy for them to find organic products i n their area. At the same time students in the United States are 8.87% more likely to consume organics more frequently if they say they do not have problems finding organic products in their area. This is what was generally expected. In the questionnaire m ore than 70% of the U.S. students said it is easy to find organics in their area. In both countries students who are responsible for their own shopping are 45.57% more likely to consume organics more frequently. Similar results can be found in the literatu re. People who are responsible for buying food are often better informed about the diet and the products they are interested in. In the survey respondents were also asked at what price difference (willingness to pay) they would select organic food products in comparison to conventional products. In general, students in both countries would pay around 10% more for organic products. However this variable was not statistically related in the consumption frequency of organics. The lack of a relationship between WTP and frequency of consumption of organic food may mean that buyers of organic products have different opinions about the price for these products. Some of them may expect low price for organics but others may be willing to pay more for potential additi onal attributes of organic food in which they may believe in. The model also investigated the relationship between the country of the respondents and the consumption frequency of organics. Based only on the country variable there are not any significant di fferences between the United States and Poland in terms of the frequency of consumption of organics.

PAGE 94

94 Summary The Ordered Probability Model was used to investigate the frequency of consumption of organic food products. Observations with missing informatio n were deleted leaving 349 usable observations. Model used 54 variables, one dependent variable (frequency of consumption of organic products) and 53 independent variables. Relationships between consumption frequency of organic products and specific variab les had been investigated and several differences between the United States and Poland were found. The chapter presents conclusions which include a comparison of the results from Poland and the United States, and final remarks about the development of the organic market in Poland.

PAGE 95

95 Table 5 1. Ordered Probability Model Results Variable Coefficient Standard Error b/St.Er. P[|Z|>z Mean of X Freqcons 4.651 2.109 2.205 .027 Gender .154 .421 .367 713 .593 GenderI .242 .456 .532 .594 .404 Eatbehav1 .669 .189 3.539 .000 4.323 Eatbehav1I .574 .221 2.597 .009 3.255 Eatbehav2 .281 .201 1.399 .161 2.842 Eatbehav2I .239 .218 1.095 .273 2.071 Eatbehav3 .178 .161 1.105 .269 2.891 Eatbehav3I .140 .178 .787 .431 2.171 Eatbehav4 .235 .164 1.429 .153 3.613 Eatbehav4I .315 .189 1.664 .096 2.730 Yestgood .202 .062 3.232 .001 9.409 YestgoodI .176 .070 2.521 .011 6 .839 Yestbad .052 .091 .570 .568 7.292 YestbadI .026 .100 .259 .795 5.438 Country 2.154 2.315 .930 .352 .733 Superm .348 .125 2.780 005 2.908 SupermI .241 .141 1.708 .087 2.174 Orgstore .361 .174 2.076 .037 1.664 OrgstoreI .544 .194 2.802 .005 1.237 Directorg .387 .117 3.292 .001 1.398 DirectorgI .332 .163 2.034 .041 .916 Farmarkt .269 .136 1.978 .048 2.057 FarmarktI .365 .167 2.183 .029 1.237 Subjknow .074 .185 .401 .688 2.762 SubjknowI .393 .203 1.929 .053 1.985 Objknow .232 .125 1.846 .064 5.805 ObjknowI .304 .135 2.257 .024 4.186 Factdifferent .372 .181 2.048 .040 2.753 FactdifferentI .453 .197 2.298 .021 2.020 Factsupport .209 .193 1.084 .278 3.240 FactsupportI .437 .216 2.026 .042 2.438 Factqualit .140 .286 .489 .624 3.810 FactqualitI .108 .312 .346 .729 2.744 Factpest .498 .316 1.574 .115 3.742 FactpestI 496 .333 1.492 .135 2.681 Facthealth .450 .330 1.364 .172 3.885 FacthealthI .225 .352 .638 .523 2.793 Factenvir .665 .260 2.553 .010 3.810 FactenvirI .860 .282 3.043 .002 2.776 Barravail .057 .215 .268 .788 3.498 BarravailI .049 .232 .213 .831 2.527 Barrcost .383 .207 1.844 .065 4.226 BarrcostI .402 .232 1.728 .084 3.088 Barrvariet .332 .201 1.655 .098 3.111 BarrvarietI .210 .224 .935 .349 2.249 Barrinfo .116 .209 .556 .578 3.303 BarrinfoI .083 .228 .366 .714 2.375 Easyfind .837 .415 2.017 .043 .601 EasyfindI 1.063 .455 2.337 .019 .5 21 Primary 1.232 .718 1.716 .086 .914 PrimaryI 1.183 .774 1.528 .126 .676 WTP .282 .210 1.342 .179 3.785 WTPI .293 .221 1.323 .186 2.77 3

PAGE 96

96 Table 5 2. Summary of Marginal Effects for Ordered Probability Model Variable Y=00 Y=01 Y=02 Y=03 Freqcons .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 Gender .0585 .0264 .0305 .0016 GenderI .0921 .0422 .0475 .0024 Eatbehav1 .2527 .1114 .1344 .0070 Eatbehav1I .2171 .0957 .1154 .0060 Eatbehav2 .1062 .0468 .0565 .0029 Eatbehav2I .0903 .0398 .0480 .0025 Eatbehav3 .0676 .0298 .0359 .0019 Eatbehav3I .0531 .0234 .0282 .0 015 Eatbehav4 .0890 .0392 .0473 .0024 Eatbehav4I .1192 .0525 .0634 .0033 Yestgood .0765 .0337 .0407 .0021 YestgoodI .0667 .0294 .0354 .0018 Yestbad .0197 .0087 .0105 .0005 YestbadI .0098 .00 43 .0052 .0003 Country .7114 .4250 .2698 .0167 Superm .1315 .0579 .0699 .0036 SupermI .1365 .0602 .0726 .0038 Orgstore .1462 .0644 .0777 .0040 OrgstoreI .1018 .0449 .0541 .0028 Directorg .0 912 .0402 .0485 .0025 DirectorgI .2057 .0907 .1094 .0057 Farmarkt .1258 .0554 .0669 .0035 FarmarktI .1380 .0608 .0734 .0038 Subjknow .0281 .0124 .0149 .0008 SubjknowI .1485 .0655 .0789 0041 Objknow .0878 .0387 .0467 .0024 ObjknowI .1152 .0508 .0612 .0032 Factdifferent .1405 .0619 .0747 .0039 FactdifferentI .1714 .0755 .0911 .0047 Factsupport .0792 .0349 .0421 .0022 FactsupportI .1654 .0729 .0879 .0046 Factqualit .0530 .0234 .0282 .0015 FactqualitI .0408 .0180 .0217 .0011 Factpest .1883 .0830 .1001 .0052 FactpestI .1877 .0827 .0998 .0052 Facthealth .1703 .0751 .0 905 .0047 FacthealthI .0851 .0375 .0452 .0023 Factenvir .2513 .1108 .1336 .0069 FactenvirI .3251 .1433 .1728 .0089 Barravail .0218 .0096 .0116 .0006 BarravailI .0187 .0082 .0099 .0005 Barrcost .1447 .0638 .0769 .0040 BarrcostI .1519 .0670 .0808 .0042 Barrvariet .1256 .0554 .0668 .0035 BarrvarietI .0793 .0350 .0422 .0022 Barrinfo .0440 .0194 .0234 .0012 BarrinfoI .0316 .0139 .01 68 .0009 Easyfind .2993 .1048 .1817 .0128 EasyfindI .3880 .1663 .2081 .0136 Primary .4557 .3144 .1367 .0047 PrimaryI .3919 .0856 .2786 .0277 WTP .1067 .0470 .0567 .0029 WTPI .1108 .0488 .0589 .0030

PAGE 97

97 CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSIONS Introduction organic products between U.S. and Polish consumers may exist. These differences can be related to many general or specific i ssues. Some of the issues may be caused by different surroundings of the organic farming: governmental policy within a or organization of the food market. These differences can also be related to differences within the organic farming system that are different, such as policy (taxes, subsidies etc.), production requirements, or the level of organic market development (marketing channels, popularity, availability, prices etc.) Moreover differences between U.S. and Polish consumers on to the decision of how frequently to consume organics can be caused by demographic characteristics (gender, education etc.) or lifestyle in general (for example nutrition habits). This paper focus es on the United States in relation to the level of organic market development in terms of sales and availability of organic products. Comparison of the level of development of organic markets According to the Research Institute of Organic Agriculture FiBL the value of the Polish organic market in 2009 was 50 million Euros (71.55 million USD). It is estimated that the Polish organic market is growing about 15 20% per year. A r ecent EuroMonitor report stated that the value of the Polish organic market was 58.9 million Euros (84.3 million USD) in 2010 (EuroMonitor, 2011) However, according to PMR Publications, the value of the Polish organic market reached 400 million z l (100 mi llion Euros / 143.1 million USD) in 2009 (PMR, 2010)

PAGE 98

98 Compared to West Europe, the assortment of organic food in supermarkets is still very poor. Reasons for poor selection include insufficient demand and supply for organic products, lack of promotion of organic farming in Poland, and a system of organic subsidies for organic farmers that did not meet all expectations (Grzelak, 2009) Organic subsidies influenced the growth of the number of organic farms, but there was no impact on development of P olish or ganic market (Grzelak, 2009) T he potential of further development of the Polish organic market is significant. In Western Europe, the organic market constitutes more than 2.5% in the whole food market. In Poland, the market share is only 0.2% The marke t for organic foods in the United States is much larger. The estimated value of the organic market was approximately 24.6 billion US Dollars (17.2 billion Euro) in 2008. This constituted approximately 2.5% of total food sales in the United States. Accordi ng to the Organic Trade Association (OTA), the organic market grew more than 17.1% in 2007 and has a growth rate of 20% annually since the 1990s (Organic Trade Association, 2006) With the organic food market accounting for 2.5% of the food market in the United States and only 0.2% in Poland, there is an observable difference in the level of development of this market. Survey respondents recognized this difference. Most of students in Poland said that it is not easy to find organic products in their area. In the U.S., where the organic market is better developed, respondents found it significantly easier to find these products. This difficulty in finding organic products was also included in a regression model estimating the frequency of consumption of orga nic foods. This variable was significantly related to the consumption frequency of organic food Students in the United States are more likely to consume organics if they do not have problems in finding them in their area. Surprisingly, Polish students

PAGE 99

99 wer e more likely to consume organics the less available they said organics were. This may be a result of the lack of market development and related lack of knowledge of the market. Students who did not consume organics as frequently might have rated them as more available because they are unaware of whether they are or are not available. Students who are interested in organics may rate them as less available because they have attempted to find the products. The lower level of development of the organic marke t in Poland can also be characterized by the lack of organics in the supermarkets. In the United States, most organic food is sold at the supermarket (Dimitri & Oberholtzer, 2009) However, in Poland, the share of organics sold in supermarkets is low, thou gh it is growing slowly Biemans, 2011) This lack of organics in the supermarkets makes consumers make an extra effort to find the products. Polish respondents mentioned cost and the availability of organic products as barriers which may lower the frequency of consump tion. Students from the United States did not find costs of organics as a barrier. Different levels of organic market development, lower availability, higher prices of organics, and lower levels of promotion may all cause different perceptions of organic p roducts between Poland and the United States. Several differences between Polish and U.S. students were found in this research and are discussed further. Comparison of the perception of organic products Respondents to the survey on organic food perceptions were in similar age. degree), while those from Poland were mainly pursuing their Master degrees (graduate students). Many students were pursuing their academic degrees in an

PAGE 100

100 agricultural major It could have influenced in positive way on the knowledge about organic products and organic farming in general. Other variables related to demographics and personal lifestyles were included in the regression analysis to investigate if they were related to consumer perception and the decision on frequency of consumption of organic food products. One unexpected results was that gender did not affect the decision to eat organic food either in the U.S. or in Poland. It was expected that wo men consume more organic products as they normally care more about their diet and they are often more responsible for shopping for a households (Padel & Foster, 2005) But female and male respondents in this survey were mainly students and most of them liv e on their own. This may have decreased the impact of gender on the decision to eat organics. The frequency of consumption of organics was influenced by variables related to personal lifestyle. With these variables, there were few differences between the United States and Poland. For example, respondents who reported a higher consumption of vegetables and fruits versus fast foods were more likely to have a higher frequency of consumption of organic products. This relation was stronger for Polish students. It may mean that especially in Poland there is a group of people who consume organics to enrich their good diet. behavior and the decision to consume organics more frequently. In gen eral, students from both countries are willing to consume organics more frequently if they felt they did not take care of their health with their diet. This may indicate that reasons other than health drive them towards eating organic food, such as concern for the environment, taste or the fashion.

PAGE 101

101 Students from the United States were more against giving up foods they like even if they recognize the foods are not healthy. At the same time they are still interested in consuming organic food. Together, this m ay indicate that students in the United States pay a lot of attention to the taste of organic products, which is often considered as better than the taste of conventional products (Kihlberg & Risvik, 2007) Most previous research finds that consumers in t he United States and Canada consider taste and other quality characteristics as the most significant factors impacting consumer demand. At the same time in the European Union, other drivers (freshness, health, food safety and environmental concerns) for de mand for organics play the main role (Sandalidou et al., 2009). Another factor that might impact demand for organics and frequency of consumption is knowledge and beliefs about organic farming. Students from both countries were found to have a good amount of knowledge about organic farming. Out of a possible score of eight on a knowledge test on organic farming, Polish students scored 6.0 and U.S. students scored 5.7 (the minimum score was 0, the maximum 8) This indicates both groups had a similar level of knowledge, and that their level of knowledge was relatively strong. However, the relation between the level of knowledge about organic farming and the frequency of consumption of organic products was opposite for students from the two countries. Polish st udents are more likely to consume organic products more frequently if they have better knowledge about organic farming. The improvement of that knowledge and promotion of organic farming may be drivers for further development of organic market in Poland. U .S. students consume organic food less frequently if they know more about organic farming. Though this seems counterintuitive, it may mean that demand for organic products in the U.S. may be based more on the marketing image

PAGE 102

102 of organic food. This image por trayed by the media may not always contain correct information. A gain, this may point to the concept that the demand for consumption of organic products can be driven mainly by quality characteristics of organic food. But the beliefs about these characteri stics can be sometimes wrong. For example, consumers may consider organic products as healthier or tastier, but scientific research does not prove these statements. Then, as the level of knowledge about organic products and organic farming in general incre ases, U.S. consumers may decide their previous beliefs were incorrect, thus leading to a decrease in the consumption of organics. Another reason for consumption of organics in Poland is related to the low level of development of organic market is that resp ondents of the survey were more likely to eat organic food if they stated they believe organic food is something new. There is willingness among Polish students to try something different from conventional products. This is different from the United States where organic foods are available Therefore, it is possible that if students from the United States thought organic food was new, they were already showing a lack of inter est, and were less likely to be organic purchasers. Another difference between U.S. students and Polish students related to the desire to support organic farmers. Students from Poland (where organic farmers receive financial subsidies), are not as concerne d as U.S. students about the income received by organic farmers while purchasing organic food. In the United States, many people may see supporting organic farming as similar to supporting small or local farmers. There is a history in the United States of people wanting to support those farmers because they have an interest in this type of lifestyle. In other words,

PAGE 103

103 people in the US may support organic farmers because they assume the support goes directly to them, not to big companies or businesses (whether that be the truth or not). Organic farming may be seen as small and local not only in the United States but also in Poland. This view can be connected with the belief that organic farming is environmental friendly. In both countries believing that organic farming is environmental friendly was a significant factor in the decision to consume organics, but it influenced on this consumption differently. U.S. students even if they feel organic farming is good for the environment that is not enough of a reason t o increase frequency of organic consumption for them. Polish students reacted positively, with students who felt organic farming was environmentally friendly more likely to purchase organics. Final remarks Students from the United States and Poland have d ifferent perceptions about organic products. Some of these differences are likely explained by the different level of market development of organic markets. The lack of development of organic market in Poland was observed as respondents rated the availabil ity of organic products as low. Potential consumers of these products have to face higher prices of organics, likely resulting in lower popularity of these products. However, one reason Polish consumers were willing to consume organics more frequently is b ecause they saw the products as something new. Though they may perceive the products to be new, and the market is less developed in the United States, general knowledge about organic food was high, and was similar to knowledge of U.S. students.

PAGE 104

104 In additio n to consuming organics more frequently because they see them as new, innovative products, Polish students also increased their consumption if they felt organic production was good for the environment. It does appear there is potential for consumer demand as the students were excited about the new products and new production method as a potential alternative to conventional agriculture. They may consider themselves as potential buyers of organics. As knowledge had a significant and positive impact on cons umption of organic foods, it seems that education and increases in awareness would help further development of organic market in Poland. The organic market in the United States can be characterized by higher level of development than in Poland. Organic pro ducts are common and available in most of the s upermarkets. U.S. students did no t find price for organics as a barrier to purchase. They may consider higher price for organics as paying for some additional attributes of organics in which they believe in. These attributes and qualities may be considered as one of the main reason of purchasing organics in the United States. This corresponds with previous research which has found that quality characteristics (especially taste) are the main drivers of demand f or organics in the United States. At the same time other potential benefits of organics in which U.S consumers may believe, like the fact the organic farming is environmentally friendly, were not strong enough reasons to increase frequency of the consumpti on of organics. However U.S. consumers mentioned the importance of supporting local organic farmers so it can be said they are also care about other benefits then their own. Further research may find that by changing the paradigms and by explaining the imp ortance of additional potential benefits of purchasing organic products (especially

PAGE 105

105 the fact that it may be environmentally friendly) organic market in the United States can have still many chances for further development.

PAGE 106

106 APPENDIX QUESTIONNAIRE Q1 Thank you for agreeing to participate in our survey today. The purpose of this survey is to better understand consumer perception of organic products. Please note that there are no right or wrong answers to the followi ng questions. Please be assured that all answers will be kept anonymous and used only for the purpose of this research. In this survey, you will be asked to answer a series of questions that should take you approximately 15 minutes to complete. There ar e no expected risks or benefits to you for participating in this survey, and you will not receive any compensation for participating. The survey is anonymous and your participation is voluntary. You have the right to withdraw from the study at any time by exiting the survey. If you have questions about the survey, you can contact Dr. Lisa House, PO Box 110240, Gainesville, FL 32611, phone 352 392 1826. For questions about your rights as a research participant in the study, you can contact IRB02 Office, Box 112250, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611 2250; phone 352 392 0433. By answering the next question, you are indicating that you voluntarily agree to participate in this survey. I agree to participate I choose not to participate Q2 How often do you eat organic food products? Less than Once a Month Once a Month 2 3 Times a Month Once a Week 2 4 Times a Week Everyday Several times per day

PAGE 107

107 Q3 What percent of your purchases of the following products are organic (using quantity, not value)? Do not purchase organic 0% 1 10% 11 50% 51 99% 100% Fruits Vegetables Eggs Meat Milk and Dairy Bread Q4 Are you eating more or less organic food products compared to last year? I buy more organic products now I bu y as many organic products as before I buy less organic products now Q5 Are you eating more or less organic food products compared to 5 years ago? I buy more organic products now I buy as many organic products as before I buy less organic products now

PAGE 108

108 Q6 How often do you obtain organic products in the following places? Never Less than Once a Month Once a Month 2 3 Times a Month Once a Week Several times a Week Daily Supermarkets/Grocery stores Specialty grocery stores Organic f ood stores Direct sales from a farm Farmers markets Own organic garden Q7 Indicate your level of agreement with the following statements: Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Agree Strongly Agree Compare d to an average person, I know a lot about organic products. I know a lot about how I should assess the quality of organic products People consider me an expert in the field of organic food products

PAGE 109

109 Q8 Please indicate if you believe the following statements are true or false. The following statements are... Your level of certainty is... True Untrue Very low Low Average High Very high Organic farmers are allow to use synthetic pesticides Flavor enhancers are allowed in org anic products Organic farmers use synthetic fertilizers for their crops Organic farmers may use genetically modified seeds Every year, for verification, organic farms are inspected to see if all requirements of organic farming are b eing met Organic farmers have to comply with all other legal rules valid for conventional farmers. 'Organic in conversion' means a farm is being in the process of transition to organic and does not need to comply with all rules associated w ith organic farming Organic products can be irradiated to prolong their shelf life

PAGE 110

110 Q9 Indicate your level of agreement with the following statements: Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Agree Strongly Agree Organic p roducts taste better than conventional products Organic products do not contain residues of synthetic pesticides There is a greater biodiversity (insects, plants, weeds ...) on and around organic farms compared to conventional farms There is less contamination of groundwater on organic farms than conventional farms Organic products contain more harmful fungi than conventional products Organic products are among the most controlled products Organic products contain less un wanted substances (eg. Pesticides and nitrates) than conventional products Organic products contain more nutrients (eg. vitamins and minerals) than conventional products Organic products are healthier than conventional products

PAGE 111

111 Q10 Ho w often do you use the following sources to obtain information about organic products? Never Rarely Sometimes Quite Often Very Often Organic farming certification services Other organic consumers Organic farmers Organic product labels Demonstrations in supermarkets Organic shops Scientists (Doctor, Nutritionist) Media (newspapers, television, radio) Own internet search Friends, family Scientific magazines

PAGE 112

112 Q11 Indicate how much do you trust to the information about organic products from following sources? Distrust Distrust slightly Neither trust nor distrust Trust slightly Trust completely Organic farming certification services Other organic consumers Organic farmers Organic product labels Demonstrations in supermarkets Organic shops Scientists (Doctor, Nutritionist) Media (newspapers, television, radio) Own internet search Friends, family

PAGE 113

113 Q12 What are the factor s for purchasing organic products? Very Unimport ant Somewhat Unimportant Neither Important nor Unimportant Somewhat Important Very Important It's something different Organic products are produced in a particular location I am supporting organ ic farmers Organic farms are inspected Organic food has better quality Organic food has better taste Genetic modification is not allowed in organic foods Synthetic pesticides are not allowed in production Organic product s are healthier Organic farming is environmentally friendly Organic farming is modern & trendy Organic products are fresher I do not trust conventional production Organic food is better for my children

PAGE 114

114 Q13 Please indica te your level of agreement that the following factors are barriers to purchasing organic food products? Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Agree Strongly Agree Availability Cost Trust Taste Appearance of the pro duct Reliability It is in fashion Insufficient variety Too much effort Too little information Too many organic labels Lack of advertising of organic farming and organic products Little or no difference betwee n organic and conventional products Please enter Strongly Agree for this question

PAGE 115

115 Q14 How easy is it for you to find organic foods in your area? Very Difficult Difficult Neither easy, nor difficult Easy Very Easy Q15 Do you have to go to a special store or location to purchase organic foods? In other words do you go out of your way to purchase organic foods? Yes No Q16 At what price difference would you select organic food products in comparison to conventional products (%)? > 50% discount compared to conventional 1 49% discount compared to conventional the same price 0 10% premium compared to conventional 11 50% premium compared to conventional 51% 99% premium compared to conventional > 100% premium compared to conventional

PAGE 116

116 Q17 In my op 1 2 3 4 5 ill:Healthy Ethical:Unethical Not environmentally conscious:Environmentally conscious Friendly:Notfriendly Old:Young Not critical:Critical Social:Unsociable Realistic:Idealistic Traditional:Modern 1 2 3 4 5 Bad:Good Dissatisfied:Satisfied Unpleasant:Pleasant Sad:Cheerful Negative:Positive

PAGE 117

117 Q19 Indicate how stro ngly you agree or disagree with the following statements: Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Agree Strongly Agree My food choices affect my health I always choose the healthiest option, even if it is more expensive Some foo ds have a beneficial effect on my health I have control of my health no matter what I eat that I like Please select Strongly Agree to this question Q20 How would you rate your: Very Bad Bad Neit her Good nor Bad Good Very Good Eating habits: Knowledge of nutrition: Knowledge of healthy behaviors: Nutritional quality of your diet: Level of physical activity: Overall physical health in the present: Overall physic al health over the past 5 years:

PAGE 118

118 0 times 1 times 2 times 3 or more times Eat fruit? Drink fruit juice? Eat a green salad? Eat cooked vegetables? Eat a hamburger, hot dog, or sausage? Eat french fries or potato chips? Eat cookies, doughnuts, pie or cake? Drink milk? Drink soda? Eat out in a restaurant, fast food place, diner, cafeteria, etc? Q22 On how many of the past 7 days did you: 0 days 1 day 2 days 3 da ys 4 days 5 days 6 7 days Exercise or participate in sports activities for at least 20 minutes that made you sweat and breathe hard, such as basketball, jogging, swimming laps, tennis, fast bicycling, or similar aerobic activities? Do stretching e xercises, such as toe touching, knee bending, or leg stretching? Do exercises to strengthen or tone your muscles, such as push ups, sit ups, or weight lifting? Walk or bicycle for at least 30 minutes at a time? (Include Walking or bicycling to or from class or work.) Take part in any other type of physical activity for at least 10 minutes?

PAGE 119

119 Q23 What is your standing at school? Freshman or Sophomore Junior or Senior Graduate student, pursuing a Masters or equivalent Graduate st udent, pursuing a PhD or equivalent Q24 What college are you? Q25 What is the highest level of education your mother (or guardian) has? Less than high school High School degree or equivalent Some college or technical school beyond high school Bachelor d egree from college Advanced degree from college Q26 What is the highest level of education your father (or guardian) has? Less than high school High School degree or equivalent Some college or technical school beyond high school Bachelor degree from colle ge Advanced degree from college Q27 What is your height? Q28 What is your weight? Q29 Are you responsible for buying food at home? Yes, all of the food Sometimes (refers to several times a month) No

PAGE 120

120 Q30 Are you or anyone in your immediate area alread y faced with the following diseases? Yourself Close family Yes No Yes No Heart or cardiovascular disease Diabetes (diabetes) Obesity (overweight) Cancer Severe case of fatigue Depression Anorexia or bulimia Q31 In wh ich year you were born? Q32 What is your gender? Female Male Q33 If there is anything you would like to add, feel free to make some comments or remarks: Q34 Thank you for completing the survey. If you are completing this survey for extra credit in a cl ass, please select the link below to submit your name. This will be kept in a seperate file so your responses to this survey will remain anonymous. If you are not completing this for credit, please select finish below. Enter name for extra credit Finish s urvey

PAGE 121

121 LIST OF REFERENCES Aertsens, J., Verbeke, W., Mondelaers, K., & Van Huylenbroeck, G. (2009). Personal determinants of organic food consumption: a review. British Food Journal Vol. 111 No. 10 1140 1167. Arbindra, P. R., Moon, W., & Balasubramani an, S. (2005). Agro biotechnology and organic food purchase in the United Kingdom. British Food Journal Vol. 107 No 84 97. Austin, J., & Chase, R. (2003). 2002 Survey of certified organic agriculture in Florida. Gainesville, FL: Florida Certified Organic Growers and Consumers, Inc. Azurra, A., & Paola, P. (2009). Consumers' behaviours and attitudes toward healthy food products: The case of Organic and Functional foods 113th EAAE w orld. Chania, Crete, Greece. Bonti Ankomah, S., & Yiridoe, E. K. (2006). Organic and Conventional Food: A Literature Review of the Economics of Consumer Perceptions and Preferences. Organic Agriculture Centre of Canada. Bourn, D., & Prescott, J. (2002). A comparison of the nutritional value, sensory qualities and food safety of organically and conventionally produced foods. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 42(1) 1 34. Chen, M. (2009). Attitude toward organic foods among Taiwanese as related to health consciousness, environmental attitudes, and the mediating effects of a healthy lifestyle British Food Journal Vol. 111 No. 2 165 178. Conner, D. (2004). Consumer Preferences for Organic Standards: Does the Final Rule Reflect Them? Journal of Su stainable Agriculture, Vol. 23(3) 126 143. Dimitri, C., & Green, C. (2003). Recent growth patterns in the U.S. foods market. Retrieved from Agriculture Information Bulletin No. AIB777. United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Wa shington, D.C.: http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/AIB777/ Dimitri, C., & Oberholtzer, L. (2009, September). Marketing U.S. Organic Foods: Recet Trends from Farms to Consumers. Retrieved from Economic Information Bulletin No. 58. U.S. Dept. of Agricultur e, Economic Research Service: http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/eib58/eib58.pdf EuroMonitor. (2011). Retrieved 03 14, 2011, from http://www.euromonitor.com/ FAO. (2003). World Agriculture: Towards 2015/2030 An FAO Perspective. London: Edited by Bruinsma J., Earthscan Publications Ltd.

PAGE 122

122 Gil, J. M., Gracia, A., & Sanchez, M. (2002). Market segmentation and willingness to pay for organic products in Spain International Food and Agribusiness 207 226. Grankvist, G., & Biel, A. (2001). The importance of beli efs and purchase criteria in the choice of eco labelled food products Journal of Environmental Psychology 405 410. Grzelak, P. (2009). (Ocena ekonomiczno rynkowych efektw wsparcia finansowego rolnictwa ekologicznego w Polsce) Assessment of economic and market impact of the financial support of the organic farming in Poland. Warsaw: Univeristy of Life Sciences SGGW. Hill, H., & Lynchehaum, F. (2002). Organic milk: attitudes and consumption patterns. British Food Journal Vol. 104 No 7 526 542. Hodges, A., Rahmani, M., & Mulkey, D. (2008). Economic Contributions of Florida Agriculture, Natural Resources, Food and Kindred Product Manufacturing and Distribution, and Service Industries in 2006. Retrieved from Electronic Data Information Source (EDIS) FE 702 : http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pdffiles/FE/FE70200.pdf Hoefkens, C., Verbeke, W., Aertsens, J., Mondelaers, K., & Van Camp, J. (2009). The nutritional and toxicological value of organic vegetables: consumer perception versus scientific evidence British Food J ournal; Volume: 111 (10) Hughner, R. S., McDonagh, P., Prothero, A., Shultz II, C. J., & Stanton, J. (2007). Who are organic food consumers? A compilation and review of why people purchase organic food Journal of Consumer Behaviour March June 94 110. IF OAM. (2011). Retrieved 5 9, 2011, from IFOAM International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements: http://www.ifoam.org/growing_organic/definitions/doa/index.html Kihlberg, I., & Risvik, E. (2007). Consumers of organic foods value segments and lik ing of. Food Quality and Preference Vol. 18 No. 3 471 481. Lo, M., & Matthews, D. (2002). Results of routine testing of organic food for agrochemical. Retrieved 5 5, 2011, from http://orgprints.org/8268 Magkos, F., Arvaniti, F., & Zampelas, A. (2003). Org anic food: nutritious food or food for thought? A review of the evidence. International Journal of Food Sciences and Nutrition, Volume 54, Number 5, September 357 371. Magnusson, M. K., Arvola, A., Koivisto Hursti, U. K., Aberg, L., & Sjoden, P. O. (2001) Attitudes towards organic foods among Swedish consumers. British Food Journal Vol. 103 No. 3 209 226.

PAGE 123

123 Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development. (2011). Organic farming (Rolnictwo ekologiczne) Retrieved 05 02, 2011, from http://www.minrol.gov.pl/po l/Jakosc zywnosci/Rolnictwo ekologiczne/ Monaco, R., Cavella, S., Torrieri, E., & Masi, P. (2007). Consumer Acceptability of Vegetable Soups Journal of Sensory Studies 22 81 98. Naspetti, S., & Zanoli, R. (2006). Organic Food Quality & Safety Perception Throughout Europe. Chania, Crete, Greece. Nguyen, T., Wysocki, A., & Treadwell, D. (2008, September). Economic of the Organic Food Industry in Florida. Retrieved fr om EDIS document FE732, Food and Resource Economics Department, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciencesm University of Florida, Gainesville, FL: http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pdffiles/FE/FE73200.pdf O'Donovan, P., & Mc Carthy, M. (2002 ). Irish consumer preference for organic meat. British Food Journal Vol. 104 No. 3/4/5 353 370. Organic Trade Association. (2006). U.S. Organic Industry Overview,. Manufacturer Survey. Owusu, V., & Anifori Owusu, M. (2010). Meas uring Market Potential for Fresh Organic Fruit and Vegetable in Ghana. Joint 3rd African Association of Agricultural Economists (AAAE) and 48th Agricultural Economists Association of South Africa (AEASA) Conference. Padel, S., & Foster, C. (2005). Explorin g the gap between attitudes and behaviour Understanding why consumers buy or do not buy organic food. British Food Journal Vol. 107 No. 8 606 625. Parsons, W. (2002). Organic fruit and vegetable production: Is it for you? Vista on the Agri Food Industry a nd the Farm Community Pellegrini, G., & Farinello, F. (2009). Organic consumers and new lifestyles: An Italian country survey on consumption patterns British Food Journal Vol. 111 No. 9 948 974. Pinckaers, M., Benz, K., & Brans, H. (2010). EU 27 Organic Products Market Report. Global Agricultural Information Network, USDA Foreign Agricultural Service. PMR. (2010). Rynek Produktw Ekologicznych i Organicznych w Polsce Rynek z em. PMR Publications. Radman, M. (2005). Consumer consumption and perception of organic products in Croatia. British Food Journal Vol. 107 No. 4 263 273.

PAGE 124

124 Roitner Schobesberger, B., Darnhofer, I., Somsook, S., & Vogl, C. R. (2008). Consumer perceptions of organic foods in Bangkok, Thailand Food Policy 33 112 121. Sandalido u, W., & Baourakis, G. (2002). C ustomers' perspectives on the quality of organic olive oil in Greece A satisfaction evaluation approach British Food Journal Vol. 104 No. 3/4/5 391 406. Stobbelaar, D. J., Casimir, G., Borghuis, J., M arks, I., Meijer, L., & Zebeda, S. (2006). to 16 year old school children International Journal of Consumer Studies Szeremeta, A. (2006). Organic farming and market in Poland. Retrieved 03 11, 2011, from ENOAS Summer Meeting IV: http://www.enoas.org/pol05t/doc/Organic%20farming%20and%20market%20i n%20Poland.pdf Torjusen, H., Liebein, G., Wandel, M., & Francis, C. A. (12, 2001). Food system orientation and quality perception among consumers and pr oducers of organi food in Hedmark County, Norway. Food Quality and Preference Urena, F., Bernabeu, F., & Olmeda, M. (2008). Women, men and organic food: differences in their attitudes and willingness to pay. A Spanish case stud y. International Journal of Consumer Studies, Vol. 32 No. 1, 18 26. USDA NASS. (2008). Florida state agriculture overview 2007. Retrieved from United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics, Washington, D.C.: http://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/ Ag_Overview/AgOverview_FL.p df U.S. Department of Agriculture (2011). Retrieved 07 08, 2011, from The Economic Research Service, Organic Agriculture: Organic Market Overview: http://www.ers.usda.gov/briefing/organic/demand.htm United States Department of A griculture ( 2009). 2007 Census of Agriculture. National Agricultural Statistics Service. Vindigni, G., Janssen, M., & Jager, W. (2002). Organic food consumption: a multi theoretical framework of consumer decision making British Food Journal Vol. 104 No. 8 624 642. Wandel, M., Bugge, A., (1997). Environmental concern in consumer evaluation of food quality Food Quality and Preference, 19 26 Wier, M., & Calverley, C. (2002). Market potential for organic foods in Europe. British Food Journal Vol. 104 No. 1 45 62.

PAGE 125

125 Williams, C. M. (2002 ). Nutritional quality of organic food: shades of grey or shades of green? Proceedings of the Nutrition Society (61) 19 24. Yue, C., Grebitus, C., Bruhn, M., & Jensen, H. H. (n.d.). Potato Marketing Factors Affecting Organ ic and Conventional Potato Consumption Patterns 12th Congress of the European Association of Agricultural Economists EAAE 2008. Zhao, X., Chambers, E. I., Matta, Z., Loughin, T. M., & Carey, E. E. (2007). Consumer Sensory Analysis of Organically Journ al of Food Science Vol. 72, Nr. 2 87. Biemans, S. (2011). Polish consumer food choices and beliefs about organic food. British Food Journal Vol. 113 No. 1, 122 137.

PAGE 126

126 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Pawel Grzelak was born in 1985 in Rybnik, Poland. He r eceived hi degree in e conomics from Warsaw University of Life Sciences in December of 2009. Then he entered another i nternationa rogram, ATLANTIS. H e pursued the joint academic degree of Inte rnational Master of Science in rural d evelopment, awa rded by the IMRD consortium consisting of the following partner universities: Ghent University (Belgium), Agrocampus Ouest (France), Humboldt University of Berlin (Germany), Slovak University of Agriculture in Nitra (Slovakia), University of Pisa (Italy), Wageningen University (Th e Netherlands), and the MSc in food and resource e conomics issued by the University of Florida (USA)