Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T17:47:01.509Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Promotion of sustainably produced foods: Customer response in Minnesota grocery stores

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 October 2009

Ramona Robinson ,
Chery Smith ,
Helene Murray  and
Jim Ennis
Ramona Robinson
Affiliation:
Department of Food Science and Nutrition 225, 1334 Eckles Avenue, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN, 55108
Chery Smith*
Affiliation:
The Department of Food Science and Nutrition 225, 1334 Eckles Avenue, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN, 55108
Helene Murray
Affiliation:
Minnesota Institute for Sustainable Agriculture and an adjunct faculty member in the Department of Agronomy and Plant Genetics, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN, 55108
Jim Ennis
Affiliation:
Midwest Food Alliance, 400 Selby Avenue, Suite T, St. Paul, MN, 55102
*
C. Smith ([email protected]).
Get access

Abstract

This study assesses consumer perceptions of sustainably produced foods and evaluates whether a supermarket point-of-purchase intervention could increase shoppers' awareness of a campaign designed to promote purchases of sustainably produced foods. The in-store intervention involved the promotion of sustainably produced apples labeled with the Midwest Food Alliance's (MWFA) seal of approval. Minnesota consumers were surveyed at two eastern metropolitan area intervention stores and one eastern metropolitan area comparison store. The in-store campaign lasted 8 weeks and involved individually labeled apples, point-of-purchase materials, and weekly food demonstrations. Prior to campaign initiation, baseline surveys were administered to consumers in two test stores and one comparison store. Follow-up surveys were mailed to these same consumers upon conclusion of the campaign intervention. Independent samples t-tests comparing change from baseline to post intervention indicated that a statistically higher percentage of consumers in the test-market group had heard of the Midwest Food Alliance campaign. Furthermore, a statistically higher percentage of the test-market shoppers reported seeing signs and labels promoting the MWFA, indicating that the promotion had some impact. Baseline data gathered from all consumers indicated that foods produced with sustainable practices were important to consumers; however, food characteristics of freshness, taste, safety and healthfulness were most important. The majority of consumers reported that they would be willing to pay 10–30% more for selected sustainably produced foods. Research results indicated that an 8–week in-store intervention was effective at increasing consumer awareness of the MWFA. However, a more powerful intervention (including a longer promotion period with more labeled foods) may be needed to induce shoppers to increase their purchases of sustainably produced foods promoted by the MWFA.

Keywords

alternative agricultureconsumer attitudesconsumer behaviorfood marketinglabeled foodsorganic foodspoint-of-purchase
Type
Research Article
Information
American Journal of Alternative Agriculture , Volume 17 , Issue 2 , June 2002 , pp. 96 - 104
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2002

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Ary, D., Jacobs, L.C., and Razavieh, A.. 1990. Introduction to Research in Education. 4th ed.Harcourt Brace College Publishers, Fort-Worth, TX.Google Scholar
2.Brooker, J., Eastwood, D.B., and Orr, R.H.. 1987. Consumers' perceptions of locally grown produce at retail outlets. J. Food Distrib. Res. 18:99–107.Google Scholar
3.Brooker, J., Eastwood, D.B., Stout, C.L., and Orr, R.H.. 1988. Branding locally grown produce in supermarkets. J. Food Distrib. Res. 19:51–60.Google Scholar
4.Byrne, P.J., Toensmeyer, U.C., German, C.L., and Muller, H.R.. 1992. Evaluation of consumer attitudes towards organic produce in Delaware and the Delmarva region. J. Food Distrib. Res. 23:29–44.Google Scholar
5.Cronbach, L.J. 1951. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure tests. Psychometrika 16:297–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. FMI. 1997. Shopping for health 1997: Balancing convenience, nutrition, and taste. Food Marketing Institute and Princeton Survey Research Associates. Prevention Magazine. Rodale Press, Emmaus, PA. p. 31–39.Google Scholar
7.Goldman, B.J., and Clancy, K.L.. 1991. A survey of organic produce purchases and related attitudes of food cooperative shoppers. Amer. J. Alternative Agric. 6:89–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Hartman Group. 1996. Food and the Environment: A Consumer's Perspective. Phase I. Hartman Group, Bellevue, WA.Google Scholar
9. Hartman Group. 1997. Food and the Environment: A Consumer's Perspective. Phase II. Hartman Group, Bellevue, WA.Google Scholar
10.Jolly, D.A. 1991. Differences between buyers and nonbuyers of organic produce and willingness to pay organic price premiums. Agribusiness 9:97–111.Google Scholar
11.Kristal, A.R., Goldenhar, L., Muldoon, J., and Morton, R.F.. 1997. Evaluation of a supermarket intervention to increase consumption of fruits and vegetables. Amer. J. Health Promotion 11:422–425.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12.Landis, J.R., and Koch, G.G.. 1977. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33:159–174.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13.Lockeretz, W. 1986. Urban consumers' attitudes toward locally grown produce. Amer. J. Alternative Agric. 1:83–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14.Markle, S. 1997. Consumer demand growing for organic, local foods. Community Nutrition Institute Newsletter 27:4–6.Google Scholar
15.Misra, S., Huang, C.L., and Ott, S.L.. 1991. Georgia consumers' preference for organically grown fresh produce. J. Agribusiness 9:53–65.Google Scholar
16. MWFA. 2000. Midwest food alliance guiding principles. MWFA program kit. Midwest Food Alliance, St. Paul, MN.Google Scholar
17.Reicks, M., Splett, P., and Fishman, A.. 1999. Shelf labeling of organic foods: Customer response in Minnesota grocery stores. J. Food Distrib. Res. 30:11–23.Google Scholar
18.Rodgers, A.B., Kessler, L.G., Portnoy, B., Potosky, A.L., Patterson, B., Tenney, J., Thompson, F.E., Krebs-Smith, S., Breen, N., Mathews, O., and Kahle, L.L.. 1994. Eat for health: A supermarket intervention for nutrition and cancer risk reduction. Amer. J. Public Health 84:72–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19.Ross, N.J., Anderson, M.D., Goldberg, J.P., Houser, R., and Rogers, B.L.. 1999. Trying and buying locally grown produce at the workplace: Results of a marketing intervention. Amer. J. Alternative Agric. 14:171–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20.Ross, N.J., Anderson, M.D., Goldberg, J.P., and Rogers, B.L.. 2000. Increasing purchases of locally grown produce through worksite sales: An ecological model. J. Nutr. Educ. 32:304–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21.Russo, J.E., Staelin, R., Nolan, C.A., Russell, G.J., and Metcalf, B.L.. 1986. Nutrition information in the supermarket. J. Consumer Res. 13:48–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22.Shimp, R.A. 1997. Advertising, Promotion, and Supplemental Aspects of Integrated Marketing Communications. 4th edn.Dreyden Press, Fort Worth, TX.Google Scholar
23. SPSS. 1999. Statistical package for social sciences version 10.0 for Windows. SPSS Inc, Chicago, 111.Google Scholar
24.Thompson, G.D., and Kidwell, J.. 1998. Explaining the choice of organic produce: cosmetic defects, prices, and consumer preferences. Amer. J. Agric. Econ. 80:277–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25.Wilkins, J.L. 1996. Seasonality, food origin, and food preference: a comparison between food cooperative members and nonmembers. J. Nutr. Educ. 28:329–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
26.Wilkins, J.L. and Hillers, V.N.. 1994. Influences of pesticide residue and environmental concerns on organic food preference among food cooperative members and non-members in Washington state. J. Nutr. Educ. 26:26–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27.Wilkins, J.L., Bowdish, E., and Sobal, J.. 2000. University student perceptions of seasonal and local foods. J. Nutr. Educ. 32:261–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar