The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Consumer perception of organic food production and farm animal welfare
Abstract
This paper is derived from a larger scale project investigating consumer attitudes towards organic food in the UK. Presents focus group results on consumer perceptions, attitudes and behaviour in relation to two key interrelated food trends: organic food and animal welfare. The results indicate that consumers often confuse organic and free‐range products because they believe that “organic” is equivalent to “free‐range” food. Focus group discussions were conducted to identify the main beliefs and attitudes towards organic food of both organic and non‐organic food buyers. Results indicate that, although health and food safety concerns are the main motives for organic food purchases, ethical concerns, specifically in relation to standards of animal welfare, play a significant influencing role in the decision to purchase organic food. The results are consistent with parallel research into consumer concerns about animal welfare, which showed that consumers are primarily concerned about food safety issues. Furthermore, the research illustrates the central outcome that animal welfare is used by consumers as an indicator of other, more important product attributes, such as safety and the impact on health. Indeed, ethical considerations seem to motivate the purchase of organic food and free‐range products and, therefore, may be viewed as interrelated. However, such ethical frameworks are closely related, if not contingent upon, the quality of the product, which includes perceptions of higher standards of safety and healthiness. Based on the qualitative data, suggests that the organic market could take advantage of research on consumer motivation to buy free‐range products, by embodying ethical concerns as an indicator of product quality.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Values, environmental attitudes, and buying of organic foods
Grunert, S. C., & Juhl, H. J. (1995) · Journal of Economic Psychology · doi:10.1016/0167-4870(94)00034-8 · Cited by 766
Research works printed but not linked: 11
- Bennett, R.M. (1996), “People’s willingness to pay for farm animal welfare”, Animal Welfare, Vol. 5, pp. 3‐11.
- Davies, A., Titterington, A.J. and Cochrane, C. (1995), “Who buys organic food? A profile of the purchasers of organic food in Northern Ireland”, British Food Journal, Vol. 97 No. 10, pp. 17‐23. · DOI · Paper page
- Fiddes, N. (1991), Meat: A Natural Symbol, Routledge, London.
- Grunert, S.C. (1993), “Green consumerism in Denmark: some evidence from OKO Foods‐projects”, Der Markt, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 140‐51. · DOI
- Harrison, R. (1992), “Case study: animal welfare”, in Berry, R.J. (Ed.), Environmental Dilemmas: Ethics and Decisions, Chapman & Hall, London.
- Latacz‐Lohmann, U. and Foster, C. (1997), “From niche to mainstream strategies for the marketing of organic food in Germany and the UK”, British Food Journal, Vol. 99 No. 8, pp. 275‐82. · DOI
- Roddy, G., Cowan, C. and Hutchinson, G. (1994), “Organic food: a description of the Irish market”, British Food Journal, Vol. 96 No. 4, pp. 3‐10. · DOI
- Sparks, P. and Shepherd, R. (1992), “Self‐identity and the theory of planned behaviour: assessing the role of identification with ‘green consumerism’”, Social Psychology Quarterly, Vol. 55 No. 4, pp. 388‐99. · DOI · Paper page
- Tregear, A., Dent, J.B. and McGregor, M.J. (1994), “The demand for organically‐grown produce”, British Food Journal, Vol. 96 No. 4, pp. 21‐5. · DOI · Paper page
- Webster, A.J.F. (1995a), “Animal welfare: who are our clients?”, Irish Veterinary Journal, Vol. 48 No. 6, pp. 236‐9.
- Webster, A.J.F. (1995b), “Farm animal welfare: the law and its implications”, in Mepham, T.B., Tucker, G.A. and Wiseman, J. (Eds), Issues in Agricultural Bioethics, Nottingham University Press, Nottingham.
Cited by
Michaelidou, N., & Hassan, L. M. (2008) · International Journal of Consumer Studies · doi:10.1111/j.1470-6431.2007.00619.x · Cited by 989
Sultan, P., Tarafder, T., Pearson, D., & Henryks, J. (2020) · Food Quality and Preference · doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2019.103838 · Cited by 422
Do citizens and farmers interpret the concept of farm animal welfare differently?
Vanhonacker, F., Verbeke, W., Van Poucke, E., & Tuyttens, F. A. M. (2008) · Livestock Science · doi:10.1016/j.livsci.2007.09.017 · Cited by 365
Kareklas, I., Carlson, J. R., & Muehling, D. D. (2014) · Journal of Advertising · doi:10.1080/00913367.2013.799450 · Cited by 343
Nutrition-related health effects of organic foods: a systematic review
Dangour, A. D., Lock, K., Hayter, A., Aikenhead, A., Allen, E., & Uauy, R. (2010) · The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition · doi:10.3945/ajcn.2010.29269 · Cited by 208
Metadata
- Authors
- Harper, G. C., & Makatouni, A.
- Venue
- British Food Journal
- Publisher
- Emerald
- Published
- 2002-04-01
- Volume
- 104
- Issue
- 3/4/5
- Pages
- 287-299
- ISSN
- 0007-070X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2127873268
- Cited by
- 730
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 5.72
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- www.emerald.com/insight/site-policies (tdm)
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Consumer perception of organic food production and farm animal welfare. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1108/00070700210425723
- The paper
- Harper, G. C., & Makatouni, A. (2002). Consumer perception of organic food production and farm animal welfare. British Food Journal. https://doi.org/10.1108/00070700210425723
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.