A taste for locally produced food - Values, opinions and sociodemographic differences among ‘organic’ and ‘conventional’ consumers

Journal Pre-proof A taste for locally produced food - Values, opinions and sociodemographic differences among ‘organic’ and ‘conventional’ consumers Kia Ditlevsen, Sigrid Denver, Tove Christensen, Jesper Lassen PII:

S0195-6663(19)30027-3

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2019.104544

Reference:

APPET 104544

To appear in:

Appetite

Received Date: 9 January 2019 Revised Date:

18 October 2019

Accepted Date: 27 November 2019

Please cite this article as: Ditlevsen K., Denver S., Christensen T. & Lassen J., A taste for locally produced food - Values, opinions and sociodemographic differences among ‘organic’ and ‘conventional’ consumers, Appetite (2019), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2019.104544. This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain. © 2019 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Title: A taste for locally produced food - values, opinions and sociodemographic differences among ‘organic’ and ‘conventional’ consumers Authors: Kia Ditlevsen*, Sigrid Denver*, Tove Christensen* & Jesper Lassen* *Department of Food and Resource Economics University of Copenhagen Rolighedsvej 25, DK-1958 Frederiksberg C Corresponding author: Kia Ditlevsen e-mail: [email protected]

Abstract Local food has received considerable attention in recent years. It is seen as a response to increased demand for authentic foods, just as organic foods have been considered to be. It is unclear whether organic and local are two complementary or competitive trends in food consumption. This study addresses this question with a mixed methods investigation of why Danish consumers of organic products and conventional consumers of local products choose locally produced food, what values and opinions they associate with local food, and whether there are sociodemographic differences between the groups. The results show that the same values and opinions tended to motivate organic consumers and a group of committed conventional consumers of local foods. However, organic consumers were much more likely to include environmental issues in their deliberations. Another group of local-food consumers did not seem to be motivated by values and opinions when purchasing locally produced foods. Some sociodemographic differences between the groups were found: organic consumers were more likely to live in the capital than committed local consumers; to have a lengthy education than consumers of local foods; and committed local-food consumers were more likely than organic consumers to have a vocational education. The article concludes that while it is to some extent the same preference for authentic food that motivates organic and committed conventional local-food consumers to buy locally produced foods, it is at the same time different types of consumers who prefer (conventional) local food and organic food.

Keywords: Local food; Organic food; Food consumption; Ethical consumption; Mixed methods; Denmark

A taste for locally produced food - values, opinions and sociodemographic differences among ‘organic’ and ‘conventional’ consumers

Introduction 5

Locally produced foods have received growing attention in recent decades, both in research and in food politics (DuPuis and Goodman 2005; Eriksen 2013; Sundbo 2013; Winter 2003) as well as among consumers (Denver & Jensen, 2014; Adams & Salois, 2010; Feldmann and Hamm, 2015). Studies have demonstrated that consumer perceptions of what makes a food product local vary (Hempel & Hamm, 2016a; Jensen et al., 2019). Some people understand

10

localness in a combination of geographical and regional terms, and think of local food as produce from their home regions or countries. Others have a stricter distance-based understanding in which local food must have travelled no more than a short distance from the point of origin. Yet others have a relational understanding, seeing local food as food distributed and marketed directly by the producers. A review of consumer preference and

15

perceptions of local food indicates that the preference for local foods, apart from being associated with sensory qualities, is also linked with increased trustworthiness and factors like environmental friendliness, support for local rural communities and local producers, and increased food safety (Feldmann & Hamm, 2015). In sum, localness can be connected with qualities closely connected to the materiality of the product (including sensory aspects as well

20

as health and safety); and to a number of immaterial qualities that cannot be inferred from the product itself, but are closely related to its history and how it was produced. In this paper, we will address two dimensions of this immaterial dimension: Authenticity and Ethical acceptability. Interest in local foods has been interpreted as a desire for an alternative food system and a

25

reaction to the lost authenticity of food products in general (Johnston and Baumann 2014; Thurnell-Read 2019). The quest for authenticity is seen as a reaction to the development of today’s mainstream, conventional food systems – systems that are globalized, specialized, concentrated and which produce standardized, uniform products. Authentic food can be defined as genuine or original food (Ekelund, 2015). An earlier study of people with a special

30

interest in food found that consumers understand authenticity as: geographical specificity, which includes aspects such as the fact that the food is consumed, prepared or produced at a specific place; the simplicity of the product or the processes behind the product; the presence of a personal connection with a specific person engaged in the production or distribution of the product; history and tradition, where the authenticity is connected with the cultural

35

traditions exhibited by the food; and finally ethnic connection, referring to foods associated with a specific ethnic group (Johnston and Baumann 2014). Ethical acceptability is defined by environmental issues as well as by social and societal consequences of food production in the shape of local jobs, working conditions and rural development or the cultural imprint of the production process (e.g. effects on local cultural

40

heritage, practices or food culture). Like authenticity these ethical qualities relate to externalities of the food, not the food item itself. Such externalities have been shown to be important for those whose consumption is motivated by moral considerations (Grauel, 2016), and can be seen as means through which to push political agendas (Halkier & Holm, 2008). We know from earlier studies that organic consumers are likely to consider ethical

45

dimensions of their food consumption (along with other qualities) (Zander et al., 2013; Hjelmar, 2011). Interestingly, the very organic food system, that were in many ways seen as a solution to the problem of inauthenticity afflicting conventional food systems (Torjusen et al., 2004), is increasingly being diagnosed with similar problems of lost authenticity as a result of the

50

structural development of it. Denmark, one of the countries in the world with the highest per capita consumption of organic products (Willer & Lernoud, 2017), illustrates this development: Today Danish organic food products are widely available and sold in both discount supermarkets and up-market shops. Similarly, Danish production of organic food typically takes place in large-scale production units with farm sizes comparable to those of

55

conventional farms (Thorsøe & Noe, 2015; Denver & Jensen, 2014; Wier et al., 2008). In a study of local and organic consumers in Germany, Hasselbach and Roosen (2015) noted that in such a developed organic food market the organic food industry resembles its conventional counterpart in terms of industrialized, large-scale production and mainstream distribution through supermarkets. As a result, consumers do not necessarily consider organic food as

60

‘authentic’. Other commentators, too, have argued that the association between organic foods

and features like small-scale production, high animal-welfare, sustainability, alternative modes of production and short distribution chains is increasingly being undermined. Thus, studies have suggested that increased demand for local foods can be seen as a response to the corporate co-optation of organic food markets (Adams & Salois, 2010). Similarly, Zander et al. 65

(2013) argue that consumers preoccupied by the ethical production of food are not satisfied by the benefits offered by organic products, and are inclined to demand fair-trade or locally produced products in addition. Research has confirmed that there is some overlap between the group of consumers who prefer locally produced food and the group who prefer organically produced food products

70

(Hempel & Hamm, 2016a; Constanigro et al., 2014). It remains unclear, however, whether organic and local are complementary or competitive trends (Hempel & Hamm, 2016a; Gracia et al. 2014). Studies from Denmark and Germany have found that consumers who consider organic products to be beneficial are also more likely than average (taking the population as a whole) to prefer locally produced foods, but that consumers who prefer locally produced

75

foods do not tend to prefer organic foods (Hempel & Hamm, 2016b; Denver & Jensen, 2014). These findings suggest that there are at least two types of consumer of locally produced foods: those who also prefer organic and those who do not. In contrast, other studies have found that similar food preferences lead consumers to purchase organic food and locally produced foods (Hasselbach & Roosen, 2015; Zander et al., 2013; Adams & Salois, 2010).

80

As this brief overview of research into recent trends in the consumer’s preference for local foods shows, recent developments have been explained primarily in terms of changes in the food system, and with reference to the importance of opinions and values. Investigation of the role of underlying social structures is often absent from existing studies, and it is arguable that as a consequence the influence of values and opinions on consumption has been

85

overestimated. Sociologists of food generally recognize that elements of social structure like class position and socio-demographic status influence food preferences. In the sociological perspective, it is assumed that food choices will reflect financial limitations to free choice between consumer goods, as well as specific lifestyles and class-differentiated tastes (Bauman, 2013; Bourdieu, 2004; Warde, 1997, 2011). In his seminal work on class, taste and

90

eating habits (1984/2004), Bourdieu describes how social class position is expressed through pre-reflexive dispositions, which manifest themselves in distinctive class-specific habits,

tastes, manners and lifestyles. Tastes do not simply differ, according to Bourdieu (2004:6): taste classifies, and it classifies the classifier. This means that subjects distinguish themselves through their taste and consumption choices, and through their judgements of taste and their 95

distinctions between good and bad, ‘distinguished and vulgar’. Empirically, this assumption has been supported by studies showing that, as well as being linked with values and opinions about food, organic consumption is associated with high levels of education, being female, living in cities, and to a smaller extent high income (Annunziata, Agovino & Mariani, 2019; Stamer, 2018; Statistics Denmark, 2016). However, less appears to be known about the

100

influence of socio-demographic factors on the consumption of local foods, although a few studies address shopping at local markets as a class-differentiated and class-differentiating preference that is most likely to be found in middle class populations (Paddock, 2016, 2015; Schrank & Running, 2016). The inclusion of structural and social factors in studies of food preferences, we will argue,

105

helps to produce a better understanding of the consumers’ tastes for local products and how this relates to tastes for organic products. With a mixed methods design, this study aims to improve the current understanding of the role of such social structures, as well as values and opinions, as factors explaining organic and local consumption. Our point of departure is the general question: Why do people buy locally produced food? More specifically, we will present

110

a qualitative exploration of the values and opinions of two distinct groups of Danish consumers: those who prefer organic food products (organic consumers) and those who prefer locally produced food products but do not buy organic foods (local-food consumers). Then, we will investigate the values and opinions quantitatively at the national level in Denmark, as well as sociodemographic differences between the groups.

115

The specific research questions guiding the study are: 1) What values and opinions are associated with the consumption of locally produced food by organic consumers and by local-food consumers? 2) Do local-food consumers and organic consumers have shared values and opinions and the same socio-economic characteristics?

120

Materials and methods The study investigates differences and similarities between organic consumers and consumers of local, conventional foods using a mixed methods design in which qualitative focus groups and a quantitative survey are combined. The focus groups were conducted in the 125

first phase of the investigation with the aim of exploring the consumption of local food from the perspective of the consumers themselves, and to examine the interlinkages between values, opinions and food consumption in negotiations between participants (Halkier, 2016). With the knowledge created in the focus groups we were able to answer the first research question.

130

The data were collected as parts of two larger research projects, one on organic consumption and health (OrgHealth, 2018) and the other on local food (LOCO, 2018) both projects sharing a quantitative survey and a qualitative focus group study. The quantitative survey conducted in the second phase of the investigation was informed by the findings obtained in the qualitative phase of the research project. Its purpose was to enrich our understanding of

135

motivations for purchasing locally produced foods among a representative sample of the Danish population. The survey was used to investigate how widely the values and opinions found in focus groups are shared in the population as a whole, and to examine sociodemographic patterns and differences in opinions and values among consumers, and thereby to answer the second research question.

140

The explorative approach taken in the focus groups enabled us to understand the field from the perspective of the consumers themselves, and to give voice to deeper and more complex descriptions and sense-making than is possible with quantitative methods (Halkier, 2016). Further, the qualitative investigation informed the design of the survey. The survey, on the other hand, enabled us to test the distribution of perspectives voiced in the focus groups. It

145

also gave voice to minority perspectives, which are often silenced in focus group discussions (Halkier, 2016). Qualitative focus groups Eight focus groups were conducted in the fall 2016. In total 52 adults participated (23 male, 29 female). The average age was 51 years; the youngest and oldest participants were 27 and

150

65 years old.

Table 1. Focus groups Focus group Degree of

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Capital

Capital

City X

Rural area

City

Rural area

City and

Rural area

rural area

urbanization Zealand

Zealand

Funen

Funen

Jutland

Jutland

Jutland

Jutland

48

49

43

52

48

52

50

48

participants

[36-57]

[27-58]

[27-64]

[45-62]

[35-56]

[38-65]

[41-65]

[35-61]

Educational

None: 1

None: 1

Short: 1

None: 1

None: 1

Vocational:

Vocational:

Vocational:

Medium: 3

Vocational:

Medium: 4

Vocational:

Vocational:

1

2

3

Long: 1

2

Long: 2

2

2

Short: 1

Short: 1

Medium: 2

Medium:2

Short: 1

Short: 1

Medium: 3

Medium: 3

Long: 1

Long: 1

Medium: 3

Medium: 2

Long: 2

Long: 1

Region Average age of

level*

Stud: 1 Gender

Participants

2 male

4 male

3 male

3 male

2 male

3 male

4 male

2 male

3 female

3 female

4 female

4 female

4 female

4 female

3 female

4 female

3

2

2

3

2

3

0

0

1

3

3

2

2

2

0

0

1

2

2

2

2

2

0

0

classified as organic – convinced Participants classified as organic – involved Participants classified as organic – pragmatic

155

*No tertiary training = ’None’; Vocational training/education = ’Vocational’; short-cycle higher education = ’Short’; Medium cycle higher education = ’Medium’; Long-cycle higher education = ’Long’; Student = ‘stud’.

Participants Each focus group consisted of five to seven participants (see Table 1). The participants were recruited by a professional bureau through an internet panel, and each received USD 55–85 as 160

a token of gratitude for their participation. The criteria for participation was a preference for organic food (groups 1–6), or a preference for locally produced foods, but not for organic food

products (groups 7 and 8). Participants were sampled to ensure there was variation in education, age, gender, and degree of urbanization. These are factors known to affect consumer preferences for organic food products (Lund, Andersen & Jensen, 2012; Wier et al., 165

2008). In a further effort to build in variation of consumer types, the participants in groups 16 were sampled according to three contrasting consumer profiles found among organic consumers in Denmark in an earlier study (Lund, Andersen & Jensen, 2012): the convinced consumer (‘organic’ is the most important attribute); the involved consumer (‘taste’ is the most important attribute); and the pragmatic consumer (‘price’ and ‘availability’ is most

170

important). The three profiles were represented in all six of the focus groups with organic consumers in order to ensure that a range of perspectives were heard. The participants’ agreement to take part in the focus groups was based on fully informed consent and all participants are anonymized in the following. Focus groups and discussion guide

175

All focus groups were moderated by the first author and lasted two hours. They were structured using a discussion guide consisting of a combination of tasks, open-ended group questions initiating the sessions, individual questions for each participant, and follow-up questions for the group. Two different discussion guides were developed for organic and local-food consumers, respectively. Beginning with individual preferences, the discussion

180

guide led participants to discuss motives behind their consumption, and as a group to prioritize (negotiate) the relative importance of different motives. Participants were also prompted to talk about situations in which they had to choose between food attributes (e.g. between organic imported, or Danish apples). This led them to negotiate the relative importance of different factors, and to elaborate on their ideas of good food and thus express

185

underlying values that are important when they purchase food. Analytic approach The focus group discussions were recorded and transcribed verbatim, and the material was then thematically coded in NVivo 10. The coding was done by condensing longer extracts from the transcript under thematic headlines such as ‘purchase of local products’, ‘trust in local

190

products’ and ‘perceptions of industrial agriculture’ (Halkier, 2016). The analytical process included a qualitative analysis of what participants said, but also a categorization and

conceptualization in which the codes were connected with each other, and the context they occurred in, in the focus group discussion (Halkier, 2016). Graphic displays were used to obtain an overview of the different rankings and priorities expressed in the groups as well as 195

participants’ individual motivations for preferring local/organic foods. For example, all focus groups’ collective rankings of reasons for purchasing local foods were listed in a display. So were the groups’ rankings of preferred food qualities in general, and each participant’s individual motivation for purchasing local food, as declared before the negotiation of the collaborative ranking. This made comparisons accessible.

200

As a first step of the analysis, the first author coded the focus group transcripts. The fourth author then reviewed the codes and interpretations of specific extracts from the group discussion in order to validate the reading of the empirical material. Throughout the analytical phase, the first and fourth author discussed the analysis. Quantitative survey

205

The quantitative study was based on an online consumer survey conducted in Userneeds’ web panel. The survey sample was part of a Danish panel with 80,000 members who had been recruited from more than 250 private and public websites. All of the Userneeds panel members were invited personally to participate in the panel and were rewarded, when participating in surveys, with points that can be exchanged for lottery tickets or gift cards, or can be used to donate money to charities

210

(Dinesen, 2017). The survey addressed perceptions and stated purchase habits with respect to local food and organic food. Prior to the survey, a pilot study involving 100 panel members was used to test the questionnaire. The pilot led to adjustments in how the questions were formulated and reduced the number of questions. The main survey was carried out in August 2017. The aim was to obtain a representative sample for the Danish population in respect of

215

gender, region, age and education. In order to achieve this, the survey was distributed unevenly to different groups of Danes such that more consumers were invited from groups with low response rates. Rather than using frequent re-invitations to obtain the desired number of respondents, the panel members were only approached twice and in case of insufficient responses from a given group of respondendts, additional members from that

220

group were invited to participate. The response rate was 14.7% and 1,515 respondents participated. It took on average 11 minutes and 30 seconds to complete the questionnaire.

To address the research questions, we needed to identify consumer segments that differed in their preferences for organic and local food. The segmentation was designed to match the recruitment procedure to the focus groups as closely as possible. Figure 1 (below) provides an 225

overview of the three-step procedure used for segmentation. The first step was to categorize consumers according to their preferences for buying organic food using the question Is organic production an important feature or not when you are deciding which food you want to buy? (rated: Very important/Important/Slightly important/Not important). The consumers were divided into three categories: A segment

230

labelled “Organic consumers” consisting of respondents who stated that organic production was a very important feature when choosing their daily commodities (8.5% of respondents), a segment of “Non-organic consumers” stating that organic food was not important for them when choosing their daily commodities (36%) and a segment denoted “Others” with respondents stating that organic was an important or slightly important feature when

235

choosing their daily commodities (55.5%). The second step was to identify segments of local-food consumers among the “Non-organic consumers”. Self-reported purchase habits with respect to local food were established by the question How often do you and your household buy food from the following categories, which you in some way consider to be local? Fruit/Vegetables/Processed fruit/Eggs/Processed

240

meat/Meat? (rated: almost every time/Often/ Occasionally/Rarely/Never). Respondents who stated that they bought local food from at least two of the categories almost every time were identified as “Local non-organic consumers” (5% of respondents). During the analytical work with the data, it became clear that the individuals in this rather small group of local-food consumers differed in how they ascribed benefits to local foods. As a

245

result, the group of local-food consumers was divided into two sub-groups. The following question was used: How much do you agree with the following statements about local food products?

250

•

Local products taste better than other products

•

Local products are fresher than other products

•

Local foods are safer to eat than other foods

•

Local food is healthier than other foods

•

Animals used in production of local food have better animal welfare than they do in other forms of food production

•

Local food production pollutes the local environment less than other forms of food production

255 •

Local food production has lower climate impact than other foods

•

I have more trust in local food producers than other food producers

•

When I buy local foods, I help secure local jobs

(Rated: totally agree/partially agree/neither agree nor disagree/ partially disagree/fully 260

disagree/don’t know). Respondents who declared either that they totally agreed or partially agreed with at least two statements were categorized as “Committed local-food consumers”, while those who were enthusiastic about one aspect of local food at most were categorized as “Indifferent local-food consumers”. Of the total of 1515 respondents participating in the survey, it is important to

265

appreciate that the respondents analyzed in the quantitative survey were limited to the 206 respondents belonging to the three ‘extreme’ groups representing just 14% of the entire sample – see table 2. For the purposes of the study, the remaining 86% were characterized as ‘others’ because they did not express strong preferences for either organic or local food or they expressed moderate preferences for organically produced food (and this last group of

270

consumers could include consumers who preferred locally produced food). In order to mimic the segments of consumers that participated in the focus groups as closely as possible, the quantitative analysis only involved the 14% of the sample.

Figure 1: overview of the segmentation of respondents in the quantitative survey

275

Table 2 provides an overview of the segmentation of consumers in the survey: 280

Table 2: Number of respondents in the segments Segment

Number (Share of respondents)

Organic Consumer

130 (8.5%)

Committed local-food consumers

41 (2.7%)

Indifferent local-food consumers

35 (2.3%)

Others

1309 (86.4%)

Note: Survey with 1515 respondents

The survey sample is representative for the Danish population regarding age, gender and geopgraphical distribution (see Table 3). Regarding education, the sample includes relatively 285

more consumers with the highest level of education being upper secondary school and relatively fewer consumers with a vocational training and education than the Danish population as a whole. Differences between the three analyzed segments are reported in the Results section.

Table 3: Characteristics of survey sample and consumer segments included in the analysis

Organic consumers

Committed localfood consumers

Indifferent localfood consumers

Sample

Population 2017

34 25 42

24 32 44

29 23 49

30 29 41

32 29 39

38

17

11

31

35

18

10

11

16

34

Vocational education and training

19

44

31

29

10

Primary and lower secondary school

22

27

43

22

21

42 14

20 20

37 14

31 15

32 14

15

29

20

21

21

22 8

22 10

14 14

23 11

23 10

55 45

59 41

49 51

50 50

50 50

Age group (%) 18-39 39-49 50-70 Education (%) 1 Higher education Upper secondary school

Region (%) Copenhagen Zealand Southern Denmark Central Jutland North Jutland Gender (%) Female Male

290

Sources. Own calculation based on the survey with 1515 consumers and Statistics Denmark (2018). 1 The numbers relating to education do not sum to 100% as some respondent reported ‘Other/Don’t know’. The category “Upper secondary school” refers to high school level or similar.

Statistical analyses were conducted to test for differences between the segments included in 295

the analysis with respect to perceptions of local products and of food in general. As the segments only included relatively few respondents, we used Fisher’s exact test and tested two segments at the time (McDonald 2014). The hypothesis of identical perceptions was tested against the alternative hypothesis of differences in perceptions in a two-sided test. A similar framework was used to test for differences in socio-demographic characteristics between the

300

segments. Segments were considered different if they differed at least at 0.05-level.

Results Focus groups: Values and opinions associated with consumption of locally produced food Participants in the focus groups were asked to consider their own consumption of locally 305

produced foods as well as characteristics they associated with local food. As in the literature, the term ‘local’ was used in different ways (see also results reported in Jensen et al., 2019). Still, there existed a general consensus among groups and participants that ‘local’ meant produced ‘in Denmark’, or produced ‘nearby the consumer’. These understandings, which were not seen as mutually exclusive, but rather as signaling different degrees of localness,

310

were used interchangeably in the discussions. Participants in the discussions also used the term ‘local’ as a proxy for small-scale production and production by manufacturers dedicated to food quality and craft products.

Consumers of organic foods 315

The localness of food production was not discussed much in the organic consumer focus groups. It rarely came up in discussions of food consumption or preferences. When prompted to talk about localness, participants did not dwell long on it, and the discussions soon led in another direction. The organic consumers were not indifferent to local production, but that aspect of production seemed to be just one among many factors they considered in making

320

food purchases. One reason for this could be related to the sampling criteria. Obviously, the members of the organic focus groups were recruited on the basis of their preference for organic production and their interest in talking about this subject. Many organic consumers prefer organic produce because they think it is safer and healthier to eat than conventionally produced foods, and because they take it to be pure, i.e. free from

325

pesticides, drug residues and artificial additives (see results reported in Ditlevsen et al., 2019). The participating organic consumers express a high degree of trust in organic food production and less trust in conventional food production, as can be seen in this extract from a discussion about the choice of apples: M: I would choose organic.

330

L: Me too. They taste better than the sour Danish apples… M: I agree that Danish apples are sour as hell, but the main reason is that I do not trust Danish farmers. Interviewer: You don’t trust Danish farmers? M: Well, I mean… there are too many scandals. I buy organic apples because they are free from

335

pesticides and such, and there is no guarantee that Danish apples are.

Here, M explains his preference for organic apples by referring to his strong distrust in conventional agriculture – a rationale that is quite typical for many of the organic consumers (even though many preferred Danish apples for the taste). Danish apples may be local, but as long as they are conventionally produced M’s demand for pure, trustworthy food is, in his 340

view, not met. Despite the organic participants’ lack of focus on locally produced food, they do link the attributes ‘local’ and ‘locally produced’ with a series of qualities which many of the participants in general value and consider important: environment-friendly production; diversity of products; purity; small-scale production; short chains of distribution; good taste;

345

engaged manufacturers; support for local agriculture/businesses. In the focus group exchange below, the participants link the fact that fruit is locally produced (here: produced in Denmark) to their opinions about food-miles and environment-friendly consumption: N: Danish fruit is the least sprayed in the EU. It is not that it is entirely free from pesticides, but

350

we spray the least. That alone is a reason to buy Danish fruit. […] J: It’s also the environment for me. I think it is COMPLETELY insane to spend all that energy on transportation to Denmark when we can produce it ourselves.

In the exchange, N refers to a perception many of the participants shared: Danish fruit is less sprayed and hence purer than fruit produced in other countries. According to the participants, 355

this increases the health value of the fruit and makes it a more environment-friendly choice as well. J elaborates the environmental benefits of local food production, voicing a strong opinion about the transportation of food, which he thinks can be reduced if consumers buy local rather than imported products.

There was also a perception that local production and the reduced need to transport foods are 360

associated with improved food quality. Here, K explains: K: I don’t believe that organic tastes better. But I do have a clear feeling that there are manufacturers who produce better products. And it has an enormous impact, how far the product has to travel from the producer to the shop, right? We live three kilometers from a very good farm shop. And when you buy a zucchini, it is harvested the same morning, right? That matters

365

for the taste of it.

In this extract, K links distance between consumer and producer to freshness and hence taste. He also touches on the importance of manufacturers producing food of good quality. Consumers of local, conventional foods In contrast with the organic consumers, the participating consumers of local, conventional 370

foods were seriously engaged with local food issues and talked in detail and with enthusiasm about different local products and manufacturers in the discussions of food preferences. This is no surprise as they were recruited based on their preference for locally produced foods. These participants express a low level of trust in organic production, which most of them perceive to be a factor without much impact, merely making food products costlier (one

375

participant, who wanted to buy organic food, but could not afford it, was the exception to the rule). Further, most express distrust in foreign food production, and most place great trust in Danish food production and agriculture. Many believe that the ‘Made in Denmark’ label guarantees food quality and food safety, but also proper working conditions for employees in the food and agricultural sector and other externalities. For example, one of the focus groups

380

constructed the following sequence as part of an exercise with pre-printed cards: Produced in Denmark – animal-friendly production – produced under proper salary- and working conditions

The claim being made here, is that when food is produced in Denmark, the production is animal-friendly and one can trust that those employed in the production process have good 385

pay and working conditions. The consumers of local, conventional foods also link locally produced food products to a series of positively assessed qualities which they value and consider important: diversity;

purity; small-scale production; craft products; short chains of distribution; taste; engaged manufacturers; and support for local agriculture/businesses. 390

Like the organic participants, members of the local, conventional foods focus groups emphasized the freshness and taste of locally produced foods, as can be seen in the extract below, where J also links this to the purity of local produce:

395

J: I think it is important to support the local shops and manufactures, so the town keeps being alive. But also to preserve the opportunity to find food that is something special, something you can’t buy in all supermarkets… C: And the freshness! J: I agree, the taste of supermarket fruits is bad. It’s almost as if it’s rotten from the inside out, it seems to be very processed. B: No! It is not true, it will not rot. I have had an apple in my refrigerator for over a year...

400

[Laughter] L: Is that your own little biological experiment? B: It’s my own biological experiment. The apple is almost as pretty as when I brought it.

In this conversation many aspects of local production are referred to besides freshness and taste. First, J also points out that purchasing local products has beneficial externalities such as 405

economic support for the local area. Second, J links local shops and manufacturers to a diverse supply of food products, which he finds important and valuable. Third, this diversity is contrasted with what is sold in mainstream supermarkets. And fourth, supermarket products are described as less tasty, fresh and pure than local products by J, C and B. The praising of locally produced foods, with all their good qualities, is thus linked to a critical attitude to

410

industrial food production and mainstream, large-scale distribution systems. Adding to the notion of better taste and greater diversity in locally supplied foods, some members of the focus groups also highlighted the special connection between local food products and specific localities. Thus, some find local products to have a special flavor originating from the regional area where the food was produced (terroir).

415

Local food production is often associated with small-scale, craft production in the focus groups. This seemed to be part of the local foods’ attraction for some participants. In the remarks below, N stresses the ‘soul’ of local products: Moderator: N, you mentioned that local products had more soul. Can you elaborate on that?

N: Well, I think it is because you look the person who has produced the food in the eyes. And they

420

are really passionate about it.

Here, the local, small-scale craft production is taken as a sign of engaged manufacturers who care about the food they are producing and can be trusted – which, according to N, makes for better food quality as well as something undefined (‘soul’). The aspect of environment-friendliness is absent from discussions of food preferences and 425

local foods in the two focus groups with conventional consumers of local produce. Even when they were prompted to talk about the issue by the moderator, the participants had little to say. Consider the following exchange, where pre-printed cards listing different food qualities had brought up the subject: L: I have a problem with the ‘environment and climate’ [referring to pre-printed card] … I can’t

430

really see the idea… I do not AT ALL consider environment and climate concerns when I am grocery shopping. Do you? E: No, I definitely want to rank ‘taste’ higher. I: Well, I don’t consider it. Because I am married to a Danish farmer!

The environment and climate are being rejected by L as relevant aspects to consider when 435

purchasing foods. L is supported by E and I without any discussion, and the conversation then moves on to other aspects. It is true that in the other local, conventional focus group, one participant – the one noted earlier who would have preferred to buy organic foods – do consider environmental issues and sustainability to be important. She contrasts her stance with the other participants’ indifference on the subject. However, she did not think that these

440

concerns are related to her preference for local food, as her comments below show: J: As you said, you cannot save the world. Personally, I am, if not completely indifferent then very close to indifferent, whether the food is wrapped in layers of plastic or whatever… N: To me, the environment and climate concerns are important when I buy food… but when I buy local food it is not something I think of.

445

So, in contrast with the members of the organic food focus groups, the members of the two focus groups representing a preference for locally produced conventional foods do not value environment-friendly food production and consumption: concerns about the environment had no impact on their preference for locally produced foods.

450

Qualities linked to local foods Both organic consumers and local-food consumers associated locally produced foods with a series of positive material and immaterial qualities, which they perceived as aspects that met their requirements with regard to food quality as well as their general values and opinions on food and food production. Some of these qualities concern the material product (taste,

455

diversity of taste and purity). The rest relate to immaterial aspects related to production. The wish to support the local area and environment-friendly production is motivated by moral (or political) considerations and is thus defined here as ethical considerations (Grauel, 2016). We will argue, that the remaining qualities concern the authenticity of foods, and that they are in keeping with earlier findings on aspects of authenticity: Short chains of distribution and

460

small-scale production are related to a quest for simplicity in the processes or the food system behind the product; Engaged manufacturers can deliver a personal connection with a specific person engaged in the production or distribution of the product; Craft production is associated with History and tradition; and the Diversity of products connects with History and tradition as well as geographical specificity (Johnston and Baumann 2014).

465

Table 4, below, display the qualities linked to local foods by consumers of local, conventional foods and by organic consumers in the focus groups. Table 4. Qualities linked to local food

Materiality

Authenticity

Consumers of local, conventional foods

Organic consumers

Taste

Taste

Diversity of products (different tastes and

Diversity of products (different tastes and textures

textures available)

available)

Purity (products being free from artificial

Purity (products being free from artificial

additives/pesticides/drug residues)

additives/pesticides/drug residues)

Short chains of distribution

Short chains of distribution

Small-scale production

Small-scale production

Engaged manufacturers

Engaged manufacturers

Craft production

Ethical acceptability

Diversity of products (preservation of

Diversity of products (preservation of culture and

culture and regional characteristics)

regional characteristics)

Support for local agriculture/businesses

Support for local agriculture/businesses Environment-friendly production

Both the local-food consumers and the organic consumers were guided in their purchasing 470

decisions by considerations on a) Material qualities; b) Authenticity; and c) Ethical acceptability. However, local-food consumers, but not organic consumers, linked local products with craft production. And organic, but not local-food consumers linked local production with environmental-friendly food production.

475

Survey: Distribution of values and opinions in the Danish population Above, we identified a range of qualities associated with locally produced foods by the participants in the qualitative study. In the second part of the study, using quantitative survey results we investigated the extent to which these qualities can be found in a representative part of the Danish population, and whether the opinions and values expressed are related to

480

stated purchases of local food.

First of all, we find that the purchases of local products clearly varied across the organic and local-food consumer segments, but also that purchases of local food were quite similar in the two local segments (Committed local-food consumers and Indifferent local-food consumers). 485

As can be seen in Table 5, the segment of Organic consumers are in general less likely to consume local foods than the segments of local-food consumers. That the two segments of local-food consumers report high purchase frequencies of local foods comes as no surprise as this was a criterion used to categorize consumers as local – but the substantial difference in purchases of local foods between the two local segments and the organic segment is still an

490

interesting result. This is in line with the indications that emerged from the focus groups that local production is just one among many motivations for organic consumers’ food purchases, and that ‘organic’ is a more important attribute.

495

Table 5: Self-reported consumption of local fruit, vegetables, processed fruit, eggs, processed meat and meat. Showing the share of respondents who state that they buy the local alternative almost every time. Organic consumers

Committed local-food consumers

Indifferent local-food consumers

Fruit

17.7 %

43.9 %

45.7 %

Vegetables

25.4 %

53.7 %

65.7 %

Processed fruit

10.8 %

26.8 %

14.3 %

Eggs

29.2 %

48.8 %

51.4 %

Processed meat

6.2 %

43.9 %

45.7 %

Meat

16.2 %

70.7 %

57.1 %

Note: Survey with 1515 respondents; only results for Organic consumers (130), Committed local-food consumers (41) and indifferent local-food consumer (35) are shown.

When looking at which qualities are linked to locally produced foods, we find a notable 500

similarity between Committed local-food consumers and Organic consumers. These groups have a very similar profile in their perceptions of which benefits they associate with locally produced goods (Figure 2). There are no statistically significant differences between the values the two groups associate with local foods. However, this may be due to the small sample sizes.1

505

Indifferent local-food consumers often purchase local foods, but they do not seem to link those foods with the qualities listed in the study (with the exception of 3% who totally agree with the statement that local products have a lower climate impact than non-local products). This last group of consumers thus seems to have been absent in the qualitative study, where local-foods consumers linked a range of qualities to the food.

510

Figure 2: Share of respondents who totally agree with statements about local products

50 45 40 35 30 % 25 20 15 10 5 0

Organic consumers

Commited local consumers

Indifferent local consumers Note:

Survey with 1515 respondents; only results for Organic consumers (130), Committed local-food consumers (41) and Indifferent local-food consumers (35) are shown. Differences between the groups were tested pairwise using Fisher’s exact test. The differences between Organic consumers and Committed local-food consumers are not significant at

515

0.05-level. Significantly more Organic consumers than Indifferent local-food consumers ‘totally agree’ with the following statements about local food: better taste (p-value=0.0045), fresher (p-value<.0001), healthier (pvalue=0.0247), better animal welfare (p-value=0.0082), less local pollution (p-value=0.0007), lower climate impact (p-value=0.0002), trustworthy producers (p-value=0.0004), create local jobs (p-value<.0001). Significantly more Committed local-food consumers than Indifferent local-food consumers ‘totally agree’ with the

520

following statements about local food: better taste (p-value=0.0134), fresher (p-value=0.0030), better animal welfare (p-value=0.0280), less local pollution (p-value=0.0063), lower climate impact (p-value=0.0172), trustworthy producers (p-value=0.0014), create local jobs (p-value<.0001).

Differences between the three groups 525

Both Organic consumers and Committed local-food consumers are likely to ascribe positive values to local food (Figure 2). However, the survey results revealed a group of local-food consumers who seemed to be rather indifferent towards material and immaterial food qualities, but who still bought local food. In this respect, those results only partly support the findings from the focus groups, in which all participants expressed a preference for locally

530

produced food based on a quest for authenticity and ethical acceptability.

As a final step in understanding differences and similarities in Danish consumers’ demand for local foods, we investigated perceptions of the general importance of various food characteristics among respondents in the three segments. Figure 3 shows the respondents’ perceptions of a range of characteristics of food products. 535

Figure 3: Share of respondents answering ‘Very important’ to questions concerning significance of various characteristics of food items 80 70 60 50 %

40 30 20 10 0

Organic consumers

540

545

550

Commited local consumers

Indifferent local consumers

Note: Survey with 1515 respondents; only results for Organic consumers (130), Committed local-food consumers (41) and Indifferent local-food consumers (35) are shown. Differences between the groups were tested pairwise using Fisher’s exact test. Significantly more Organic consumers than Committed local-food consumers consider the following ‘very important’: knowledge of production site (p-value=0.0062), the product is healthy (p-value=0.0006), animal welfare is taken into account (p-value <.0001), low climate impact (p-value<.0001). Significantly more Organic consumers than Indifferent local-food consumers consider the following ‘very important’: knowledge of production site (p-value<.0001), the product is healthy (p-value<.0001), animal welfare is taken into account (p-value<.0001), low local pollution (p-value=0.0006), low climate impact (p-value<.0001), the product is safe to eat (p-value=0.0113), knowledge of producer (p-value=0.0103). Significantly more Committed local-food consumers than Indifferent localfood consumers consider the following ‘very important’: knowledge of production site (p-value=0.0172), low local pollution (p-value=0.0044). Significantly more Indifferent local-food consumers than Organic consumers and Committed local-food consumers consider the following ‘very important’: the price is low (p-value=0.0055 and pvalue=0.0182).

These quantitative results indicate that a significantly higher share (at 5% level) of the Organic consumers than the Committed local-food consumers and Indifferent local-food consumers considered climate issues as important characteristics of food products. Further, 555

more Organic consumers than Committed local-food consumers considered knowledge of the production site, the fact that the products are healthy, and animal welfare, to be very important characteristics of food products. Indifferent local-food consumers differ significantly from Organic consumers in most aspects, but not on the importance of whether food is easy to prepare, freshness and taste.

560

The two local-food segments differ from each other in that more of the Committed local-food consumers considered knowledge of the production site and low local pollution to be important characteristics of food. On the other hand, more of the Indifferent local-food consumers considered low price to be important. The main findings regarding the socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents

565

concerned education and geographical regions (see also Table 3). Organic consumers were found to be more likely to have high levels of education than both Committed local consumers (p-value = 0.0139) and Indifferent local consumers (p-value = 0.0037), and to be more likely to live in Copenhagen than Committed local-food consumers (p-value = 0.0147). Committed local-food consumers were more likely than Organic consumers to have vocational education

570

and training as their highest level of education (p-value = 0.0033). Indifferent local-food consumers were, on the other hand, more likely than Organic Consumers to report completion of primary and lower secondary school as the highest level of education (p-value = 0.0163). We found no significant differences between respondents in the three groups in respect of age and gender.

575

Discussion Are locally produced foods and organic foods preferred by the same type of consumers or by different types of consumers? According to the qualitative results obtained in this study, both alternatives seem to hold some truth. Results from the focus group study revealed that the 580

participating local-food and organic consumers attributed the same range of desirable

qualities to local food products. To this extent, then, the organic and local participants appeared to share values and opinions on food and food production. This supports the first alternative: the same food preferences lead consumers to purchase local foods, whether they also buy organic or not. We did, however, also find differences that nuance the picture in the 585

qualitative part of this study. Organic consumers included environmental and climate concerns in their conception of ethical acceptability, while local-food consumers did not. Another important distinction in the qualitative study was that while they ascribed many of the same characteristics to local foods, the organic consumers, unlike the local-food consumers, did not regard it as very important whether their food was locally produced. This

590

may be explained by the fact that the organic consumers, who tended to emphasize environmental issues, saw ‘organic’ as a more important attribute than ‘local’ because it signals environment-friendly food production. Organic consumers trusted organic food producers to meet their requirements about food quality; they did not trust conventional producers in the same way, whether their foods were locally produced or not. In contrast,

595

many of the consumers of local, conventional foods did not trust organic production, but they were confident that Danish food producers would supply foods, which met their requirements.

The participants in the focus groups appeared to have strong opinions about food – something 600

that is to be expected of people volunteering to participate in an hour-long conversation about food. With our mixed methods study design, however, we had an opportunity to look into the question of consumer types from a different angle, and this allowed us to build on the qualitative results, and nuance the findings obtained from the groups of engaged consumers, by comparing data from a representative survey. The quantitative results highlighted that

605

only the Committed local-food consumers displayed strong values and opinions on food and food production. Other local-food consumers (Indifferent) were less interested in the characteristics of the foods they purchased, particularly the immaterial qualities. This last segment was not represented in the focus groups, and without the quantitative sample we might have overlooked it and its perspectives.

610 In Table 6 below, using both qualitative and quantitative data, we have outlined the differences in values, opinions and considerations found among the three segments. Organic

and Committed local foods consumers associate their food preferences with values and opinions on food, and take authenticity and ethical concerns into account when assessing food 615

choices. In addition, Organic consumers include environmental concerns in their moral considerations.

Table 6. Differences among three groups of consumers Organic consumers Food consumption affected by values and opinions Food consumption affected by desire for Authenticity Food consumption affected by Ethical concerns

620

Yes

Committed local-food consumers Yes

Indifferent local-food consumers No

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

No

It is not entirely clear from our empirical material why Indifferent local-food consumers prefer locally produced foods, but we do know that it is not because they attach any of the positive qualities listed as options in the survey to them. This suggests that, for this group, values and opinions were not the drivers of the tendency to purchase locally produced foods. In this, the group stands out from both Organic and Committed local-food consumers. More

625

data are needed to determine what leads this group to purchase local products, but one hypothesis is that easy accessibility and price are key considerations.

Our qualitative as well as quantitative results show, that the quest for authentic food was important for the other two segments, i.e. Organic and Committed local-foods consumers. 630

Further, they show that the preference for local produce had not just an aesthetic dimension, but also a political dimension. Both groups used consumption as a means through which they could take some responsibility for society by taking ethical concerns about food production into consideration when purchasing food. Regional support through consumption of local food products was an often-voiced concern, and for the organic consumers, too were concerns

635

about climate and the environment. Our findings therefore suggest that the consumption of local foods should be seen, not only as a display of aesthetic taste, but also as ethical consumption for some groups of consumers (Grauel, 2016).

The relatively small number of individuals characterized in our survey sample as Organic consumers, or Committed or Indifferent local-food consumers, also meant that statistically 640

significant sociodemographic differences between them were difficult to identify in the quantitative analysis. However, the survey results are in line with earlier studies (Stamer, 2018; Jensen & Lund, 2012), and show that organic consumption is still associated with urban, highly educated parts of the population. In contrast, the consumption of locally produced food is not.

645 Above, we argued that in terms of values and opinion-driven consumption, the most distinct difference was found between Indifferent local-food consumers and the other two segments. In terms of sociodemographic groups, however, our quantitative results suggest that organic food and local food are preferred by different social groups, with the most distinctive 650

difference being that between the two segments of local-food consumers and the Organic consumers.

Local food, distinction and authenticity In this respect, our results seem to nuance earlier findings on the consumption of local foods 655

as an expression of class distinction for the educated middle class (Paddock, 2016, 2015; Schrank & Running, 2016). Table 4 clearly shows that the desire for authenticity is an important motivation for consumers of local foods in the focus groups. This pursuit of authenticity in ‘alternative foods’ (i.e. produced and distributed outside the industrial, mainstream food system) has been analyzed as a new form of class distinction by Paddock

660

(2015; 2016), using Bourdieu as a theoretical framework. This understanding underlines how the taste for local food is a distinctive classifier, defined as ‘distinguished taste’ by privileged social groups who hold the power to make judgements on taste (Bourdieu, 2004). In this perspective, the preference for alternative foods, which are less accessible and often more expensive than mainstream foods, can be seen as an expression of class distinction,

665

symbolically distinguishing people who purchase alternative, ‘authentic’ foods, from people who ‘do not care’ about the food they eat (Paddock, 2006). Our qualitative empirical material does not allow us to draw conclusions about how people differentiate themselves through consumption, because the participants in our focus groups rarely related their own choices and values to others’ choices in the discussions. This may have been due to the focus group

670

setting – a setting where participants often abstain from making judgements about others to ensure a pleasant interaction (Halkier, 2016). We can see, however, based on both qualitative and quantitative results, that the consumption of local foods and preference for authentic food are not reserved for the educated middle class, according to our study: Committed local-food consumers expressed that taste along with those in the well-educated urban segment of

675

Organic consumers. This is not to argue that taste is no longer classifying or classified. Our results show that food choice is motivated by values and opinions in only some groups of consumers, differentiating the Indifferent local-food consumers from the Organic and the Committed local-food consumers. Investing in engagement and voicing strong opinions on food choice is in itself an

680

expression of distinction which places the speaker within the culturally legitimate sphere of distinguished and cultivated taste, classifying one as belonging to the cultivated classes (Bourdieu, 2004; Warde, 2011). In contrast, food choices among the lower classes are characterized by a taste for necessity, according to Bourdieu (2004:374). Food is, in this perspective, not an object of cultivation; it is just something you eat. This position may fit the

685

Indifferent local-food segment, who invested less opinion in food choice in general. The segment regarded low price, taste and the freshness of food somewhat important, but not immaterial qualities. Those in the segment exhibited no taste for authenticity, nor did they invest any ethical consideration in their food choice. Still, it is important to note here that our empirical results indicate that ‘cultivated taste’ for authenticity is not reserved for a cultural

690

elite, or a group of people, which it makes sense to characterize as a ‘dominating’ class, as in Bourdieu’s seminal work (2004). The small sample size makes it difficult to position the segments of consumers in society and examine how they differ, but our results suggest that a simple hierarchical, resource-based class concept and a monolithic notion of legitimate culture are insufficient to provide us with an adequate understanding of the differentiated

695

food preferences found in this study (cf. Ollivier, 2011; Lizardo & Skiles, 2015). Further research is needed to understand the differentiation of the three identified segments.

Conclusion The mixed methods investigation reported here suggests that, organic consumers and a subgroup of local-food consumers (Committed local-food consumers) associate the same qualities

700

– material and immaterial – with locally produced foods. Both groups are guided by a quest for taste, purity, diversity, authenticity and ethical concerns about the local area. However, only organic consumers include climate and environmental effects in the externalities considered in food choices, and often prioritize ‘organic’ over ‘local’. Organic consumers also differed from local-food consumers in being more likely to be from urban population

705

segments with higher levels of education. It was notable that the sub-group of local-food consumers we labelled Indifferent local-food consumers stood out from the other groups, as their preference for locally produced food seemed to be associated neither with values nor with opinions. In contrast to the other two segments, this segment’s food choices do not seem to be influenced by immaterial qualities. More research is needed on what influence this

710

group of consumers. Further, consumer research must take the findings on the ‘indifferent consumers’ into consideration and not overestimate the importance of values and opinions on food consumption.

Acknowledgements 715

We would like to thank all of the participants in this study for finding time to be part of the qualitative focus groups or the survey. Further, we would like to thank Paul Robinson for improving the language. The research reported in this paper was conducted as part of the Organic RDD2.2 research program funded by the Danish Green Development and Demonstration Programme (GUDP).

720 NOTES 1

725

It should be noted that perceptions of the qualities of local food were used in the segmentation of the two groups of local-food consumers. Hence, the group of Committed local-food consumers includes by definition consumers who expressed a positive attitude to at least two out of ten characteristics of local food, while the group of Indifferent local-food consumers had lower scores on this measure.

References Adams, Damian C. and Matthew J. Salois. 2010. “Local versus Organic: A Turn in Consumer Preferences and Willingness-to-Pay.” Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems. Annunziata, A., M. Agovino, and A. Mariani. 2019. “Sustainability of Italian Families’ Food Practices: Mediterranean Diet Adherence Combined with Organic and Local Food Consumption.” Journal of Cleaner Production 206:86–96. Bauman, Zygmunt. 2013. Globalization, The Human Consequences. 1. ed. Oxford: Polity Press. Bourdieu, Pierre. 2004. Distinction, a Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. London: Routledge. Costanigro, M., S. Kroll, D. Thilmany, and M. Bunning. 2014. “Is It Love for Local/Organic or Hate for Conventional? Asymmetric Effects of Information and Taste on Label Preferences in an Experimental Auction.” Food Quality and Preference 31(1):94–105. Denver, S. and J. D. Jensen. 2014. “Consumer Preferences for Organically and Locally Produced Apples.” Food Quality and Preference 31(1):129–34. Dinesen, A. (2017). Note on methods used for the survey to IFRO regarding organic and LOCO. Internal note, Userneeds. Ditlevsen, Kia, Peter Sandøe, and Jesper Lassen. 2019. “Healthy Food Is Nutritious, but Organic Food Is Healthy Because It Is Pure: The Negotiation of Healthy Food Choices by Danish Consumers of Organic Food.” Food Quality and Preference 71:46–53. DuPuis, E. Melanie, and David Goodman. 2005. “Should We Go ‘Home’ to Eat?: Toward a Reflexive Politics of Localism.” Journal of Rural Studies 21(3): 359–71. Ekelund, L. 2015. “Regional Identity and Authenticity as a Means of Reaching the Consumer.” Acta Horticulturae 1099:181–92. Eriksen, Safania Normann. 2013. “Defining Local Food: Constructing a New Taxonomy – Three Domains of Proximity.” Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section B - Soil & Plant Science 63(sup1): 47–55. Feldmann, Corinna, and Ulrich Hamm. 2015. “Consumers’ Perceptions and Preferences for Local Food: A Review.” Food Quality and Preference 40: 152–64. Gracia, Azucena, Jesús Barreiro-Hurlé, and Belinda López- Galán. 2014. “Are Local and Organic Claims Complements or Substitutes? A Consumer Preferences Study for Eggs.” Journal of Agricultural Economics 65(1):49–67. Grauel, Jonas. 2016. “Being Authentic or Being Responsible? Food Consumption, Morality and the Presentation of Self.” Journal of Consumer Culture 16(3):852–69. Halkier, Bente and Lotte Holm. 2008. “Food Consumption and Political Agency: On Concerns and Practices among Danish Consumers.” International Journal of Consumer Studies 32(6):667–74. Halkier, B. (2016). Fokusgrupper (3. udgave ed.). Frederiksberg: Samfundslitteratur.

Hasselbach, J. L. and J. Roosen. 2015. “Consumer Heterogeneity in the Willingness to Pay for Local and Organic Food.” Journal of Food Products Marketing 21(6):608–25. Hempel, Corinna and Ulrich Hamm. 2016a. “Local and/or Organic: A Study on Consumer Preferences for Organic Food and Food from Different Origins.” International Journal of Consumer Studies 40(6):732–41. Hempel, Corinna and Ulrich Hamm. 2016b. “How Important Is Local Food to Organic-Minded Consumers?” Appetite 96:309–18. Hjelmar, U. 2011. “Consumers’ Purchase of Organic Food Products. A Matter of Convenience and Reflexive Practices.” Appetite 56(2):336–44. Jensen, Jørgen Dejgård et al. 2018. “Heterogeneity in Consumers’ Perceptions and Demand for Local (Organic) Food Products.” Food Quality and Preference. Johnston, Josee, and Shyon Baumann. 2014. Foodies. Democracy and Distinction in the Gourmet Foodscape. Routledge. Lizardo, O. and Skiles, S. (2015) ‘After omnivorousness: Is bourdieu still relevant?’, in Routledge International Handbook of the Sociology of Art and Culture. Taylor and Francis Inc., pp. 90–109 LOCO (2018): http://icrofs.dk/forskning/dansk-forskning/organic-rdd-22/loco/ Lund, Thomas Bøker; Laura Andersen & Katherine O’Doherty Jensen (2012): The emergence of diverse organic consumers: Who are they and how do they shape demand? FOI Working Paper/2012(5). McDonald, J.H. 2014. Handbook of Biological Statistics (3rd ed.). Sparky House Publishing, Baltimore, Maryland. Ollivier, M. (2011) ‘Revisiting Distinction: Bourdieu without class?’, in Cultural consumption, classification and power, pp. 21–37. OrgHealth (2018): http://icrofs.dk/forskning/dansk-forskning/organic-rdd-22/orghealth/ Paddock, J. (2015) ‘Invoking simplicity: “Alternative” food and the reinvention of distinction’, Sociologia Ruralis, 55(1). Paddock, J. (2016) ‘Positioning Food Cultures: “Alternative” Food as Distinctive Consumer Practice’, Sociology. London, England, 50(6), pp. 1039–1055. Schrank, Z. and Running, K. (2016) ‘Individualist and collectivist consumer motivations in local organic food markets’, Journal of Consumer Culture. SAGE Publications, 18(1), pp. 184–201. Stamer, Naja Buono. 2018. “Moral Conventions in Food Consumption and Their Relationship to Consumers’ Social Background.” Journal of Consumer Culture 18(1):202–22. Statistics Denmark. 2016. Profil Af Den Økologiske Forbruger. Copenhagen. Sundbo, Donna Isabella Caroline. 2013. “Local Food: The Social Construction of a Concept.” Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section B - Soil & Plant Science 63(sup1): 66–77. Thurnell-Read, Thomas. 2019. “A Thirst for the Authentic: Craft Drinks Producers and the Narration of Authenticity.” The British Journal of Sociology.

Torjusen, H., Sangstad, L., O'Doherty Jensen, K., & Kjærnes, U. (2004). European consumers' conceptions of organic food: A review of available research. Oslo: National Institute for Consumer Research. Thorsøe, Martin and Egon Noe. 2015. “Cultivating Market Relations – Diversification in the Danish Organic Production Sector Following Market Expansion.” Sociologia Ruralis 56(3):331–48. Warde, A. (1997) Consumption, food and taste, culinary antinomies and commodity culture. London: SAGE. Warde, A. (2011) ‘Dimensions of a Social Theory of Taste’, in Cultural consumption, classification and power. London: Routledge, pp. 78–93. Wier, M., K. O’Doherty Jensen, L. M. Andersen, and K. Millock. 2008. “The Character of Demand in Mature Organic Food Markets: Great Britain and Denmark Compared.” Food Policy 33(5):406–21. Willer, H., & Lernoud, J. (Eds.) (2018). The World of Organic Agriculture. Statistics and Emerging Trends 2018. Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL), Frick and IFOAM – Organics International, Bonn. Winter, Michael. 2003. “Embeddedness, the New Food Economy and Defensive Localism.” Journal of Rural Studies 19(1): 23–32 Zander, K., H. Stolz, and U. Hamm. 2013. “Promising Ethical Arguments for Product Differentiation in the Organic Food Sector. A Mixed Methods Research Approach.” Appetite 62:133–42.