Accepted Manuscript Organic consumption and diet choice: An analysis based on food purchase data in France Christine Boizot-Szantai, Oualid Hamza, Louis-Georges Soler PII:
S0195-6663(17)30595-0
DOI:
10.1016/j.appet.2017.06.003
Reference:
APPET 3508
To appear in:
Appetite
Received Date: 20 April 2017 Revised Date:
29 May 2017
Accepted Date: 4 June 2017
Please cite this article as: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. 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.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
1
INRA-Aliss UR 1303, France
Oualid Hamza (
[email protected])
M AN U
Christine Boizot-Szantai (
[email protected])
TE D
Louis-Georges Soler (
[email protected])
Corresponding author :
Louis-Georges Soler (
[email protected])
EP
INRA-Aliss UR 1303, 94205 Ivry sur Seine, France
AC C
SC
Christine Boizot-Szantai1, Oualid Hamza1, Louis-Georges Soler1
RI PT
Organic consumption and diet choice: an analysis based on food purchase data in France
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
1
Organic consumption and diet choice: an analysis based on food purchase data in France
2 3
RI PT
4 5 1. Introduction
7
The food consumption patterns observed in developed countries raise important concerns related to
8
health and environmental issues. In this context, many studies have aimed to assess the potential
9
benefits of organic consumption and to determine the extent to which the promotion of organic foods
10
could be a relevant strategy to address these issues. Crinnion (2010) and Lairon (2010) reviewed multiple
11
studies and showed that organic varieties provide significantly greater levels of vitamin C, iron,
12
magnesium, phosphorus, and antioxidant phytochemicals than did non-organic varieties of the same
13
foods. Whereas Smith-Spangler et al. (2012) considered that the published literature lacks strong
14
evidence that organic foods are significantly more nutritious than conventional foods, Forman and
15
Silverstein (2012) concluded that in terms of health advantages, organic diets have been convincingly
16
demonstrated to expose consumers to fewer pesticides associated with human disease. Regarding
17
environmental issues, organic farming has been demonstrated to have less of an environmental impact
18
than conventional approaches (Heerwargen et al., 2014). This point, however, is still controversial
19
because Life-Cycle Analysis (LCA) studies comparing agricultural products from conventional and organic
20
farming systems have reported a wide variation in the resource efficiency of products from these
21
systems. Some studies have shown that the impacts per area of farmed land are usually less in organic
22
systems but the impacts per produced quantity are often higher (Meier et al., 2015). However, this result
23
is not solely due to the usually lower yields in organic systems but also to inaccurate modeling within
24
LCA. The consequence is that compared to conventional agriculture, organic production with its greater
25
land use requirements appears environmentally less favorable, although its energy use is markedly
26
reduced because of the reduction of the input use of fertilizer industry, and organic production increases
27
the value added of agriculture (Risku-Norja and Mäenpää, 2007). Although additional research is
28
required to clearly determine the differences in the biological and toxicological status of organic food
29
consumers and conventional food consumers (Dangour et al., 2010; Hoefkens et al., 2010; Jensen et al.,
30
2013), these potential benefits have justified many investigations aimed at better understanding the
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
6
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
31
motivations of organic consumers and characterizing the determinants and conditions of organic market
32
expansion.
33 On the one hand, studies have been conducted to identify both organic consumers and the main factors
35
that explain their selection of organic vs. non-organic foodstuffs (see Yiridoe et al. (2005) for a literature
36
review). Consumers’ attitudes towards and motivations for buying organic food are strongly linked to
37
beliefs about its healthiness, taste and environmental friendliness (Bryla, 2016; Chen and Lobo, 2012;
38
Costanigro et al., 2014; Dowd and Burke, 2013; Goetzke et al., 2014; Honkanen et al., 2006; Hughner et
39
al., 2007; Kihlberg and Risvik, 2007; Lee et al., 2013; Magnusson et al., 2003; Thøgersen et al., 2015).
40
Ethical motivations and animal welfare also affect the purchase intentions of regular organic consumers,
41
whereas food safety concerns influence those of occasional organic consumers (Pino et al., 2012; Zander
42
and Hamm, 2010). As shown by Aertsens et al. (2009), related attributes of organic food with values,
43
such as ‘security’, ‘hedonism’, ‘universalism’, and ‘benevolence’, positively influence attitudes towards
44
organic food consumption. Among the factors that undermine organic consumption, insufficient
45
knowledge and a lack of trust in organic labels seem to play a key role (Honkanen et al., 2006; Hughner
46
et al., 2007; Janssen and Hamm, 2012; Smed et al., 2013). Indeed, labels and information signaling
47
credence are important search attributes. Although credence cues cannot be accurately evaluated by
48
consumers, the expectations that they generate affect consumers’ perceived quality and sensory
49
experiences (Fernqvist and Ekelund, 2014). Psychological dimensions, such as cognitive and affective
50
attitudes, personality traits, personal norms, and perceived behavioral control, also influence the
51
intentions to purchase organic products (Aertsens et al., 2009; Chen, 2007; Lee and Yun, 2015; Scalco et
52
al., 2017; Schleenbecker and Hamm, 2013; Welsch and Kühling, 2009). Social norms influence organic
53
consumption because people are likely to be affected by what others think. Ruiz de Maya et al. (2011)
54
stress the role of reference groups and routine behavior. They show that economic and cognitive factors
55
are significant covariates of pro-environmental consumption and that the consumption patterns of
56
reference persons strongly affect the decision to consume organic food. Interestingly, overall, the same
57
drivers seem to explain the increase in organic consumption in emerging countries (Bruschi et al., 2015;
58
Chen and Lobo, 2012; Grannis et al., 2003; Marques Vieira et al., 2013).
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
RI PT
34
59 60
On the other hand, a large amount of research has focused on the economic issues (such as the high
61
prices of organic foods) affecting consumers’ decisions and discourage repeat purchases of organic food
62
products (Avitia et al., 2015; Marian et al., 2014). On the basis of a marketing literature review,
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Hemmerling et al. (2015) show that the most investigated topics are cost to the consumer, consumer
64
value and benefits. Rodiger and Hamm (2015) review studies addressing the price elasticity of organic
65
food demand. Despite an impressive number of papers published over the last decade, robust
66
conclusions about the own-price elasticity of organic products and the cross-price elasticity of organic vs.
67
non-organic products remain elusive (Bernard and Bernard, 2009; Bezawada and Pauwels, 2013; Bunte
68
et al., 2010; Lopez and Lopez, 2009; Mosnier et al., 2009; Schrock, 2012). Concerning consumers’
69
willingness-to-pay (WTP) for organic foods, Rodiger and Hamm (2015) conclude that a large share of
70
consumers was willing to pay a higher price for organic food, although WTP differs by product categories
71
and consumer segments. Finally, concerning the influence of socio-demographic data on WTP,
72
contradictory results were obtained regarding the influence of family size, gender, income, and marital
73
status. However, most studies have found that education and age variables had a strong and positive
74
influence on WTP.
75
M AN U
SC
RI PT
63
When considering all of these studies, it is worth noting that most of the available literature has
77
addressed consumers’ trade-offs between organic and conventional products, focusing on the reasons
78
people buy organic foods and their WTP for health and environmental attributes. However, the literature
79
excludes two important questions.
80
TE D
76
First, no consumer purchases only organic foods. Consequently, it is important (i) to determine the place
82
of these foodstuffs within overall consumption patterns and (ii) to assess whether an increase in organic
83
consumption is associated with modified consumption patterns. If so, then it is impossible to understand
84
organic consumers’ motivations without considering their consumption patterns or the substitutions and
85
complementarity relationships between organic and non-organic products within the diet. Recent
86
studies have explored this issue; by using large surveys, they have shown that organic consumption is
87
often associated with modified consumption patterns (Kesse-Guyot et al., 2013; Petersen et al., 2013).
88
For instance, a small but statistically significant correlation between increasing organic budget shares
89
and decreasing meat budget shares was found. The first goal of our paper is to pursue this analysis by
90
using purchase data from a large representative sample of French households.
AC C
EP
81
91 92
Second, the prices of organic foods are generally higher than those of conventional foods because they
93
rely on stricter environmental specifications and more demanding production methods. However, if
94
higher levels of organic consumption are associated with modified consumption patterns, what are the
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
consequences of such modifications on household food expenditures? When considering both modified
96
consumption patterns and price differentials between organic and non-organic foods, is an increase in
97
organic consumption associated with larger or smaller total food budgets? In other words, does the
98
modification of consumption patterns compensate for the increase in food budgets related to the
99
purchase of more expensive organic products? This second point is important because, depending on the
100
answer, research should focus not only on consumers’ trade-offs between organic and conventional
101
products (as the majority of existing studies do) but also on their willingness to change their
102
consumption patterns (Micheelsen et al., 2014). The second goal of our paper is to answer these
103
questions and better characterize the impacts of organic purchases on food budgets by accounting for
104
variations in the overall consumption patterns. This will help us distinguish between ‘quantity’ and
105
‘quality’ effects, namely, the differences in the food budgets of non-organic and regular organic
106
consumers caused by variations in the quantities of the different food groups purchased and the
107
differences in the food budgets of non-organic and regular organic consumers caused by variations in the
108
prices of the products purchased in the different food groups. This analysis will be able to provide
109
interesting insights on organic consumers’ preferences, not only about the trade-offs between organic
110
and conventional foods, but also about their choices of dietary patterns.
M AN U
SC
RI PT
95
111
Three important results follow. First, organic consumption seems to be one element in a wider ‘quality
113
strategy’ of consumers because these consumers purchase, on average, not only more organic foods but
114
also more national brands (compared to private labels) and more non-organic products of higher quality
115
than non-organic consumers do. Second, we show that dietary patterns change considerably along the
116
gradient of the organic penetration rate. Indeed, regular organic consumers have dietary patterns
117
comprising more plant-based products, less meat, fewer alcoholic beverages and fewer prepared meals
118
than do occasional and non-organic consumers. Independent of the specific characteristics of organic
119
products, their diets are likely to be healthier and more environmentally friendly than those of other
120
consumers. Third, we show that the quantity effect resulting from modified consumption patterns
121
partially compensates for the quality effect resulting from the purchase of more expensive organic and
122
non-organic foods by regular organic consumers. This means that the price barrier is perhaps not so high,
123
with the major issue being the consumers’ willingness to change their dietary habits, the potential loss of
124
consumer welfare caused by a shift toward more sustainable dietary patterns, and the consumption of
125
less-preferred foods.
126
AC C
EP
TE D
112
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
127 128
2. Data and methods
129 The original data set is based on the records of a representative consumer panel of French households
131
collected by Kantar Worldpanel. It is a home-scan data set that provides detailed information on all food
132
product purchases. Among other things, the data set provides the characteristics of the goods (e.g.,
133
brand, size, regular or diet product, organic or conventional), quantities purchased, and related
134
expenditures for each household. The data set also provides information on each household’s
135
socioeconomic characteristics, such as its demographic composition, socioeconomic status and income
136
class. To analyze the consumption practices related to organic foods, we considered food purchases in
137
2012. After excluding non-active consumers (that is, consumers who did not record their purchases
138
throughout 2012), we obtained a representative sample of 12,000 households.
M AN U
SC
RI PT
130
139
Previous studies have used different criteria to identify a gradient in the level of organic consumption. In
141
survey-based studies, the characterization of organic consumers often relies on frequency
142
questionnaires, and consumer types are defined using clustering methods (see, for instance,
143
Kesse-Guyot et al., 2013). In the present study, we used purchase data, which allowed us to define
144
consumer types based on real food expenditures. Following Wier et al. (2008), we defined an index
145
based on the ‘organic penetration rate’, that is, the organic expenditure share of each household. In this
146
way, we aimed to identify the consumers who are more or less involved in organic consumption
147
independent (a priori) of the absolute values of the expenditures and household incomes.
150
EP
149
2.1. Organic penetration rate, prices and socio-demographic characteristics of consumers
AC C
148
TE D
140
151
As a first step, we investigated the relationships between the organic expenditure shares and economic
152
and socio-demographic characteristics of the households. First incomes and prices must be taken into
153
account as they may have an effect on demand and consumption patterns. Family status (single, couple,
154
couple with/without children) and composition (e.g., age of family members, number and age of
155
children) may also affect food expenditure. In addition, other criteria, such as education level, location of
156
household, and obesity, may be associated with different food preferences and contribute to explaining
157
the variability of food and diet choices.
158
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
To measure the effects of these variables, standard least squares regression techniques can be used to
160
provide summary point estimates that allow one to calculate the average effect of the independent
161
variables on the organic penetration rate. However, this focus on the average effect may hide important
162
features of the underlying relationship. Quantile regression techniques can provide a more complete
163
picture of this relationship by better taking into account consumer heterogeneity. Indeed, unlike
164
Ordinary Least-Square (OLS) regression, quantile regression is not limited to explaining the mean of the
165
dependent variable and can be employed to explain the determinants of the dependent variable at any
166
point in the distribution of the dependent variable (Chamberlain, 1994; Koenker, 2005). This seems to be
167
relevant, given the very high variability of organic consumption in the whole population (Buder et al.,
168
2014) and the need to pay special attention to the consumer price behavior of heavy and medium buyers
169
of organic foods (Rodiger et Hamm, 2015).
M AN U
170
SC
RI PT
159
171
For this reason, we performed a quantile regression (command ‘qreg’, Stata 13) in which the dependent
172
variable was the organic expenditure share. This allows estimating, on average and for different points of
173
the organic penetration rate, the distribution of the effects of the variables considered in the analysis.
174
0 Thus, we estimated the following equation, where the dependent variable ln wh is the logarithm of
175
organic share expenditure of household h and the explanatory variables are the conventional p h and
176
organic ph prices, the vector of socio-demographic variables Z h , and u 0h is the error term:
TE D
0
c
ln w 0h = γ 0 ln p0h + γ c ln pch + βh Zh + u 0h
177
The Kantar data set provides, for each household, the purchased quantities and expenditures but not the
179
prices. Price indexes are set by computing the unit values of conventional and organic purchases, which
180
are the ratio of total organic (conventional) expenditures to total organic (conventional) quantities. To
181
limit the risk of endogeneity1, organic and conventional unit values have been calculated per living area2
182
by considering the total organic (conventional) expenditures of households living in a specific living area
183
divided by the total organic (conventional) quantities purchased by these households. This index
184
expresses, to some extent, the average organic and conventional prices faced by all households living in
185
the same area.
AC C
EP
178
1
See S. Lecocq, J-M. Robin, « Estimating demand response with panel data », Empirical Economics (2006) 31:1043– 1060. 2 In the Kantar data set, France is divided into 1300 living areas. By computing the unit values per living areas, we consider that two households living in the same area face the same prices.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
186
To account for the size of the family, we included the number of consumption units (CU) as an
187
independent variable. This number was computed by using the scale in which the first adult counts for
188
one CU, each additional adult aged 15 years or older counts for 0.7 CU and each child less than 15 years
189
counts for 0.5 CU.
RI PT
190
In addition, we included the following variables: income level (modest, lower average, upper average,
192
well-off); age of the household shopper; education level (low/medium/high); family status (single,
193
married or couples without children, married or couple with children); location of the household (rural,
194
small city, medium city, large city); presence of at least one obese member in the household; and
195
presence of children under 3 years old. Some studies have suggested that organic consumption might be
196
associated with greater consumer involvement in cooking and meal preparation. In our dataset, we had
197
some indicators related to kitchen equipment that we also integrated into the quantile regression, such
198
as indicators of culinary practices (fridge, freezer, microwave oven, electric fryer).
199 200
2.2. Consumption patterns analysis
201
M AN U
SC
191
In a second step, we investigated the variation in consumption patterns along the gradient of the
203
organic penetration rate. To characterize different types of consumers that were more or less involved
204
in organic consumption, we split the entire sample of 12000 households into quintiles of the organic
205
penetration rate.
206
TE D
202
To compare the consumption patterns of these 5 quintiles, we calculated the average expenditures and
208
purchased quantities of organic and non-organic foodstuffs in the 23 food groups for each household3.
209
This food categorization is similar to those used in various papers dealing with consumers’ diet analysis.
210
These values were expressed per household and per home consumption unit (CU) using the Oxford scale
211
mentioned above. ANOVA tests (using the F distribution) were performed to accept or reject the
212
hypothesis that the quintile means were significantly different from each other.
AC C
EP
207
213 214
2.3. Decomposing the quality and quantity effects
215
3
Bottled water was not considered in this study due to the fact that water is not available in organic quality.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
In a third step, we analyzed the differences in the food budgets of the various quintiles to obtain a
217
clearer vision of the economic constraints that may limit organic consumption. In fact, differences in
218
food budgets can be due to differences in consumption patterns, that is, the quantities purchased in the
219
various food groups or they can be due to differences in the prices of the foodstuffs purchased in each
220
food group. To identify the magnitude of these two effects, we decomposed the variation of the total
221
average food budget of each quintile into a ‘quantity effect’ and a ‘quality effect’.
RI PT
216
222
Decomposition methods for group comparisons have been used in many economic studies (Fortin et al.,
224
2011). Here, we used the same method used by Griffith et al. (2017) for decomposing the variation in the
225
food budget by quintile. This decomposition critically relies on counterfactual exercises corresponding to
226
the following questions:
SC
223
M AN U
227 228
(i) For the ‘quantity effect’: what would the total food expenditure of the average consumer of the first
229
quintile be if he/she purchased the same quantities in each food group as the average consumer of the
230
fifth quintile without changing his/her food prices (i.e., without changing his/her quality strategy)?
231
(ii) For the ‘quality effect’: what would the variation in the total food expenditure of the average
233
consumer of the first quintile be if he/she continued to purchase the same quantities in each food group
234
but at the same average prices as the average consumer of the fifth quintile (i.e., without changing
235
his/her quantity strategy)?
236
TE D
232
To disentangle the quantity and quality effects, we proceeded as follows. Let us first consider the
238
variation in the total food budget ∆D T(5−1) between the first and fifth quintiles. As explained above, this
239
can be decomposed into several components using the following expression:
240 241 242 243
(1)
AC C
EP
237
n
n
i =1
i
∆D T(5−1) = ∑ ∆Di(5−1) = ∑ ∆Qi(5−1) pi1 + Qi1∆pi(5−1) + ∆Qi(5−1) ∆pi(5−1)
244 245
where i=1,…, n are the food groups, ∆Qi(5−1) is the variation in the purchased quantities of each food
246
group between the first and the fifth quintiles, ∆p i(5−1) is the variation in the average prices of each food
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
247
group between the first and the fifth quintiles, pi1 is the average price of each food group in the first
248
quintile, and Q i1 is the quantity purchased from each food group in the first quintile.
249 In expression (1), the first term denotes the share of the variation of total food budget ∆D T(5−1) that
251
results from the variation in the consumption patterns between the first and the fifth quintiles, assuming
252
the same average prices in each food group in both quintiles (the quantity effect). This term will be
253
negative if the average quantities purchased by the fifth-quintile consumers are lower than the
254
quantities purchased by consumers of the first quintile. The second term expresses the share of the
255
variation of food budget ∆D T(5−1) that is due to variation in the average prices of food groups between
256
the first and the fifth quintiles, assuming the same consumption patterns (the quality effect). This term
257
will be positive if regular organic consumers purchase, on average, more expensive foods in the different
258
food groups compared with non-organic consumers. The third term expresses the cross effect of the
259
quantity and the quality effects. It captures the covariance of the variations in quality and quantity. If,
260
compared to the first quintile, consumers in the fifth quintile shift toward food groups that are on
261
average less expensive, this term will be negative.
M AN U
SC
RI PT
250
262
To take a step forward, we considered the quality effect (the second term of expression (1)) more
264
precisely. Because the food budget is higher in the fifth quintile than in the first, this difference could
265
result from the purchase of (i) more expensive organic foods (e.g., if regular consumers buy organic
266
foods at specialty stores and occasional consumers buy organic foods at hypermarkets), (ii) more
267
expensive non-organic foods (e.g., if regular organic consumers buy more non-organic foods with
268
national brands and non-organic consumers buy more non-organic foods with private labels), or (iii) a
269
higher organic penetration rate in some or all food groups (because organic foods are more expensive
270
than non-organic foods). To disentangle these factors, we decomposed the quality effect using the
271
following expression4:
AC C
EP
TE D
263
∆
272
=
∆
+
∆
+
∆
+
∆
(2)
273 4
The ‘quality effect’ estimated with expression (1) is computed for given quantities purchased from each food group.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
274
where
275
proportion of non-organic purchases made by the fifth quintile in food group i;
276
in the proportion of organic purchases from food group i between the fifth and the first quintiles; and
277
is the variation in the proportion of non-organic purchases from food group i between the fifth and the first quintiles. Thus, in expression (2):
279 280
is the
is the variation
RI PT
278
is the proportion of organic purchases made by the fifth quintile in food group i;
is the expenditure variation caused by differences in non-organic prices for each
−
food group between quintiles, assuming unchanged purchased quantities of non-organic foods. This
282
term expresses the share of the quality effect related to the fact that regular consumers buy more
283
expensive non-organic foods than occasional consumers do. −
is the expenditure variation related to differences in organic prices for each food
M AN U
284
SC
281
285
group between the fifth and the first quintiles, assuming unchanged purchased quantities of organic
286
products in each food group. This term expresses the share of the quality effect related to the fact
287
that regular consumers buy more expensive organic foods than occasional consumers.
288 289
−
is the expenditure variation related to differences in the share of organic vs. non-organic purchases between quintiles for each food group (assuming unchanged
291
prices of organic and non-organic foods in each food group between quintiles). This value expresses
292
the share of the quality effect caused by the fact that regular consumers buy more organic foods
293
(and fewer non-organic foods) than occasional consumers do.
294 295
297 298 299
3. Results
AC C
296
EP
TE D
290
3.1. Characteristics of organic consumers
300
First, we present the quantile regression estimates of the effect of prices and socio-demographic
301
characteristics on variations in the organic penetration rate. In Table 1, the first column (OLS) provides
302
the average effect for the entire sample. The other columns provide the effect by quantile of the
303
penetration rate distribution. It is then possible to assess the strength of the relationships between the
304
dependent and explanatory variables by considering consumer heterogeneity.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
305 306
[Insert Table 1]
307 The price effects are highly significant both on average and for all levels of the distribution of the organic
309
penetration rate. On average, the organic expenditure decreases by 0.55% and increases by 1.3% when
310
the organic and conventional prices increase by 1%, respectively.
311
RI PT
308
Regarding age, education and income, the results are highly significant in the OLS treatment and in the
313
quantile regression. A higher income, a higher education level and an older household shopper increase
314
the probability of observing a higher organic penetration rate at each level of the distribution. The higher
315
the quantile, the greater the effect of age, education and income level.
SC
312
M AN U
316 317
The number of consumption units is significant and affects negatively the organic penetration rate. The
318
presence of young children (under 3 years old) is positively correlated to the organic penetration rate.
319
However, this effect seems to be weaker among regular organic consumers.
320
Regarding the households’ locations, the OLS coefficients are significant for medium and large towns.
322
The presence of obese members in the household has a very significant and negative effect on the
323
probability of someone being an occasional or regular organic consumer. This effect is much stronger
324
among regular consumers.
325
TE D
321
Regarding kitchen equipment, ownership of microwaves and electric fryers significantly decreases the
327
probability of someone being an organic consumer, regardless of the level of organic penetration rate.
328
This effect is stronger for regular organic consumers.
330 331 332
AC C
329
EP
326
3.2. Consumption patterns and expenditures
333
It is worth noting that only 654 households bought no organic products in 2012, which is less than 6% of
334
the sample. This finding indicates that organic consumption is widespread among the population and
335
that many households purchase organic products at least a few times a year. The consequence is that
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
336
the average organic penetration rate is very low, approximately 2.2%, which is similar to the values
337
obtained in other studies5.
338 The average food budgets and shares of organic expenditures for each quintile are given in Table 2.
340
These values are expressed per household and per consumption unit. The organic penetration rate
341
ranges between 0.08% and 8.1% from the first to the last quintile. Note that even in the last quintile,
342
organic food expenditure remains a small part of the total budget6. The total food budget, excluding
343
mineral water, ranges from 2280 to 2551 euros per consumption unit per year and depends on the
344
quintile; the food budget of the fifth quintile is 11.9% higher than that of the first quintile.
345 346 [Insert Table 2]
M AN U
347
SC
RI PT
339
348
Table 3 displays the average quantities of foods (organic and non-organic) purchased in each quintile of
350
the organic penetration rate distribution. It is interesting to note that except in the fresh fruits and
351
vegetables (F&V) group (and to a lesser extent in the meal substitutes and the fish and seafood groups),
352
purchased quantities decrease from the first to the last quintiles for most food groups. In particular, we
353
observe significant reductions in the purchased quantities of fresh and processed meats, prepared
354
meals, alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverages and fat7. In general terms, the higher the organic
355
penetration rate, the greater the purchased quantities of fresh fruit and vegetables, meal substitutes
356
and, to a lesser extent, fish and seafood and the lower the purchased quantities of fresh and processed
357
meats, prepared meals, alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverages and fat. When we compare the first and
358
the last quintiles, fresh F&V purchases increase by almost 45%, and the purchases of fresh meat,
359
processed meat, alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverages decrease by 18.9%, 29%, 44.6% and 38% from
360
the first to the last quintile. For the other food groups, the differences between quintiles do not show a
361
uniform trend or are not significant.
AC C
EP
TE D
349
362 363
Some of these trends are observed even among occasional organic consumers: this is the case for fresh
364
F&V and all beverages. Other trends are mainly observed among more involved organic consumers:
365
meat and processed meat consumption, processed F&V consumption and prepared meals consumption 5
See http://www.agencebio.org/la-bio-en-france For the last decile, the average penetration rate is 13.3%. 7 It should be noted that for fresh meats, this downward trend starts in the 2nd quintile. 6
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
are only significantly lower among regular organic consumers. Thus, whereas the decrease in beverage
367
purchases and the increase in fresh F&V appear to be associated with an increase in the organic
368
penetration rate even among occasional consumers, reductions in meat, processed meat, processed F&V
369
consumption and prepared meals purchases seem to be specific markers of more involved organic
370
consumers.
RI PT
366
371
Let us now consider food expenditures. Significant decreases are observed mainly in three food groups:
373
fresh meat, processed meat, and alcoholic beverages8. However, in several food groups (e.g., cheese, hot
374
drinks), we observe an increase in expenditures although the purchased quantities are similar or even
375
lower in the last quintiles. This suggests that the variation in the total and food group expenditures by
376
quintile results in a mix of quantity and quality effects that must be disentangled. It is interesting to note
377
that these trends, though weaker, are also observed among occasional organic consumers, especially for
378
eggs, fish and seafood, desserts and starchy foods.
M AN U
SC
372
379 380
[Insert Table 3]
381
Table 4 displays the average quantities of organic products purchased from each food group. From the
383
first to the last quintile, the expansion of organic consumption relies on the following:
TE D
382
384
- An increase in the number of food groups from which consumers purchase organic foods. On average,
386
non-organic consumers purchase foods in 1.2 food groups, mainly fresh F&V, bread and flour and, to a
387
lesser extent, culinary ingredients and eggs. For regular organic consumers in the last quintile alone,
388
purchases are made in more than 10 food groups.
EP
385
AC C
389 390
- An increase in the quantities purchased from each food group, particularly fresh F&V, milk, eggs,
391
desserts, baby foods, bread and starchy food groups. Note that the higher level of organic baby foods in
392
the last quintile is consistent with the greater involvement of households with young children in regular
393
organic consumption.
394 8
In fact, we first observe an increase in meat consumption (quantities and expenditures) when moving from the first to the second decile. This likely indicates that economic constraints limit the meat consumption of the first decile.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
395
[Insert Table 4]
396 In most food groups, we observe the substitution of organic for non-organic products from the first to
398
the fifth quintiles. This is not the case for the fresh F&V group: quantities of both fruits and vegetables
399
increase among regular organic consumers compared with occasional consumers. Paradoxically, this
400
increase is such that regular organic consumers consume, on average, more non organic F&V than
401
non-organic consumers.
RI PT
397
402
Are regular organic consumers also different in their purchases of non-organic foods? In Table 5, we
404
examine the variations in non-organic foodstuffs by quintile of the organic penetration rate distribution.
405
The upper part of Table 6 displays the shares of non-organic food quantities dedicated to products with
406
nutritional claims. These claims provide additional guarantees about nutritional values and health
407
benefits, and products making such claims generally have higher prices than conventional products. The
408
middle part of Table 6 presents the shares of non-organic food quantities dedicated to non-organic
409
quality certifications (e.g., ‘Protected Designation of Origin’ [PDO], ‘Label Rouge’, Country of Origin
410
certifications). These certifications are generally related to taste and hedonic dimensions but may also be
411
linked to environmental or animal-welfare concerns. The lower part of the table displays the shares of
412
national brands and private labels among the non-organic purchases in each food group by quintile.
TE D
M AN U
SC
403
413
The purchase of non-organic products with nutritional claims and quality certifications9 and of national
415
brands rather than private labels can also reveal quality strategies implemented by organic consumers
416
with health, environmental and quality concerns.
EP
414
417
[Insert Table 5]
AC C
418 419 420
The higher the organic penetration rate, the higher the use of nutritional claims, of quality certifications,
421
and of national brands. Foods that are light in fat, sugar and salt or enriched with omega 3 products are
422
positively and significantly correlated with high levels of the organic penetration rate, suggesting that
423
organic consumers have strong concerns about health. Red labels and certificates of origins also appear 9
Aschemann-Witzel et al. (2013) considered the combination of organic and health claims. Their results show that products with a claim were neither significantly preferred nor rejected. Occasional organic buyers, however, were significantly more likely to choose products with a health claim. Here, we do not address this issue but focus instead on the health claims of non-organic foods purchased by organic consumers.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
more frequently in regular organic consumers’ baskets, indicating some interest in more demanding
425
production processes (for either taste or environmental reasons). Regarding local vs. global supply, we
426
only had this information for tomatoes. Local (French) supplies of (non-organic) tomatoes are much
427
more frequently purchased by regular organic consumers. In addition, organic consumers appear to buy
428
national brands (private labels) more (less) frequently than non-organic or occasional consumers do.
RI PT
424
429 430
3.3. Decomposing the variation in food budgets
431
As already noted, the average total food budget is 11.9% higher in the last quintile compared to the first.
433
Using expression (1) we decomposed this variation of food budget into a quality and a quantity effects
434
(Figure 1). The quality effect, that is, the effect due to differences in the average prices of each food
435
group between the two quintiles (assuming the same quantities purchased from each food group by
436
both quintiles), induces a 26.7% increase in the food budget. However, (i) regular organic consumers
437
purchase lower quantities in most food groups (this effect reduces the total food budget by 11.2%), (ii)
438
compared to non-organic consumers, regular organic consumers shift their purchases from more
439
expensive (meat, alcohol) to less expensive food groups (fresh F&V). This effect reduces the total food
440
budget by 3.6%. Thus, half of the budget increase resulting from the purchase of more expensive foods
441
(26.7%) is offset by changes in consumption patterns (11.2% + 3.6%).
TE D
M AN U
SC
432
442 443 444
[Insert Figure 1]
EP
445 446
Using expression (2), it is possible to more precisely describe the quality effect, which induces a 26.7%
448
increase in the total food budget of regular organic consumers (fifth quintile) compared with non-organic
449
consumers (first quintile). This increase in the food budget of regular organic consumers compared with
450
non-organic consumers is the result of three components (see Figure 2):
AC C
447
451 452
-
The increase in the average prices of non-organic products in each food group leads to a 22.6%
453
increase in the total food budget. Thus, all else being equal, regular organic consumers buy more
454
expensive non-organic foods than non-organic consumers. This is consistent with the observations
455
in Table 3, which shows that regular organic consumers purchase more products with nutritional
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
456
claims and quality certifications, more national brands and fewer private-label brands than
457
non-organic or occasional organic consumers do.
458 459
-
The increase in the average price of organic products in each food group leads to a 2.4% increase in the food budget. This might occur because regular organic consumers buy more expensive organic
461
products in specialized organic stores whereas occasional consumers buy more often organic
462
products in non-specialized stores (see Table 6).
463 −
465
The increase in the share of organic products in each food group leads to a 1.7% increase in the food
SC
464
RI PT
460
budget.
466
The two last components, which are directly related to organic purchases, seem to have small impacts
468
compared to the first one. However, the effects induced by the prices of organic foods must be
469
considered by keeping in mind that even for regular organic consumers, the organic penetration rate
470
remains quite modest (approximately 8%).
471
[Insert Figure 2]
473
[Insert Table 6]
475 476 477
4. Discussion
478
EP
474
TE D
472
M AN U
467
Organic consumption has two important characteristics. On the one hand, it is widespread throughout
480
the population. Only 6% of households in our sample bought no organic foods in 2012. On the other
481
hand, it is very concentrated, as the expenditures of the fifth quintile of the organic penetration rate
482
distribution represent nearly 80% of total organic expenditures10. This remark highlights the structure of
483
the organic market, which is composed of a very large number of occasional consumers who buy few
484
products a year (by default or without paying really attention to organic claims), and a very small number
485
of committed consumers who have ‘food quality strategies’ and chose their stores accordingly. This very
AC C
479
10
This seems to be the case in many countries. For instance, in Germany, 17% of the population is responsible for 76% of all organic food purchases (Buder et al., 2014).
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
486
strong heterogeneity in food practices imposes to consider differently consumers depending on their
487
involvement in organic consumption. It is for this reason that we tried to identify consumption practices
488
and dietary patterns for different points of the organic penetration by performing a quantile regression.
489 Socio-demographic characteristics, such as gender, income and education, often effectively describe the
491
typical organic consumer (Hughner et al., 2007; Krystallis and Chryssohoidis, 2005; Torjusen et al., 2010
492
and 2012; Wier et al., 2008). Despite some contradictory results in the literature, most studies report
493
that higher education levels and higher incomes increase the probability of being a regular organic
494
consumer. In our study, some socio-demographic characteristics have a positive impact, although some
495
variables are more strongly correlated with regular organic consumption than with occasional
496
consumption. We show that education level and household income are positively correlated with the
497
tendency to buy organic foods, and the strength of the correlation is greater for regular consumers.
M AN U
SC
RI PT
490
498
Concerning shopper age, the results are more ambiguous. Our results tend to show that age is positively
500
and significantly correlated with the organic penetration rate, and the effect is much higher for
501
consumers who frequently purchase organic products. Urbanization appears to have a strong impact on
502
organic consumption in many studies. Metropolitan areas in Great Britain and Denmark have
503
significantly higher organic budget shares (Wier et al., 2008). We also found this effect in France, with a
504
quite strong effect associated to medium and large cities.
505
TE D
499
The impact of family status is also ambiguous because it depends on the level of the organic penetration
507
rate (Riefer and Hamm, 2011). Like Wier et al. (2008), we show that the propensity to regularly purchase
508
organic foods is related to the presence of young children. One can assume that the presence of young
509
children leads parents to be more demanding about the quality (and safety) of foods.
AC C
510
EP
506
511
We have also shown that regular organic consumers have very different consumption patterns
512
compared with non-organic consumers; organic consumers purchase more fresh F&V, less fresh and
513
processed meat, and fewer alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverages. In addition, our observations indicate
514
that organic consumers are more involved in cooking and culinary practices, as suggested by their
515
purchase of fewer prepared meals and more fresh F&V (compared to processed F&V) and their reduced
516
likelihood of owning microwave ovens.
517
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Regarding consumption patterns, our results based on purchase data confirm the observations of a few
519
studies based on consumer surveys. Kesse-Guyot et al. (2013) suggested stepwise changes in food group
520
consumption among clusters of organic product consumers, with increased consumption of whole
521
grains, vegetables, fruits, soups, dried fruits, legumes, fruit and vegetable juices, sweet products,
522
vegetable oils and nuts and lower consumption of meats and processed meats, milk and dairy products,
523
sodas, alcoholic beverages, sweets and fat products, added fats and fast foods. In Norway, Torjusen et al.
524
(2012) noticed that food patterns and dietary quality differed between pregnant organic and
525
non-organic consumers. In Denmark, a survey showed that the highest quartile in relation to organic
526
preferences consumed 50% less meat than non-organic consumers did (Petersen et al., 2013). All these
527
results suggest that independent of the characteristics of organic foods, organic consumers have
528
healthier consumption patterns. This observation must be related to the fact that the probability of
529
being overweight or obese is significantly lower among regular organic consumers.
M AN U
SC
RI PT
518
530
Hoefkens et al. (2010) suggested that the health benefits experienced by organic consumers could be
532
related to their consumption patterns rather than the characteristics of the organic foods they
533
purchased. A demonstration of this hypothesis was beyond the scope of this article; however, the fact
534
that, on average, regular organic consumers purchase more conventional F&V than non-organic
535
consumers do reinforces the plausibility of this explanation.
536
TE D
531
Regarding environmental issues, the same conclusions can be suggested. Indeed, independent of the
538
environmental benefits of organic foods, regular organic consumers seem to better comply with
539
sustainable diet concepts that minimize environmental impact (Magkos et al., 2006) by consuming fewer
540
meat and animal-based products and more plant-based products (Aston et al., 2012; De Boer et al.,
541
2014; MacDiarmid et al., 2012; Masset et al., 2014).
AC C
542
EP
537
543
By considering the consumption practices of organic consumers more widely than many other studies
544
have, we show that regular organic consumers differ from non-organic and occasional consumers not
545
only because they buy more organic foods but also because they do not buy the same non-organic
546
products (e.g., they purchase more products with nutritional claims and quality certifications and more
547
national brands). Our results suggest that for organic consumers, organic food purchases are one
548
component of a more general ‘quality strategy’ that affects all food purchases and their entire diet. This
549
‘quality strategy’ is implemented through both organic and non-organic purchases and relies not only on
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
a larger share of organic products but also on larger shares of high-quality non organic products and
551
more sustainable consumption patterns. It is also likely that, as shown by Hempel and Hamm (2016),
552
‘organic-minded’ consumers have stronger preferences for local products, and that local production
553
(here weakly identified the country of origins of some products) complements organic food production
554
fro them. This ‘quality strategy’ also affects the preferences for retail outlets, as organic foods are much
555
more purchased in specialized stores by regular organic consumers. This statement is in line with other
556
studies that stress on the connections between types of products, preferred retail outlets and consumer
557
affinities (de Boer and Schösler, 2016). Our analysis did not explicitly address the organic consumers’
558
motivation to pursue this ‘quality strategy’; however, as many authors suggest, both the consumption
559
patterns and the types of non-organic purchases indicate that hedonistic, health and environmental
560
concerns play key roles in organic consumers’ decisions.
M AN U
561
SC
RI PT
550
562
Regarding the food budgets of regular organic consumers, it turns out that they are higher than those of
563
non- and occasional organic consumers. However, we have shown that the gap is not that wide and that
564
the additional costs of more organic purchases (and higher quality non-organic products) are partially
565
offset by modified consumption patterns. The differences in household dietary habits appear to strongly
566
moderate the direct impacts of organic prices.
TE D
567
In our study, income is a variable that is clearly correlated with higher levels of organic food
569
consumption. This is not always the case, and in other studies, income does not seem to explain
570
differences in organic purchasing behavior. In fact, our results suggest that income might be interpreted
571
less as a budgetary constraint that limits organic purchases than as a characteristic of some consumer
572
groups (much the same as educational level) whose lifestyle choices prioritize healthier, more
573
environmentally friendly, and higher quality foods and dietary patterns.
575 576
AC C
574
EP
568
5. Conclusion
577
The goal of this article was to analyze the overall consumption patterns of organic consumers and their
578
impact on household food expenditures. We characterized how complete consumption patterns vary
579
according to the organic penetration rate; we linked these variations to the households’ socio-
580
demographic characteristics; and we estimated the impact of consumption patterns on food budgets.
581
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
It is worth noting some original characteristics of the present study. First, it relies on purchase data of a
583
large consumer panel of French households. As noted by Wier et al. (2008), the use of such data is not
584
very frequent, although it might avoid some biases of declarative surveys. We also considered the
585
complete households’ consumption patterns, whereas many studies deal only with substitutions
586
between organic and conventional products within specific food groups. In addition, we analyzed the
587
overall food expenditures, including organic and non-organic purchases.
588
RI PT
582
This study also had some limitations. The analysis only took into account home-consumption, and
590
away-from-home consumption was excluded due to a lack of data. The results could be modified
591
because
592
socio-demographic characteristics. We conducted a static comparative study of consumption patterns,
593
whereas it would be very interesting to analyze changes in consumption patterns to obtain a better
594
understanding of the ‘trajectories’ of consumption changes associated with an increase in organic
595
purchases. For instance, do consumers shift to organic purchases because they already consume a large
596
quantity of fruits and vegetables, or do they increase their consumption of fruits and vegetables as they
597
begin to purchase more organic products? The implications for the promotion of organic consumption
598
would likely be different, depending on the answer to this question.
consumption
varies
dramatically
depending
on
the
consumers’
M AN U
away-from-home
SC
589
TE D
599
We have shown that household consumption patterns and diets vary dramatically along the gradient of
601
the organic penetration rate. In addition, for consumers who purchase organic food regularly, the
602
quantity effect resulting from modified consumption patterns partially compensates for the quality
603
effect of purchasing organic and non-organic foods that are more expensive. The consequence is that the
604
crucial question raised when promoting organic consumption is related not only to consumers’ WTP for
605
the health and environmental attributes of organic foods but also to their willingness to change their
606
dietary habits and shift toward more sustainable dietary patterns. In this perspective, an analysis of the
607
variation of consumer welfare stemming from the adoption of a more sustainable diet by non-organic
608
consumers is an important challenge for future research (de Boer et al., 2014; de Boer et al., 2016).
610
AC C
609
EP
600
Acknowledgements
611 612
The authors would like to thank Fabrice Etilé and Sébastien Lecocq for their suggestions and comments
613
on a first version of the article. This research was part of research program conducted in the ‘Bionutrinet’
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
614
project, which was funded by the French National Research Agency (ANR /Coord. Emmanuelle Kesse-
615
Guyot).
617
Conflicts of interest
618
No conflict of interest to declare
RI PT
616
619 620 621 References
623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643
Aertsens, J., Verbeke, W., Mondelaers, K., Van Huylenbroeck, G. (2009). Personal determinants of organic food consumption: A review. British Food Journal, 111(10), 1140–1167.
SC
622
M AN U
Aschemann-Witzel, J., Maroscheck, N., Hamm, U. (2013). Are organic consumers preferring or avoiding foods with nutrition and health claims? Food Quality and Preference, 30(1), 68-76. Aston, L. M., Smith, J. N., Powles, J. W. (2012). Impact of a reduced red and processed meat dietary pattern on disease risks and greenhouse gas emissions in the UK: a modelling study. BMJ open, 2(5).
TE D
Avitia, J., Costa-Font, M., Gil, J. M., Lusk, J. L. (2015). Relative importance of price in forming individuals’ decisions toward sustainable food: A calibrated auction-conjoint experiment. Food Quality and Preference 41(0): 1-11. Bernard, JC., Bernard, DJ. (2009). What is it about organic milk? An experimental analysis. American Journal of Agricultural Economic, 91(3):826-836.
EP
Bezawada R., Pauwels K. (2013). What is special about marketing organic products? How organic assortment, price, and promotions drive retailer performance. Journal of Marketing , 77(1):31-51. de Boer, J., Schösler, H., Aiking, H. (2014). ”Meatless days” or “less but better”? Exploring strategies to adapt Western meat consumption to health and sustainability challenges. Appetite, 76:120-128. de Boer, J., De Witt A., Aiking H. (2016). Help the climate, change your diet: A cross-sectional study on how to involve consumers in a transition to a low-carbon society. Appetite, 98:19-27
646 647
de Boer, J., Schösler, H. (2016). Food and value motivation: Linking consumer affinities to different types of food products, Appetite, 103, 95-104.
648 649 650 651 652 653
Bruschi, V., Shershneva, K., Dolgopolova, I., Canavari, M., Teuber, R. (2015). Consumer Perception of Organic Food in Emerging Markets: Evidence from Saint Petersburg, Russia. Agribusiness, 31(3), 414– 432. doi:10.1002/agr.21414
AC C
644 645
Bryla, P. (2016). Organic food consumption in Poland: Motives and barriers. Appetite, 105 (1), 737-746.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Buder, F., Feldmann, C., Hamm, U. (2014). Why regular buyers of organic food still buy many conventional products: Product-specific purchase barriers for organic food consumers. British Food Journal, 116(3), 390-404.
RI PT
Bunte, FH., van Galen, MA., Kuiper, WE., Tacken, G. Limits to growth in organic sales. De Economist 2010;158(4):387-410. Chamberlain, G. 1994. Quantile regression, censoring, and the structure of wages. In Advances in Economics Sixth World Congress, ed. Christopher A. Sims, 171-209. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
SC
Chen, J., Lobo, A. (2012). Organic food products in China: determinants of consumers’ purchase intentions. The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, 22(3), 293–314. doi:10.1080/09593969.2012.682596
M AN U
Chen, M.-F. (2007). "Consumer attitudes and purchase intentions in relation to organic foods in Taiwan: Moderating effects of food-related personality traits." Food Quality and Preference, 18(7): 1008-1021. Costanigro, M., Kroll, S., Thilmany, D., Bunning, M. (2014). "Is it love for local/organic or hate for conventional? Asymmetric effects of information and taste on label preferences in an experimental auction." Food Quality and Preference, 31(0): 94-105. Crinnion, W. J. (2010). Organic foods contain higher levels of certain nutrients, lower levels of pesticides, and may provide health benefits for the consumer. Alternative Medicine Review: A Journal of Clinical Therapeutic, 15(1), 4–12.
TE D
Dangour, A. D., Lock, K., Hayter, A., Aikenhead, A., Allen, E., Uauy, R. (2010). Nutrition-related health effects of organic foods: a systematic review. The American journal of clinical nutrition, 92(1), 203-210.
EP
Dowd, K. , Burke, K. J. (2013). "The influence of ethical values and food choice motivations on intentions to purchase sustainably sourced foods." Appetite, 69(0): 137-144. Fortin, N., Lemieux, T., Firpo, S. (2011). Decomposition methods in economics. Handbook of labor economics, 4, 1-102. Fernqvist, F., Ekelund, L. (2014). Credence and the effect on consumer liking of food – A review. Food Quality and Preference, 32(PC), 340–353.
AC C
654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700
Forman, J., Silverstein, J. (2012). Organic Foods: Health and Environmental Advantages and Disadvantages. Pediatrics, 130(5), e1406–e1415. doi:10.1542/peds.2012-2579 Goetzke, B., Nitzko, S., Spiller, A. (2014). "Consumption of organic and functional food. A matter of well-being and health?" Appetite, 77(0): 96-105. Grannis, J., Hine, S., Thilmany, D. (2003). Marketing Premium Food Products in Emerging Economies. Journal of International Food & Agribusiness Marketing, 13(2-3), 59–76.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Griffith, R., O'Connell, M., Smith, K. (2017). The Importance of Product Reformulation versus Consumer Choice in Improving Diet Quality. Economica, 84: 34–53 Heerwagen, L. R., Andersen, L. M., Christensen, T., Sandøe, P. (2014). "Can increased organic consumption mitigate climate changes?" British Food Journal, 116(8): 1314-1329.
RI PT
Hemmerling, S., Hamm, U., Spiller, A. (2015). Consumption behaviour regarding organic food from a marketing perspective—a literature review. Organic Agriculture, 5(4), 277–313. Hempel, C., Hamm, U. (2016). How important is local food to organic-minded consumers? Appetite, 96:309-318.
SC
Hoefkens, C., Sioen, I., Baert, K., De Meulenaer, B., De Henauw, S., Vandekinderen, I., Devlieghere, F., Opsomer, A., Verbeke, W., Van Camp, J. (2010). Consuming organic versus conventional vegetables: The effect on nutrient and contaminant intakes. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 48(11), 3058-3066.
M AN U
Honkanen, P., Verplanken, B., Olsen, S. O. (2006). Ethical values and motives driving organic food choice. Journal of consumer behaviour, 5(5), 420-430. Hughner, R. S., McDonagh, P., Prothero, A., Shultz, C. J., Stanton, J. (2007). Who are organic food consumers? A compilation and review of why people purchase organic food. Journal of consumer behaviour, 6(2-3), 94-110. Janssen M., Hamm U. (2012). Product labelling in the market for organic food: Consumer preferences and willingness-to-pay for different organic certification logos. Food Quality and Preference, 25(1):9-22.
TE D
Jensen, M. M., Jørgensen, H., Lauridsen, C. (2013). Comparison between conventional and organic agriculture in terms of nutritional quality of food - a critical review. CAB Reviews: Perspectives in Agriculture, Veterinary Science, Nutrition and Natural Resources, 8(045).
EP
Kesse-Guyot, E., Peneau, S., Mejean, C., de Edelenyi, F. S., Galan, P., Hercberg, S., Lairon, D. (2013). Profiles of organic food consumers in a large sample of French adults: Results from the nutrinet cohort study. PloS one, 8(10) Kihlberg, I. E. Risvik (2007). Consumers of organic foods – value segments and liking of bread. Food Quality and Preference, 18(3): 471-481.
AC C
701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748
Koenker, R. (2005). Quantile Regression. Cambridge University Press: New York. Krystallis, A., Chryssohoidis, G. (2005). Consumers' willingness to pay for organic food: Factors that affect it and variation per organic product type. British Food Journal, 107(5), 320-343. Lairon, D. (2010). Nutritional quality and safety of organic food. A review. Agronomy for sustainable development, 30(1), 33-41. Lee, H.-J., Z.-S. Yun (2015). Consumers’ perceptions of organic food attributes and cognitive and affective attitudes as determinants of their purchase intentions toward organic food. Food Quality and Preference, 39(0): 259-267.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Lee, W.-c. J., Shimizu, M., Kniffin, K. M., Wansink, B. (2013). "You taste what you see: Do organic labels bias taste perceptions?" Food Quality and Preference, 29(1): 33-39.
RI PT
Lopez E., Lopez RA. (2009). Demand for differentiated milk products: implications for price competition. Agribusiness, 25(4):453-465. Macdiarmid, J. I., Kyle, J., Horgan, G. W., Loe, J., Fyfe, C., Johnstone, A., MacNeill, G. (2012). Sustainable diets for the future: can we contribute to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by eating a healthy diet? The American journal of clinical nutrition, 96(3), 632-639.
SC
Magkos, F., Arvaniti, F., Zampelas, A. (2006). Organic food: buying more safety or just peace of mind? A critical review of the literature. Critical reviews in food science and nutrition, 46(1), 23-56.
M AN U
Magnusson, M. K., Arvola, A., Hursti, U.-K. K., Åberg, L., Sjödén, P.-O. (2003). Choice of organic foods is related to perceived consequences for human health and to environmentally friendly behaviour. Appetite, 40(2), 109-117. Marian, L., Chrysochou, P., Krystallis, A., Thøgersen, J. (2014). The role of price as a product attribute in the organic food context: An exploration based on actual purchase data. Food Quality and Preference, 37, 52-60. Marques Vieira, L., Dutra De Barcellos, M., Hoppe, A., Bitencourt da Silva, S. (2013). An analysis of value in an organic food supply chain. British Food Journal, 115(10), 1454–1472.
TE D
Masset, G., Vieux, F., Verger, E. O., Soler, L.-G., Touazi, D., Darmon, N. (2014). Reducing energy intake and energy density for a sustainable diet: a study based on self-selected diets in French adults. The American journal of clinical nutrition, 99(6), 1460-1469.
EP
Meier, M. S., Stoessel, F., Jungbluth, N., Juraske, R., Schader, C., Stolze, M. (2015). Environmental impacts of organic and conventional agricultural products-Are the differences captured by life cycle assessment? Journal of Environmental Management, 149, 193–208. Micheelsen, A., Havn, L., Poulsen, S. K., Larsen, T. M., Holm, L. (2014). The acceptability of the New Nordic Diet by participants in a controlled six-month dietary intervention. Food Quality and Preference, 36, 20-26.
AC C
749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795
Monier S., Hassan D., Nichèle V., Simioni, M. (2009). M. Organic food consumption patterns. Journal of agricultural & food industrial organization, 7(2). Petersen, S. B., Rasmussen, M. A., Strøm, M., Halldorsson, T. I., Olsen, S. F. (2013). Sociodemographic characteristics and food habits of organic consumers–a study from the Danish National Birth Cohort. Public health nutrition, 16(10), 1810-1819. Pino, G., Peluso, A. M., Guido, G. (2012). Determinants of regular and occasional consumers' intentions to buy organic food. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 46(1), 157-169.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830
Riefer, A., Hamm, U. (2011). Organic food consumption in families with juvenile children. British Food Journal, 113(6), 797-808.
831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842
Torjusen, H., Lieblein, G., Næs, T., Haugen, M., Meltzer, H. M., Brantsæter, A. L. (2012). Food patterns and dietary quality associated with organic food consumption during pregnancy; data from a large cohort of pregnant women in Norway. BMC public health, 12(1), 612.
Rödiger, M., Hamm, U. (2015). How are organic food prices affecting consumer behaviour? A review. Food Quality and Preference, 43, 10-20.
RI PT
Risku-Norja, H., Mäenpää, I. (2007). MFA model to assess economic and environmental consequences of food production and consumption. Ecological Economics, 60(4), 700–711. Ruiz de Maya, S., López-López, I., Munuera, J. L. (2011). Organic food consumption in Europe: International segmentation based on value system differences. Ecological Economics, 70(10), 1767– 1775.
SC
Scalco, A., Noventa, S., Sartori, R., Ceschi, A. (2017). Predicting organic consumption : A meta-analytic structural equation model based on the theory of planned behavior. Appetite, 112 (1), 235-248.
M AN U
Schröck R. (2012).The organic milk market in Germany is maturing: A demand system analysis of organic and conventional fresh milk segmented by consumer groups. Agribusiness, 28(3):274-292. Schleenbecker, R., Hamm, U. (2013). Consumers’ perception of organic product characteristics. A review. Appetite, 71, 420-429. Smed, S., Andersen, L. M., Kærgård, N., Daugbjerg, C. (2013). A matter of trust: how trust influence organic consumption. Journal of Agricultural Science, 5(7), p91.
TE D
Smith-Spangler, C., Brandeau, M. L., Hunter, G. E., Bavinger, J. C., Pearson, M., Eschbach, P. J., Sundaram, V., Liu, H., Schirmer, P., Stave, C., Olkin, I., Bravata, D.M. (2012). Are organic foods safer or healthier than conventional alternatives? a systematic review. Annals of Internal Medicine, 157(5), 348-366.
EP
Thøgersen, J., de Barcellos, M. D., Perin, M. G., Zhou, Y. (2015). Consumer buying motives and attitudes towards organic food in two emerging markets. International Marketing Review, 32(3/4), 389–413.
AC C
Torjusen, H., Brantsæter, A. L., Haugen, M., Lieblein, G., Stigum, H., Roos, G., Holmboe-Ottesen, G. Meltzer , H.M.(2010). Characteristics associated with organic food consumption during pregnancy; data from a large cohort of pregnant women in Norway. BMC public health, 10(1), 775.
Vieux, F., Darmon, N., Touazi, D., Soler, L. G. (2012). Greenhouse gas emissions of self-selected individual diets in France: Changing the diet structure or consuming less? Ecological Economics, 75, 91-101. Wier, M., Jensen, K. O. D., Andersen, L. M., Millock, K. (2008). The character of demand in mature organic food markets: Great Britain and Denmark compared. Food Policy, 33(5), 406-421. Welsch, H., Kühling, J. (2009). Determinants of pro-environmental consumption: The role of reference groups and routine behavior. Ecological Economics, 69(1), 166–176.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Yiridoe, E. K., Bonti-Ankomah, S., Martin, R. C. (2005). Comparison of consumer perceptions and preference toward organic versus conventionally produced foods: A review and update of the literature. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 20(4), 193–205. Zander, K., Hamm, U. (2010). Consumer preferences for additional ethical attributes of organic food. Food Quality and Preference, 21(5), 495-503.
RI PT
843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852
SC
853 854 855
M AN U
856 857 858 859 860 Highlights
862
864 865 866
• There is a strong variation in household consumption patterns along the gradient of the organic
penetration rate.
EP
863
TE D
861
• Regular organic consumers have a ‘quality strategy’ that affects both organic and nonorganic
purchases. Not only do they buy more organic products, but regular organic consumers purchase also
868
non-organic items with more health claims and quality certifications and purchase more national
869
brands than occasional and non-organic consumers.
870
AC C
867
871
• The food budget of organic consumers is higher than those of occasional and non-organic consumers,
872
but the variation in consumption patterns along the gradient of the organic penetration rate largely
873
compensates for the additional costs of more organic purchases.
874
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Upper average Well-off
Non Declared
Low Education Degree Medium Education Degree High Education Degree
Consumption units
Rural Small cities Medium cities
Large cities
0.013
***
(0.001)
0.817
***
(0.116)
0.012
***
(0.001)
(0.030)
0.958
***
(0.089)
0.013
***
(0.001)
Q(0.30)
-0.378
***
Q(0.40)
-0.471
(0.026)
1.160
***
(0.076)
0.013
***
(0.001)
***
(0.026)
1.073
***
(0.077)
0.015
***
(0.001)
Q(0.50)
-0.526
***
(0.050)
(0.052)
(0.040)
0.005
-0.067
*
(0.036)
(0.039)
(0.030)
Ref
Ref
-0.128
0.275
***
***
(0.046)
-0.437
**
(0.139)
0.332
Ref
***
(0.047)
-0.464
**
(0.179)
(0.035)
-0.127
***
(0.035)
-0.109
(0.026)
0.267
Ref
***
(0.036)
-0.724
***
(0.137)
0.221
***
(0.031)
-0.531
***
(0.118)
Q(0.60)
-0.608
(0.029)
1.117
***
(0.086)
0.015
***
(0.001)
-0.204*** -0.151** -0.136*** -0.219*** -0.182*** -0.117**
SC
Lower Average
(0.105)
(0.039)
-0.345
***
M AN U
Modest
1.314
***
Q(0.20)
***
(0.039)
-0.144
***
***
(0.026)
1.192
***
(0.077)
0.013
***
(0.001)
-0.098** (0.035)
-0.090
***
Q(0.70)
-0.717
***
(0.029)
1.238
***
(0.084)
0.012
***
(0.001)
Q(0.80)
-0.842
***
(0.033)
1.599
***
(0.097)
0.014
***
(0.001)
Q(0.90)
-0.934*** (0.042)
1.908*** (0.122)
0.012*** (0.001)
-0.112** -0.294*** -0.530*** (0.038)
-0.165
***
(0.044)
-0.238
***
(0.055)
-0.255***
(0.026)
(0.029)
(0.026)
(0.029)
(0.033)
(0.042)
Ref
Ref
Ref
Ref
Ref
Ref
0.236
***
(0.032)
-0.618
***
(0.120)
0.208
***
(0.035)
-0.731
***
(0.132)
0.272
***
(0.031)
-0.557
***
(0.118)
0.422
***
(0.034)
-0.406
**
(0.130)
0.298
***
(0.040)
-0.529
***
(0.150)
0.161** (0.050)
0.21 (0.189)
-0.304*** -0.359*** -0.266*** -0.238*** -0.212*** -0.272*** -0.249*** -0.311*** -0.451*** -0.253***
TE D
Age
(0.035)
-0.293
***
(0.040)
(0.046)
(0.035)
(0.030)
(0.031)
(0.034)
(0.031)
(0.034)
(0.039)
(0.049)
Ref
Ref
Ref
Ref
Ref
Ref
Ref
Ref
Ref
Ref
0.146
***
(0.039)
-0.016
(0.043)
EP
Log price of non organic products
-0.557
-0.009
***
(0.002)
0.004
0.122
***
(0.033)
-0.006
**
0.106
***
(0.028)
-0.007
***
0.140
***
(0.028)
-0.009
***
0.196
***
(0.031)
-0.014
***
0.254
***
(0.028)
-0.019
***
0.208
***
(0.031)
-0.021
***
(0.002)
0.178
***
(0.036)
-0.015
***
(0.002)
0.370*** (0.045)
-0.003
(0.003)
(0.002)
(0.002)
(0.002)
(0.002)
(0.002)
-0.008
-0.134*
0.042
0.067
0.016
-0.007
-0.072*
0.026
0.058
0.008
(0.046)
(0.053)
(0.041)
(0.035)
(0.036)
(0.039)
(0.035)
(0.039)
(0.045)
(0.056)
AC C
Log price of organic products
Q(0.10)
***
RI PT
OLS
(0.003)
Ref
Ref
Ref
Ref
Ref
Ref
Ref
Ref
Ref
Ref
0.125*
0.075
0.168***
0.152***
0.118**
0.154***
0.131**
0.198***
0.138**
0.068
(0.054)
(0.062)
(0.047)
(0.041)
(0.041)
(0.046)
(0.041)
(0.045)
(0.052)
(0.065)
*
**
0.114
**
(0.043)
0.02 (0.048)
0.134
***
(0.036)
0.076
(0.031)
0.096
(0.032)
0.130
***
(0.035)
0.079
*
(0.031)
0.140
***
(0.035)
0.171
***
(0.040)
0.245*** (0.050)
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
-0.277*** -0.125*** -0.182*** -0.270*** -0.237*** -0.237*** -0.275*** -0.346*** -0.380*** -0.393*** (0.030)
No children less than 3 years old
No microwave
(0.024)
(0.022)
(0.024)
(0.028)
(0.035)
Ref
Ref
Ref
Ref
Ref
Ref
Ref
Ref
Ref
Ref
-0.048
-0.135*
-0.026
0.143**
0.202***
0.06
0.120*
0.116*
0.170*
(0.062)
(0.069)
(0.053)
(0.045)
(0.046)
(0.051)
(0.045)
(0.050)
(0.058)
(0.072)
Ref
Ref
Ref
Ref
Ref
Ref
Ref
Ref
Ref
Ref
***
-0.525
***
-0.407
***
-0.473
***
(0.053)
(0.056)
(0.043)
(0.037)
Ref
Ref
Ref
Ref
1.056
Non declared
(0.022)
0.136*
-0.608
Microwave
(0.022)
***
(0.248)
1.248
***
(0.203)
1.096
***
(0.156)
RI PT
Children less than 3 years old
(0.025)
-0.495
***
0.729
***
(0.134)
-0.672
***
-0.706
***
-0.713
***
-0.838
***
-0.997***
(0.037)
(0.041)
(0.037)
(0.041)
(0.047)
(0.059)
Ref
Ref
Ref
Ref
Ref
Ref
SC
No Obese member
(0.033)
0.957
M AN U
Obese member
***
(0.136)
1.271
***
(0.150)
1.598
***
(0.134)
1.229
***
(0.148)
0.738
***
(0.171)
0.32 (0.215)
-0.267*** -0.122*** -0.104*** -0.168*** -0.299*** -0.270*** -0.374*** -0.399*** -0.410*** -0.332***
Fryer No Fryer Non declared
(0.034)
(0.036)
Ref
Ref
-0.159
0.122
(0.136)
(0.144)
(0.028)
(0.024)
(0.024)
(0.027)
(0.024)
(0.026)
(0.031)
(0.038)
Ref
Ref
Ref
Ref
Ref
Ref
Ref
Ref
0.139
adj. R2
0.138
Standard errors in parentheses; *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1
AC C
Table 1. Results of the quantile regression
EP
R2
(0.153)
-0.214
-0.083
-0.042
-0.162
-0.062
-0.062
(0.095)
(0.096)
(0.106)
(0.095)
(0.105)
(0.121)
(0.152)
0.155
0.703***
1.012***
1.363***
(0.101)
(0.111)
(0.128)
(0.161)
TE D
(0.145)
-0.334
**
(0.110)
-0.653*** -2.610*** -2.190*** -1.710*** -1.141*** -0.543***
Constant
(0.117)
(0.101)
(0.102)
(0.113)
-0.313
**
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Q2 Q3 Q4
Q1
Q5
P-value1
0.00000
2280 (1,054)
2377 (981)
2426 (976)
2488 (1,015)
2551 (984)
Annual organic expenditure per household and per consumption units (euros)
1.8
7.0
15.0
32.0
206.0
Average organic penetration rate (%)
0.08
0.30
0.62
1.30
1
RI PT
Total annual expenditure per household and per CU (euros)
8.10
P-value is based on anova test for heterogeneity between quantiles. Standard errors in parentheses.
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
penditures per household and consumption unit and average organic penetration rate for the 5 quintiles of the organic penetration rate distribution
RI PT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
rate distribution
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Mean quantities (kg or l/year) Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q5
Mean expenditures (euros/year) P-value
1
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q5
P-value1
Fresh Fruits and Vegetables
109.00 126.30 137.84 147.57 158.40
0.00000
197.54 229.89 262.14 295.12 351.45 0.00000
p<0.0001
p<0.0001
Processed Fruits and Vegetables
30.08
30.46
30.55
30.85
26.08
0.00000
65.84
0.00000
p<0.0001
p<0.0001
Fresh meat
34.96
37.54
36.45
34.76
28.33
0.00000
308.74 340.67 335.93 335.63 307.06 0.00030
p<0.0001
0.0003
Processed meat
21.67
21.48
20.41
18.38
15.37
0.00000
205.79 209.96 207.83 199.71 190.74 0.00060
p<0.0001
0.0006
Fish and Seafood
13.07
14.14
14.97
15.49
15.08
0.00000
121.56 133.03 148.92 160.25 178.65 0.00000
p<0.0001
p<0.0001
Eggs
6.85
7.75
7.86
7.71
7.79
0.00030
20.36
0.0003
p<0.0001
Prepared Meals
33.47
30.73
29.79
28.54
26.27
0.00000
169.27 163.16 163.89 162.99 163.93
ns
p<0.0001
0.8297
Meal substitutes
0.03
0.08
0.09
0.18
0.52
0.00000
0.67
0.95
1.42
2.37
4.91
0.00000
p<0.0001
p<0.0001
Milk
55.92
55.01
56.39
53.12
52.20
ns
40.53
40.86
42.82
42.96
51.08
0.00000
0.1494
p<0.0001
75.54
80.78
RI PT
71.51
M AN U
SC
24.44
26.33
28.59
79.28
34.46
0.00000
49.05
47.21
49.66
49.60
48.95
ns
109.98 112.87 121.60 124.79 136.68 0.00000
0.5051
p<0.0001
Cheese
18.37
19.25
18.63
18.18
17.25
0.00000
155.60 167.11 166.22 169.49 176.87 0.00000
p<0.0001
p<0.0001
Starchy foods
13.16
13.38
12.82
12.87
12.42
ns
27.42
29.77
31.28
34.90
37.88
0.00000
0.1213
p<0.0001
Bread, Flour
13.48
11.80
11.77
13.00
12.71
0.03810
29.67
28.61
29.96
35.82
41.54
0.00000
0.0381
p<0.0001
Fat
12.10
12.10
11.70
11.14
10.53
0.00000
50.58
51.32
51.18
50.78
54.00
0.09820
p<0.0001
0.0982
Sweeteners
13.42
12.26
12.07
12.30
12.79
0.03460
39.42
37.27
39.07
43.44
51.48
0.00000
0.0346
p<0.0001
Culinary ingredients
19.14
19.98
0.0003
p<0.0001
Baby foods
10.82
7.32
Non Alcoholic beverages
19.39
17.99
0.00030
64.34
71.18
74.28
78.07
82.72
0.00000
7.45
7.15
11.07
0.00520
49.80
34.57
33.23
29.38
49.04
0.00120
0.0052
0.0012
104.76 101.23 89.96
82.43
64.25
0.00000
86.21
87.71
83.50
85.42
80.22
0.09030
p<0.0001
0.0903
5.64
5.27
0.00060
57.32
62.21
63.45
69.12
73.78
0.00000
0.0006
p<0.0001
49.15
32.56
0.00000
242.63 237.99 230.97 216.30 163.25 0.00000
p<0.0001
p<0.0001
5.94
Alcoholic beverages
58.76 18.28
Confectionary products.
13.31
1
58.65
5.11
5.63
53.52
18.94
17.80
16.20
14.66
0.00000
95.23 100.41 96.94
95.05
ns
p<0.0001
0.1566
13.45
13.20
12.62
11.35
0.00000
104.04 107.95 106.67 110.82 108.31
ns
p<0.0001
0.2648
4.54
4.35
4.68
4.45
0.00000
37.26
0.00000
p<0.0001
p<0.0001
AC C
Biscuits, cakes and pastries
5.97
19.58
EP
Hot drinks
Appetizers
TE D
Desserts
33.91
33.04
94.06
36.92
38.65
P-value is based on anova test for heterogeneity between quantiles; ns indicates a P-value > 0.1 Table 3. The total quantities and expenditures per food group for the 5 quintiles of the organic penetration rate distribution
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Mean quantities of organic products (kg or l/ year and/ CU) Q4
Q5
P-value1
0.36 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.05 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.05 0.02 0.01 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00
1.07 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.07 0.06 0.00 0.26 0.08 0.02 0.07 0.15 0.04 0.03 0.19 0.01 0.20 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.00
1.90 0.14 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.15 0.10 0.01 0.66 0.19 0.03 0.11 0.22 0.07 0.08 0.33 0.08 0.52 0.04 0.08 0.05 0.02 0.01
2.50 0.25 0.02 0.03 0.07 0.50 0.19 0.02 1.93 0.49 0.04 0.30 0.44 0.17 0.20 0.69 0.23 1.10 0.10 0.10 0.09 0.03 0.03
10.64 1.45 0.34 0.27 0.21 2.13 1.37 0.27 13.26 4.08 0.34 1.68 2.08 1.05 1.33 1.80 2.52 5.54 0.57 0.50 0.69 0.27 0.15
0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
SC
RI PT
Q3
P-value is based on anova test for heterogeneity between quantiles.
TE D
1
Q2
M AN U
Fresh Fruits and Vegetables Processed Fruits and Vegetables Fresh meat Processed meat Fish and Seafood Eggs Prepared Meals Meal substitutes Milk Desserts Cheese Starchy foods Bread, Flour Fat Sweeteners Culinary ingredients Baby foods Non Alcoholic beverages Hot drinks Alcoholic beverages Biscuits, cakes and pastries Confectionary products. Appetizers
Q1
AC C
EP
able 4. Purchased quantities of organic foods in the 5 quintiles of the organic penetration rate distribution
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Mean shares of products with nutrition claims Q2
Q3
Q4
Q5
P-value1
8.03 25.45 8.88 7.57 0.92 0.28 0.56 0.18 1.52
8.32 26.94 8.66 4.48 1.22 0.22 0.25 0.13 1.11
8.17 30.76 8.70 5.80 2.21 0.43 0.34 0.09 1.90
9.93 34.74 8.84 8.40 2.00 0.43 0.79 0.16 1.91
11.71 41.66 12.47 8.22 2.98 0.58 0.55 0.62 3.16
0.00000 0.00000 0.00410 0.00000 0.00040 0.00050 0.00530 0.00010 0.00000
RI PT
Light in sugar desserts Enriched in omega3 fat Light in sugar jam Sweeteners without sugars Light in salt chips Light in fat cheese Light in fat ham Enriched in omega3 ham Light in salt ham
Q1
Mean shares of products with official quality certifications Q2
Q3
Q4
0.28 13.39 6.44 0.57 29.70
0.22 13.26 6.01 0.69 27.21
0.43 17.12 6.23 0.87 31.39
0.43 25.44 6.77 0.74 29.97
Q5
P-value1
0.58 35.82 8.85 1.07 39.19
0.00070 0.00000 0.00000 0.00070 0.00000
SC
Labelled cheeses Labelled eggs Labelles meat Labelled fish Labelled tomatoes from France
Q1
Q2
80.75 27.02 65.40 69.33 61.35 61.35 60.88 67.28 66.55 42.31 44.39
80.31 23.92 63.75 67.80 59.85 60.09 59.72 68.79 64.58 38.94 44.16
Q3
Q4
Q5
P-value1
79.79 23.65 62.03 67.04 59.52 58.97 59.41 68.21 64.40 38.54 43.40
76.91 23.38 58.84 65.59 56.40 54.46 55.06 63.82 59.11 35.25 39.69
76.19 22.59 52.56 56.46 52.83 52.32 53.37 58.57 58.67 33.88 37.85
0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
P-value is based on anova test for heterogeneity between quantiles.
EP
1
Q1
TE D
Processed Fruits and Vegetables Fresh meat Processed meat Eggs Prepared Meals Desserts Cheese Bread, Flour Culinary ingredients Hot drinks Confectionary products.
M AN U
Mean shares of private labels
AC C
ble 5. Characteristics of the non-organic purchases of the 5 quintiles of the organic penetration rate distribution (% of non-organic purchases)
RI PT SC M AN U TE D EP AC C
organic purchases)
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
30%
RI PT
26.7%
SC
25%
M AN U
20%
15%
11.9%
0%
-5%
Variation of the food budget between the first and the fifth quantiles
Quantity effect
AC C
5%
EP
TE D
10%
-10%
-11.2% -15%
Quality effect
Cross Quantity-Quality effect -3.6%
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
30%
RI PT
26.7% 25%
SC
22.6%
M AN U
20%
TE D
15%
AC C
EP
10%
5%
2.4%
1.7%
0%
Quality effect
Non-organic price effect
Organic price effect
Ratio Organic/non-organic effect
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Q2
Q3
Q4
Q5
Non-specialized stores (hypermarkets, supermarkets, harddiscounts)
98.90%
98.10%
97.40%
95.20%
66.90%
Organic specialized stores
0.10%
0.30%
0.80%
2.60%
31.40%
Other
1.00%
1.60%
1.80%
2.20%
1.80%
RI PT
Q1
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
Table 6. Repartition of organic expenditures in organic specialized and non-specialized stores in the 5 quintiles of the organic penetration rate distribution
RI PT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
tration rate distribution