The global market for organic foods has reached $63 billion while the extended “natural” products marketplace
exceeds $290 billion in the U.S. alone. The report explores the market research and corresponding industry
strategies and factors behind the fastest growing consumer food and lifestyle trend in modern history.
A report commissioned by Academics Review, an independent 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization.1
Reviewed by: Bruce Chassy, PhD 2; David Tribe, PhD 3; Graham Brookes, MA 4 and Drew Kershen, JD 5
Principal researcher: Joanna Schroeder
INTRODUCTION
Since the 1990s, the organic market in the United States has seen regular double-digit growth in annual sales (Organic Trade Association, 2013a) and the advent of mainstream brands offering consumers a wide range of organic products. This report reviews the market research into what motivates consumers to buy higher priced organic products and corresponding industry marketing tactics which resulted in this phenomenal sales growth. The research findings which follow show that organic food marketers were well informed and repeatedly warned that absent consumer food safety concerns about less expensive conventionally grown foods, organic sector sales opportunities would be limited. “If the threats posed by cheaper, conventionally produced products are removed, then the potential to develop organic foods will be limited,” Kay Hamilton, of Promar International told attendees at the 1999 Organic Food Conference. Hamilton added that the potential for growth in the organic market would be limited if the perceived “threats to safe food production are removed”. Also, the “potential to develop the organic market would be limited” if the sector remains fragmented, consumers are satisfied with food safety and if the furor over genetic modification dies down. (Forrer, Avery & Carlisle, 2000) Findings in this report show that Promar’s counsel was neither unique nor outside of mainstream organic industry understanding of the key drivers for consumer adoption of higher priced organic products then or today. An extensive review of market research published over the past 25 years by organic and natural product marketers, corroborated by peer reviewed published academic and government funded studies, reveals that perceived safety concerns tied to pesticides, hormones, antibiotics and GMOs are the critical component driving sales in the organic food sector. The following analysis, based on an extensive review of published research into consumer attitudes about organic products over the past 25 years, combined with an extensive analysis of documented organic and natural product industry practices, finds direct evidence that widespread, collaborative and pervasive industry marketing activities are a primary cause for false and misleading consumer health and safety perceptions about competing conventional foods. Further, this review finds no evidence that other unrelated sources 7 play a significant role in creating these consumer misperceptions. Our review suggests a widespread organic and natural products industry pattern of research-informed and intentionally-deceptive marketing and advocacy related practices with the implied use and approval of the U.S. government endorsed USDA Organic Seal. Since its formal launch in 2001, the trade association arm of the organic industry has stated that the USDA Organic Seal endorsement has been a critical element in establishing consumer trust in their product offerings. The success of these efforts is evidenced by Organic Trade Association touted growth statistics showing an astounding 3400 percent increase from 1990 sales of $1 billion to the projected $35 billion in 2014. This accounts for total organic food expenditures by American consumers exceeding $300 billion in less than 25 years. (Organic Trade Association 2011c)
MODERN ORGANIC AGRICULTURE
While oft touted as the “traditional” way we used to farm, today’s organic industry and practices are relatively young. The concept of organic production dates back to the days of author, ecologist and environmentalist, Aldo Leopold, who argued for the preservation of the ‘biotic community.’ In the 1940’s J.I. Rodale founded Organic Farming and Gardening , a publication focused on the agricultural methods and health benefits of growing food “organically,” or without synthetic chemicals (Gross, 2008). These early ideas and writings promoted a shift to chemical-free farms, food co-ops and counter – cuisine – a new way of eating that focused on whole grains and unprocessed organic ingredients beginning in the late 1960s. Yet, in the past 35 years the definition or organic has evolved. According to Appetite for Change , the sixties counterculture changed the way we eat. Socio-political eco-advocacy events at the Berkeley, California People’s Park marked the rise of organ – ic agriculture in the United States during the time when Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring was gaining visibility across the country (Belasco, 2007), and, as a result, concerns of toxic chemicals in our foods began to take hold as a defining cornerstone for organic consumers. When a 60 Minutes episode aired in 1990 focused on the Alar scare, a growth-regulating chemical widely used in conven – tional orchards that the Environmental Protection Agency declared a carcinogen, headlines such as “Panic for Organic” set the organic industry up for mainstream consumer interest (Pollan, 2006). 8 In January 2014 Wall Street Journal reporter Sarah Nassauer asked “What will make people pay $3 more for frozen pizza that says “organic” when they been eating non-organic pizza for years?” In her report, she characterized organic as a “health claim,” noting that expanding the organic market is becoming more challenging to marketers using the organic label on its own to motivate buyers. In response, she reported Stonyfield Organic as making the decision in August of 2013 to add the term “no toxic pesticides used here” juxtaposed to their use of the USDA Organic seal on product labels. This move was explained by Stonyfield CEO Gary Hirshfield, who advocated the need to get consumers to believe “this [pesticide-free claim] is almost the same thing” as organic in order that they pay a premium for his products, providing the commercial logic in force here. (Naussauer, 2014) Organic marketers often publicly proclaim consumer interest in the environment, ethical practices and sustainability are the drivers for sales. But a 2014 consumer research study by the European Food Information Council (EUFIC) found that traditional organic-associated “eco-labeling” claims linked to sustainability concepts are rarely translated into purchases and correspondingly sustainability labeling claims “do not play a major role in consumers’ food choices.” (Klaus, et al, 2014) However, other research (detailed in following sections of this report) reveals safety and health-related concerns tied to pesticides, hormones, antibiotics and GMOs not only influence, but are clear drivers of organic consumer purchasing behaviors. Correspondingly, organic business marketing strategies and investments over the past 25 years reflect a clear and sophisticated understanding of this consumer research – creating, bolstering and spreading food safety concerns they link to competing conventional products to drive organic sales. Further, an industry-acknowledged and critical component of their success was the imprimatur of the United States government through the implied endorsement and approval of their products with the USDA Organic Seal. While such government endorsement and use to convey safety, nutrition or quality distinctions is contradictory to both the USDA policy and past organic industry-assurances, it is now a common place practice with research-defined consumer misperceptions about food safety and health risks driving sales in this multi-billion dollar industry. Further, USDA’s own research acknowledges the significant influence health, safety and nutrition perceptions attributed to the Organic seal play in the market growth of organic food sales. (Strochlic, 2005) In 2014 the organic food industry has grown globally to more than $63 billion and is part of an even larger green industry market (SustainableBusiness.com, 2013). In one of its “Lifestyles of Health and Sustainability” (LOHAS) reports, the Natural Marketing Institute (NMI, 2010) reports that the natural living marketplace is valued at $290 billion in the United States alone.
U.S. GOVERNMENT & DEFINING ORGANIC
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Organic Standards Board (NOSB)’s (1995) definition for organic agriculture is closer to that of Aldo Leopold and his concept of becoming at one with the Earth focusing on the process by which organic foods are grown and not the end products themselves:
Organic agriculture is an ecological production manage¬ment system that promotes and enhances biodiversity, biological cycles, and soil biological activity. It is based on minimal use of off-farm inputs and on management practices that restore, maintain, or enhance ecological harmony. The primary goal of organic agriculture is to optimize the health and productivity of interdependent communities of soil life, plants, animals and people.
The USDA Organic 101 blog (2012) takes the definition a step further and states that for crop produce or products to qualify as organic, and receive a certified organic label, they must be:
Free from genetic modification;
Grown without conventional fertilizers and pesticides; and
Processed without food additives or ionizing radiation.
In addition, it is imputed from organic standards that organic animals also be raised without the use of artificial hormones and antibiotics. However, organic definitions are not always accurately portrayed by marketers or correctly perceived by consumers. While the government’s organic seal was meant to highlight the different production methods of organic versus conventional systems; even prior to formal adoption of a U.S. government seal consumers interpreted the label in a different way. Extensive industry market and academic research showing consumer health and nutrition beliefs were being linked to the organic label prompted concern from consumer groups, grocery manufacturers and food processors to ask the USDA to add clarifying safety and nutrition language to USDA organic labels to avoid the risk that a U.S. government seal would reinforce unsupported consumer food safety concerns or be used by marketers to inappropriately exploit those fears (Burros, 2000). In response, when formalizing the U.S. government imprimatur via the USDA organic seal, both the government and organic trade industry representatives sought to assure those concerned that the seal does not and should not convey food safety, quality or nutrition information or create such distinctions when compared with conventional, non-organic products. The USDA made clear the standards were not developed to establish a better product as it relates to safety, quality or nutrition, but instead were a way to improve domestic and foreign confidence in country’s organic industry. Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman stated, “Let me be clear about one thing. The organic label is a marketing tool. It is not a statement about food safety. Nor is ‘organic’ a value judgment about nutrition or quality (WebMD, 2000).” According to a report in Environmental Law and Policy Review, the USDA acknowledged concerns that organic could mislead consum¬ers on health and food safety issues and predates assurances by Secretary Glickman. They note this apprehension being raised at a first meeting of the National Organic Standard Board (NOSB) by Assistant Secretary of Agriculture Joann Smith who said that OFPA should not be considered a “food safety” law and “admonished the board to make sure it did not character¬ize organic food as safer than regular food, since there is no scientific proof to that effect” (Hass, 2010). Despite initial intentions and assurances, the USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), the government agency responsible for managing National Organic Standards (NOS) and USDA’s Organic Seal, found in a 2005 consumer survey that consumer perceptions of foods carrying the USDA organic seal included beliefs that:
It is healthier 65%
It is safer 70%
It is more nutritious 46%
The AMS-funded study concluded that these consumer percep¬tions linked to the USDA Organic Seal were facilitating sales growth, and that familiarity with the seal but not the actual standards behind them was a dominant factor in determining if a consumer was likely to purchase organic foods. AMS reported the USDA organic seal increased confidence in organic products (71%) and increased likelihood they would purchase organic foods (48%). This likelihood rose to 55% for survey respondents with children under 18. However, 79% of consumers familiar with the USDA organic seal were not familiar with the corresponding National Organic Standards behind it, and 90% believed USDA, not third parties, were responsible for certification. With these significant health, safety and nutrition misperceptions noted, AMS concluded the USDA Organic Seal and marketing program was respon¬sible for increased consumer trust in and willingness to pay more for organic products. (Strochlic, 2005) USDA’s own research touting the key role in generating organic sales linked to health, nutrition and quality perceptions is supported in multiple academic and industry studies. Reviewing research into consumer perceptions and market drivers for organic purchasing, Michigan State University College of Law professor Brandon Lupp punctuates the important role the USDA Organic Seal plays, stating, “These [health and safety] preferences are clearly driving consumer purchase decisions in the grocery store, but the correlation be¬ tween the establishment of national organic standards, increased consumer confidence in organic products, and the resulting increase in production and sales cannot be ignored.” Lupp further adds, that multiple studies show health and environ¬mental claims frequently included on labels of products carrying the USDA organic seal are frequently false or misleading. He reports that the primary government agencies (Food & Drug Administration (FDA) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) ) charged with protect¬ing consumers with regard to food labeling and advertising claims (which include websites, in store displays and other promotional ma-terials for food products which under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act are considered labeling and must follow the same high standards and guidelines) are “truthful and non-misleading in all particulars” go largely unenforced. Lupp adds this lack of enforcement is surprising in the context that standards for enforcing these protections when it comes to food is intentionally low to protect consumers. Lupp notes that to bring corrective actions these agencies need only show “the likelihood of deception.” Lupp’s research evaluated FTC efforts as “ineffective,” and FDA’s enforcement as largely absent due to lack of resources and policies linked to health and “greenwashing claims on food products” (Lupp, 2009). This was essentially deferring responsibility to examine organic claims to USDA which has no direct enforcement role in food marketing and labeling regarding safety, health or nutri¬tion claim issues. The food safety trope is found throughout industry and supportive advocacy public relations materials. The Organic Trade Association campaign “Organic It’s Worth It” website lists “Personal Health” as the first listed reason to “trust organic” noting “All products bearing the organic label must comply with federal, state, FDA, and inter¬national food safety requirements9” and “When your health and the health of your family is on the line, remember: organic. It’s worth it.” (Organic Trade Association 2013c)
INDUSTRY GROWTH AND SUCCESS
The more formal USDA sanctioned definition of organic production standards, and the resulting USDA Organic seal, fueled noticeable growth in the organic and natural products industry. In 2012, sales of organic products, both food and non-food items, accounted for $31.5 billion in the United States, adding nearly $2.9 billion in new annual sales. During this same year, the industry saw double-digit growth for the first time since 2008, when the U.S. experienced a major economic recession (Organic Trade Association [OTA], 2013a). Total growth of organic product sales is outpacing total growth in sales of conventional foods. Organic food sales increased 10.2 percent in 2012, while conventional food sales only grew by 3.7 percent. Today, organic food’s share of the total food market has climbed to 4.3 percent (OTA, 2013). However, as a percentage of food grown, organic production remains at about 1 percent when compared with conventional production.
The Organic Trade Association’s (OTA) U.S. Families’ Beliefs & Attitudes Study (2013b) found that farm produced fruits and vegetable crops continues to be the leading category of organic purchases with 97 percent of organic buyers saying they had purchased organic fruits or vegetables in the past six months. Breads and grains, dairy and packaged foods were also frequently cited, all scoring above 85 percent. According to OTA (2013b), organic fruit and vegetable produce is the top category purchased among organic food users due to its availability and only moderately due to cost, as well as consumer concerns of chemicals and pesticides used on produce grown using conventional agricultural methods. In addition, OTA finds that reported consumption of organic meat and poultry has increased 13 percent among organic food users from last year. Specifically noting growing food safety concerns amongst organic buyers related to import uncertainties, antibiotics, hormones and chemical additives, the association believes this area will continue to grow (OTA, 2013b). According to the Natural Marketing Institute’s (2008a) report, “Understanding the LOHAS Marketing,” market research conducted for the organic and natural products industries consistently shows that food safety concerns linked to pesticides, hormones, antibiotics, and more recently GMOs, are the primary drivers influencing this consumer adoption and growth in the organic and natural products marketplace. Corresponding multi-billion dollar annual consumer marketing campaigns, public relations activities and investments in advocacy initiatives reveals the organic industry has taken heed of this market research and put significant resources behind leveraging consumer food safety concerns to grow the market share of organic and associated natural product offerings.
WHO’S BUYING ORGANIC
The success of the organic industry suggests that the consumer market segments for these products have significantly expanded since the start of the organic movement. While in the early days the organic buyer was an individual who sought a closer relationship to farming production methods, today the term ‘organic’ means different things to different people, creating a more diverse and expanded group of consumers who buy organic. According to an organic consumer market trends report published on behalf of industry leaders such as Organic Valley, Stonyfield Organic and Hain-Celestial Group, hormone, antibiotic and GMO absence claims marketed on organic labels are the key purchase drivers, noting “consumers are as concerned about what’s not in their products as what is.” (Herther 2011) New York Times food writer Michael Pollan wrote in 2001, “Health seekers, who today represent about a quarter of the market, are less “extrinsic” — that is, more interested in their own health than that of the planet.” Adding, “The chief reason (they) will buy organic is for the perceived health benefits. This poses a certain marketing challenge, however, since it has always been easier to make the environmental case for organic food than the health case.” (Pollan 2001) In its report “The Many Faces of Organic,” the Hartman Group (2008) classifies organic buyers into three categories: core, mid-level and periphery. The report defines core consumers as individuals who are highly engaged and passionate about organic products; thus they are the most frequent purchasers. The mid-level organic consumer is further segmented into the inner mid-level buyer who has a deeper, integrated approach to organics and thus more closely resembles consumers in the core. The outer mid-level consumer is closer to the periphery; and the periphery main¬tains only minimal, infrequent and less-intense involvement in the organic world. According to Hartman, 61 percent of the U.S. potential organic purchasing population is made up of the mid-level consumers, 24 percent are core consumers and 15 percent are periphery consumers. Similar to the Hartman Group, the Natural Marketing Institute (2008b) further classifies consumers by level of interest in products promoting health an environmental safety. The five classes include LOHAS, or Lifestyle of Health and Sustainability (18%), NATURALITES (12%), DRIFTERS (26%) CONVENTIONALS (27%) and UNCONCERNEDS (17%):
LOHAS (Lifestyles of Health and Sustainability)
NMI classifies LOHAS consumers as the heaviest purchasers
of green products. They are environmental stewards
dedicated to personal and planetary health. They are the
early adopters and influencers in the organic industry,
who are continually looking for “deeper green” products
(Rogers, 2011).
NATURALITES
NATURALITES are the secondary target for many LOHAS
products. This group of consumers makes most purchase
decisions based on benefits to their personal health. While
they are interested in protecting the environment – an
interest mostly driven by personal health reasons – they
are not as involved in planetary health. To support their
healthy lifestyles, they are avid users of natural and
organic consumer packaged products. NATURALITES
attitudes toward the environment, society, and health
aren’t as strong as LOHAS but they are more engaged
than other consumer segments (Natural Marketing
Institute [NMI], 2008a, p. 13).
DRIFTERS
Motivated by the latest trends, DRIFTERS commitment
to sustainability is constantly shifting. DRIFTERS tend to
be less active in the environmental movement than the
general population. However, they do tend to participate
in certain LOHAS-related activities, such as corporate
boycotting and recycling (NMI, 2008a, p. 13).
CONVENTIONALS
CONVENTIONALS sit on the fringe of the environmental
movement with no plans to become further involved.
They are well-educated, waste-conscious, practical and
rational consumers motivated by frugality rather than
environmental goals. CONVENTIONALs, like NATURALITES,
are more personally centered (NMI, 2008b).
UNCONCERNEDS
UNCONCERNEDS don’t possess much environmental
responsibility unless they feel it imminently affects their
livelihood. The number of UNCONCERNEDS has fallen in
recent years, suggesting that eco-related messaging is
perhaps beginning to penetrate this consumer segment
(NMI, 2008b).
NMI presentations to the organic and natural product industry in¬structs marketers on using this information combined with attitudes, beliefs and psychographics to grow their market share beyond those “core” or “LOHAS” consumers influenced by environmental and so¬cio-economic motivations (Rodriguez 2010):
NMI, Hartman and various other market research reports pro¬vide industry insights and guidance on motivating these different consumer segments via media and other outreach to purchase more or become new buyers of organic and natural products. This research and corresponding industry marketing activities is attrib¬uted to the dramatic increase in annual sales growth for this sector over the past 20 years. The net sales increase realized by expanding U.S. organic sales beyond the core LOHAS early adopters prior to the introduction of the USDA Organic Seal in 2000 to health and safety-motivated mid-level and periphery market segments now purchasing organic in 2014 is $186 billion.
TARGETING WITHIN MID-LEVEL SEGMENTATIONS
This research also shows the degree to which people purchase organic goods, or the extent to which a consumer falls into one of the Hartman Group or NMI organic consumer categories. It may be influenced by a person’s gender or parental status. For example, Context Marketing (2009) found that women are somewhat more concerned than men when it comes to many food quality issues, especially issues concerning food safety. “However, concern about food safety increases with age for both men and women” (p. 8). Hill and Lynchehaun (2002) note that families are often intro¬duced to organic food with the arrival of a baby. “Parents take a huge interest in the food they buy for their family and increasingly many new parents are buying organic baby food. This is dramatically changing family eating habits” (p. 530). Similarly, the Hartman Group (2013) found that parenthood is one of the most important triggers for using organic. “Our data continues to confirm a familiar story: When people have children, their thinking about food shifts dramatically as they transition from caring about oneself to caring about another growing being. Parents’ thinking about food continues to evolve as their children grow” (p. 10). Hartman (2013) cited that entry to the organic market for some began while pregnant while others enter the category once their child has transitioned to baby food or dairy products. Stonyfield Organic yogurt company CEO and GMO “Just Label It” campaign chairman Gary Hirshberg, whose company is noted for their organic baby and child dairy product lines, told participants at a November 2013 marketing conference hosted by the Yale Center for Consumer Insights, “The most effective storyline with today’s food industry consumers is not whether a product is “sustainable” or “organic,” but whether there are pesticides involved in any way…” (Learned, 2014)
WHY ARE SOME PEOPLE BUYING ORGANIC?
According to Harris Interactive (2008) 76 percent of U.S. adult consumers participated in the World of Organic by buying organic products at least occasionally. “Perhaps the greatest influence on this continuing trend is that the word “organic” has become synonymous with ‘quality’ and a ‘healthier lifestyle’” (Demeritt, 2006). Professor Meike Janssen with the Agricultural and Food Marketing, Faculty of Organic Agricultural Sciences at the University of Kassel, confirms in research published in 2012, “Consumer perceptions of organic labeling schemes turned out to be of subjective nature and in many cases not based on objective knowledge.” (Janssen, 2012) The Hartman Group (2010), a market research organization that works with the organic industry and environmental advocacy groups, defined public perceptions of organic, “Consumers use the term ‘organic’ primarily to refer to farming practices and in its simplest form organic means food ‘grown without pesticides’” (p. 8). Organic is also associated with absence of herbicides, synthetic fertilizers, hormones and antibiotics as well as genetically modified foods. Hartman also found that the terms “natural” and “organic” while not the same, both overlap and are complementary in relation to consumer understanding. “Organic is understood as pertaining to what happens to food at origin (e.g., the farm, the plant, the animal)” (p. 6), while consumers see “natural” as describing what happens (or doesn’t) to food after it leaves the origin, or the subsequent pro¬duction and processing. Hartman found consumers view organic products largely from the perspective of “absence” claims tied to health concerns versus other attributes. In 2010, the Natural Marketing Institute reported that across both purchase behavior and lifestyle behaviors, consumers are increas¬ingly more engaged with the organic industry than in the past. “As individuals, they are choosing to switch to green products and to take more green actions. Different motivations prompt consumer action, such as health, community connectedness, and cost savings, but across all segments of the population participation is rising.” When researching food marketing trends in 2012, the Food Marketing Institute found that while shoppers may be spending fewer real dollars at the grocery store, and are more interested in value than ever before, their interest in health and wellness has rebounded tremendously, outpacing traditional product categories. For example, 78% of shoppers report interest in reading nutrition labels, paying more for organic products, or looking for locally sourced products…Over 40% of consumers feel that health and wellness products are ‘worth spending a little more on’ and organics sales have outpaced overall sales growth since September of 2009 (p. 25). This Hartman Group (2008) report for organic and natural product industry marketers noted other key trends contributing to changes in organic consumers purchasing, including:
Increased debate across government, industry and
non-government organization over definition of “organic”
Intensified media interest/coverage of organic
Growing concerns surrounding potential health hazards
linked to antibiotics and hormones in meat and dairy
products
Access to increasing number of natural/specialty food stores
More availability of organic products, driving down costs
Expansion of organic options within popular, mainstream
brands
Beliefs that organic foods taste better
Regular food recalls (e.g., beef, spinach, etc.)
While multiple factors feed into consumer decisions to purchase organic goods, food safety concerns and health attributes are a repeating and overlapping theme found in a review of more than 100 consumer and market research reports published by academic and industry sources between 1990 and 2013. Acknowledged but largely ignored by government regulators these perceived attributes are driven by clear and frequent claims supported by organic marketers repeated with such frequency they have become firmly held beliefs by a majority of consumers. The Organic Consumer Association (OCA) which lists among it’s funder and campaign “partners” such major organic retailers as United Natural Foods, Organic Valley, Nature’s Path and Amy’s Kitchen, claims in both promotional materials and testimony submitted to USDA’s NOSB, “Not only is organic safer, healthier and more nutritious.” OCA pushes even further, asserting buying organic will “reduce food-borne illnesses and diet-related diseases.” (Organic Consumers, 2008). OCA organic industry funders and campaign partners then link to their advocacy health claims via their consumer oriented product websites and social media accounts reinforcing these false and misleading health, safety and nutritional attributes.
ORGANIC PURCHASING MOTIVATION – FOOD SAFETY
The majority of studies find “health” to be the primary reason driv¬ing consumers to buy organic foods (Chinnici et al., 2002; Huang, 1996; Hutchins & Greenhalgh, 1997; Schifferstein & Ophuis, 1998; Tregear et al., 1994; Zanoli & Naspetti, 2002). For example, Ahmad (2010) shows that intent to purchase goes up when consumers be¬lieve organic food is safer than conventional food. When looking at ‘Whole Foods’ shoppers, the Hartman Group (2002), along with others in the industry, found that consumers claim they buy organic foods because of their superior taste, the environ-mental benefits of organic production systems, nutritional value and health concerns (Whole Foods Market, 2004). These findings are in line with those published by Harris Interactive (2007), which found that those who buy organic see the food as safer and healthier. These beliefs are shared globally. For example, when looking at the Irish consumer’s preference for organic meat, O’Donovan & Mc¬Carthy (2002) found that organic meat purchasers placed more im¬portance on food safety and health and believed that organic meat to be superior in terms of quality, safety, labeling, production methods, and value. Food safety is also the main reason why new parents make the shift from conventional to organic food purchases. The Hartman Group (2013) surveyed consumers to identify the key motivations for buying organic foods and beverages. The resulting report, “The Organic and Natural Consumer, Traits and Trends,” found three key triggers that compel consumers to first purchase organics: 1) preg¬nancy/parenting, 2) health conditions, and 3) social influence. According to Hartman (2013), Most parents are motivated to purchase organic products for their children by a sense of respon¬sibility and fear. Many are primarily concerned with perceived negative health effects of growth hormones and antibiotics in meat and dairy product categories and pesticides in fresh produce and grain categories… Purchasing organics makes parents feel like they are being proactive in protecting their children and acting responsibly (p.10). A study that examined consumer choice in apples found the pres¬ence of children under 18 in the household increased the likelihood a consumer would choose an organic apple,” (Loureiro, McCluskey, & Mittelhammer, 2001). The ‘avoidance factor’ is a common trend in the food safety com¬ponent of organic purchases. Parents aren’t the only ones who pur¬chase organic foods for their absence of different food production el¬ements (e.g., pesticides, genetically modified organisms, antibiotics, etc.). Hartman’s (2013) survey found that while the triggers varied between the core, mid-level and periphery buyers, the most cited reasons to buy organic were: to avoid products that rely on pesticides or other chemicals; to avoid genetically modified products; to avoid products that rely on growth hormones; and to avoid products that rely on antibiotics. In a Context Marketing (2009) study, shoppers cited food safety as their primary concern related to food quality. When asked to identify the most important issues, those directly involving food safety were ranked highest by the majority of respondents. “The claims consum¬ers found most meaningful have to do with the things consumers do not want to see in their food such as mercury, pesticides, hormones and antibiotics” (p. 4). Furthermore, 30 percent of survey respon¬dents said GMO-free is an important food quality claim. Research has consistently shown that while most Americans say they are unfamiliar with GM foods, the majority indicate that they hold at least some negative perception. In a Rutgers study, fewer than half (45 percent) agreed that they thought it was safe to eat GM foods (with only 8 percent strongly agreeing GM food was safe to eat), 63 percent said they would be upset if they were served GM food in a restaurant without knowing it, and 54% said that they would be willing to pay more for food that was not genetically modi¬fied,” (Hallman, W. K., Cuite, C. L. & Morin, X. K., 2013). Correspondingly, a common and aggressively promoted source of these parental concerns can be traced to public relations campaigns, advocacy sponsorships, advertisements, marketing promotions and even food labels asserting health risks with conventional foods and agricultural practices by organic and natural products industry mar¬keters. Organic industry leading companies, including Stonyfield, Organic Valley, Horizon, Eden Foods, Nature’s Path, etc… are all found to have significant investments in branded and un-branded marketing and advocacy targeting parents and children with health claims linked to pesticides, hormones, antibiotics and GMOs. (Milloy, 2007) In 2003 the Hudson Institute’s Center for Global Food Issues singled out market leader Stonyfield for having a “marketing opera¬tion linking Stonyfield products to child health issues” promoting “false and misleading” claims which included statements that pedia¬tricians were recommending organic milk over conventional for chil¬dren based on health risk concerns. (Hudson, 2003)
ORGANIC PURCHASING MOTIVATION – HEALTH
In September 2012 Stanford University School of Medicine re¬searchers published what was described as the “most comprehen¬sive meta-analysis to date of existing studies comparing organic and conventional foods” in the peer reviewed journal Annals of Internal Medicine. According to the Stanford study, “They did not find evi¬dence that organic foods are more nutritious or carry fewer health risks than conventional alternatives.” (Bravada, 2012) Similar find¬ings were reported in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition which concluded, “From a systematic review of the currently available published literature, evidence is lacking for nutrition-related health effects that result from the consumption of organically produced foodstuffs.”(Dangour 2010) These findings correspond with U.S. De¬partment of Agriculture positions and policies with regard to the use, meaning and promotion of the USDA Organic Seal in food labels and marketing (University of Wisconsin, 2007) and to U.S. Food and Drug Administration production-related guidelines with regards to require¬ments that food labeling claims be truthful and non-misleading all particulars. (Food and Drug Administration, 2001) A wide range of independent academic and organic industry spon¬sored consumer research reveals health concerns to be the primary motivating factor that moves consumers to spend more of their food budgets on organic products:
Zanoli and Naspetti (2002) found health to be the most impor¬tant motive in the purchase of organic foods with both regular and occasional organic consumers.
Lea and Worsley (2005) found that organic produce is often con¬sidered healthier than non-organic alternatives, and individuals believe organic food has a higher vitamin and mineral content than conventional products
Magnusson, et. al. (2003) found that respondents most strongly associated organic food purchases with human health benefits.
Makatouni (2002) found through a series of Interviews of regular consumers of organic foods (RCOFs) the research showed that the most significant motive for choosing organic was the health factor.
Harris Interactive (2007), through its Harris Poll, also found that the majority of the public believe that organic food is healthier (76 percent of survey participants).
These findings are further backed by other published research ar¬ticles. In fact, dating back to the 1990s, studies have shown that the majority of consumers purchase organic products for health reasons (Chinnici et al, 2002; Hutchins & Greenhalgh, 1995; Padel & Foster, 2005; Squires et al., 2001). Hass notes, “USDA organic certification connotes food that is safer even though it may not be” (Hass, 2010) Other reports find that positive attitudes toward organic food often result from the perception that it is healthier. Relative to conven¬tional food, organic food is considered to be more nutritious, and produced in a natural way absent of chemical fertilizers (Ott, 1990; Pino, Peluso, & Guido, 2012; Squires et al., 2001; Wandel & Bugge, 1997; Wilkins & Hillers, 1994). When reviewing academic research on consumer attitudes around organic and related industry market drivers, Hughner, McDonagh, Pro¬thero, Shultz and Stanton (2007) found that when it comes to organic purchasing, the ‘health paradox’ is an important component. In other words, consumers are driven to buy organic food primarily based on perceived health benefits, which contradicts research finding no evi¬dence that organic food is actually healthier (Williams, 2002). Laurie Dermeritt with the organic industry market research firm Hartman Group admits, “Consumers mistakenly believe that organic-grown food provides more vitamins and minerals, while there is no scientific evidence that this is true” (WebMD, 2000). As with safety risk claims linked to conventionally produced foods, health benefit claims for organic products are a frequently found component of leading organic marketers, organic marketing pub¬lications and other groups receiving financial support from the or¬ganic and natural products industries. As concluded by Lupp (2009) “These preferences are clearly driving consumer purchase decisions in the grocery store, but the correlation between the establishment of national organic standards, increased consumer confidence in or¬ganic products, and the resulting increase in production and sales cannot be ignored.”
ORGANIC PURCHASING MOTIVATION – ORGANIC MARKETING
In addition to perceived conventional production related (pesti¬cides, hormones, antibiotics or GMOs) health-linked risk avoidance, another key component attracting consumers to organic goods is the perception that organic products are healthier than ones produced through conventional methods. In 2001 R. Brooks Gekler was the marketing chief installed by General Mills to oversee organic lines like Small Planet Foods. While acknowledging organic was not a health claim, the General Mills organic division fell under the com¬pany’s “health initiatives” group and Gekler told the New York Times, “At first I thought the inability to make hard-hitting health claims for organic was a hurdle. But the reality is, all you have to say is ‘organic’ — you don’t need to provide any more information.” Adding, “These particular consumers — who pay attention to the media, to food scares — take their own health claims to the word.”(Pollan 2001) Through its own research initiatives, the organic industry has fur¬ther confirmed the academic evidence that organic purchases are primarily driven by food safety and health reasons. For example, the Organic Trade Association‘s (2013) U.S. Families’ Beliefs & At¬titudes study found that the leading reason given by U.S. families for purchasing organic products is health. In the study, 47 percent of respondents said the primary reason they buy organic foods is they are healthier, while 30 percent do so to avoid pesticides and fertil¬izers, 29 percent purchase organics to avoid antibiotics and growth hormones and 22 percent to avoid genetically modified organisms. Furthermore, a report published by Stonyfield Organic (2013a) found that for parents who buy organic products specifically for their children, they do so, “mainly to avoid the four categories [toxic pes¬ticides, hormones, GMOs, and antibiotics] that are so worrisome to parents when it comes to children’s’ food” (p. 17). The Natural Marketing Institute (NMI) has published several re¬ports on consumer attitudes around organic and natural products. One of its studies found that among both key LOHAS segments and the general population, a majority of consumers agree that organic foods and beverages are safer than non-organics. Almost equal pro¬portions among the three groups (general population, NATURALITES, LOHAS) believe that organic foods and drinks are safer for their health and the environment (NMI, 2008). According to NMI’s report, an area showing increased concern among the LOHAS segment is GMOs. “…Even while technological and farming advances allow for greater ability to manipulate crops, and proponents cite benefits such as decreased water and land use, consumers appear poised to respond negatively. This debate is likely to rage for years to come” (p. 138). NMI finds that 28 percent more people in 2007 believed it was important to buy GMO-free foods than in 2003 (NMI, 2008). While LOHAS and NATURALITES share a concern for personal health, they diverge on the issue of GMOs. In reference to the re¬port’s survey data measuring the amount of concern consumers have for different food ingredients (trans fat, artificial flavors, GMOs) the study found, The biggest gap between LOHAS and NATURALITES is [the desire] for no GMOs. While three-quarters of the population still finds [the GMO-free quality] of interest in relation to other benefits shown, it has not generated the same level of concern among the total population as it has in other countries (NMI, 2008, p.140). Also of strong importance to consumers is the absence of pesti¬cides and whether the food is locally grown. 10 Notable is that this measure ranks higher than organically grown, perhaps because it is explicit and has more easily understood implications than the all-encompassing term ‘or¬ganic.’ Rather, these attributes communicate benefits of or¬ganic. Marketers should take heed of these observations in their marketing strategies (NMI, 2008, p. 139). NMI notes that growing the organic and natural market be¬yond limited core environmentally conscious consumers to larger mainstream segments requires focusing on personal health concerns to drive purchases of higher-priced organic products. Revealing a connection beyond food, NMI states organic food purchasing adoption leads to growth in other “natural” product sectors ranging from natural medicines to green energy products. In its 2008 report, NMI notes on ways to move sales beyond core customers (emphasis added): Similar proportions of organic food users and LOHAS believe organic foods and beverages are safer. Thus, the safety mes¬sage is a clear driver to the category for committed users and should be a focus of marketing messages… market¬ers may benefit from educating them (non-organic and LOHAS consumer segments) on the safety benefits, as this is a top-of-mind concern for them. These data also reinforce the interconnectedness between personal health and planetary health, which offers marketers clear opportunities to broaden their communications to these targets and create messaging that is motivating to a variety of segments (p. 143). NMI (2008) considers NATURALITE consumers an opportunistic audience for organic marketing. While NATURALITES often cite in¬come challenges as a barrier to frequent natural products purchas¬ing, research shows the consumer group is a good secondary target due to their concern on personal health, which may lead them to engage more actively in the natural/organic industry in the future. Research reveals organic marketers to be heeding the advice of NMI. In a study commissioned by Environmental Leader LLC (2009), 80 percent of organic and natural product survey respondents (mar¬keters) indicated they expected to increase the amount of money their firms spend on green marketing efforts in the future.
ORGANIC PURCHASING MOTIVATOR – LABELING
Labels are one method organic marketers use to send messag¬es to consumers that their products are perceived to be safer and healthier. In fact, the Natural Marketing Institute (NMI) touts the influ¬ence of labels in consumer purchasing decisions. The Natural Marketing Institute (2008) found that use of package labels to promote organic product claims are the most important influence for consumers when they purchase foods and beverages, which is likely the result of a label’s high visibility at the time of the purchase decision. (p. 146). The research suggested that, the word “organic” means many things to consumers. Even so, the power of an organic label can be very strong. Studies (Chinnici et al, 2002; Hutchins & Greenhalgh, 1995; Padel & Foster, 2005; Squires et al., 2001) have shown that an organic label can lead a consumer to think that a food is healthier, through what is known as the ‘health halo effect’. Lee, Shimiu, Kniffin & Wansink, 2013 examined how far the bias associated with the health halo effect goes. Their study found that an organic label can influence much more than health views: percep¬tions of taste, calories and value can be significantly altered when a food is labeled “organic.”. Certain people also appear to be more susceptible to this ‘health halo’ effect than others. The Hartman Group (2013) cautions marketers: When marketing organic products: be mindful that parents are interested in a wider range of labels and phrases than non-parents. Parents spend more time reading labels and pay¬ing attention to callouts. They also do more fact-checking than non-parents. With this in mind, be sure to include claims that resonate most with them (e.g., real, pesticide-free, natu¬ral)… (p. 11).
As Khalameizer (2012) writes in “The Truths and Lies of Food Mar¬keting,” We assume that organic will mean that food will not contain pesticides, chemicals, additives; we presume the term, organ¬ic, means that the food is one hundred percent organic and always healthy. The problem is that not all food that is labeled organic will necessarily be completely natural and free of any modern day preparation techniques (p. 2). One survey conducted by International Communications Research of Media, PA on behalf of the National Center for Public Policy Re¬search (2000), at the time the USDA seal was established, found two-thirds of the public would be misled by the proposed USDA seal on several key issues such as on health, safety and nutrition infor¬mation. This information was subsequently shared with both USDA and FDA in public comment periods on establishing federal organic standards and labeling (Carlisle, 2000). Without taking any corrective action, the USDA admitted that al¬though they make no claims that organically produced food is safer or more nutritious than conventionally produced food, “Public per¬ceptions of products with the organic label are generally that they are less harmful to human health and the environment than their unlabeled conventional counterparts.” At that time Katherine DiMatteo, executive director of the Organ¬ic Trade Association (OTA), agreed that an “organic label does not promise a necessarily safer product” while acquiescing, “although consumers often believe that it does” (Kaufman, 2000). OTA’s agreement on health claims, however, has waned since 2000. Among various initiatives since, in 2005 the Organic Trade As¬sociation engaged Free Range Studios and produced “Grocery Store Wars” – an animated video “outreach effort to educate consumers about the many benefits of organic products.” Store Wars warned viewers that the “evil lord of the dark side of the farm, Darth Tater, was now more chemical than vegetable” while urging “when you visit the market you can keep your family and planet safe by choosing organic.” (Free Range Studios 2005)
HEALTH AND SAFETY MESSAGES IN ORGANIC MARKETING
Some in the organic industry sector did not agree with DiMatteo’s assurances on behalf the industry’s trade group or the USDA official position on organic versus conventional safety and nutrition claims. Immediately following the launch of the USDA organic seal, the Or¬ganic Consumers Association (OCA) responded claiming: Of course organic food is safer and more nutritious than chemical-intensive and genetically engineered agriculture’s ‘industrial food…’It’s a cop-out and an insult to America’s or¬ganic consumers for Katherine DiMatteo of the OTA to say that organic is better for the environment but not necessarily for public health (Organic Consumers Association [OCA], 2000, para. 2). These comments are not unique to OCA, which received fund¬ing and sponsorships from various organic marketing companies including OTA members, and they’re not new. Major organic retailers and advocacy groups regularly speak to the superiority of organic products when it comes to health and safety. In 2001, Eden Or¬ganic Foods published an article on its website titled “Organic Food: Superior in Every Way,” in which it wrote, “Evidence abounds that organic food is safer, more nutritious, better tasting, better for the environment, and better economically for growers and producers in comparison to commercially grown and produced food (Eden Foods, 2001, para. 1).”
GMO SAFETY AND HEALTH CLAIMS
Often organic marketing messages on health and safety specifi¬cally target genetically modified organisms and pesticides; mainly promoting the absence of these production attributes in the prod¬ucts. In fact, most major organic brands voice their position on ge¬netically modified organisms and pesticides directly on their website. Industry leaders acknowledge the battle to require GMO labels will further support sales growth. The Organic Monitor market re¬search firm told industry trade publication Food Navigator in January 2014 that the publicity around the GMO labeling push will propel organic market sales. (Schultz 2014) And, in a subsequent press release, Colle’s a New York-based online marketer of organic and natural products, “agrees that the GMO labeling controversy will only strengthen the organic food market.” (Colle Farmers Market 2014) With this in mind, it is not surprising that the organic and natural product industries have been the leading funding sources behind multiple state ballot measure and the national “Just Label It!” federal lobbying campaign for mandatory GMO labels. Amy’s Kitchen, an organic food company that produces easy-to-prepare meals made with organic ingredients, devotes a whole page of its website to its stance on GMOs: We’re passionate about organic and non-GMO food. Since we became aware of the concern with GMO’s, we’ve had a strict policy that requires our products not contain any GMO ingredi¬ents…There is a clear distinction between traditional breeding of crops and varieties (which we support) and the new technol¬ogy of genetic engineering, which crosses species that could never be crossed in nature. We don’t use GMO ingredients because we, and many of our consumers, are uncertain of their safety (Amy’s Kitchen, n.d., para. 1). Earth’s Best, a subsidiary of Hain Celestial Group that produces organic baby food, also devotes a portion of its website to its posi¬tion on GMOs, “Citizens and organizations across North America are waking up to the potential risks of GMOs and the desire to have food products free of GMO technology (Earth’s Best, 2012, para. 1).” United Natural Foods offers its official position on GMOs on its website: We believe that the cultivation of genetically modified or¬ganisms (GMOs) and their inclusion in our food supply pose a serious threat to human and animal health and to the environment and is therefore fundamentally contrary to our vision of a sustainable future (United Natural Foods, 2007, para. 2). Organic Valley marketing materials suggest GMOs cause food allergens. Additionally, the company claims GM food cultiva¬tion creates a risk of cross-pollinations that threatens crop diver¬sity and produces “super-weeds.” Organic Valley’s GMO position, featured on its website, argues many of the impacts of genetically modified crops are unknown. It writes, “We believe that questionable farming practices, such as the use of GMOs, should be prohibited until proven beyond any doubt to be safe for animals, the environ¬ment and people (Organic Valley, 2009a, para. 10).” These GMO-related health and safety risk claims are prolific (see Appendix A for additional examples) and a frequently tied to organic industry marketing demands calling for mandatory GMO labelling and bans. The organic industry promoted precautionary message argues when the effects of technologies are unknown, the best ap¬proach is to air on the side of caution. Organic Valley isn’t the only brand to use that theme in its position on GMOs. Silk, a Dean Foods brand, also claims that the risk of biotechnology is still unknown. Most GMOs are altered at the DNA level to be more tolerant of pesticides and herbicides, or to create their own pesticides, with the goal of generating more abundant crops. However, some farmers, environmentalists and many others believe ge¬netic modification causes more harm than good. So while the jury is still technically out, we know what we believe—it’s bet¬ter to let nature take its course (Silk, 2013, para. 4). Stonyfield Farms, owned by Group Danone, also exercises a tone of uncertainty when it talks about the safety of GMOs on its website: There’s still a lot of work to be done to learn about the pos¬sible negative effects of GMOs on animal and human health. That’s why so many of us are concerned about eating foods produced with GMOs, especially when we don’t know if we are or not. The two best ways to protect you and your family from GMOs in your food are to purchase organic today, and fight for GMO labeling for the future (Stonyfield, 2013b, para. 5). While Stonyfield Chairman Gary Hirshberg is less circumspect in media appearances in his role leading the industry-funded “Just La-bel It” and “Only Organic” lobbying campaigns. He wrote in an article for the Huffington Post: In short, no one can credibly claim whether they are or aren’t safe from a long-term perspective. However, there are some bases for concern… Because GMOs are not labeled in the U.S., they might be causing acute or chronic effects, but scientists would have a very hard time recognizing the link ages between GE food intake and unexplained problems. Studying GE food-human health linkages without labeling is like searching for a needle in a haystack with gloves on… When it comes to the safety of today’s first-generation GE crops, we don’t yet know, and we probably won’t know their impact for a generation (Hirshberg, 2013).” Risk messages specifically pertaining to children’s safety also heavily appear in organic brands’ marketing messages. As research shows, consumers often switch from conventional to organic pur¬chasing when they become parents, so it’s likely these messages are effective with families and new parents. Earth Best’s mission states, “At Earth’s Best® we believe babies and toddlers should be fed from the pure ingredients that the earth has to offer which is why we offer high quality, organic foods that do not use genetically modified ingredients (Earth’s Best, 2012, para. 6).” Horizon Organic shares a report on its website by pediatrician Dr. Alan Greene, a paid consultant for Horizon. The report, “Organic and Our Kids,” promotes the benefits of organic foods for children due their lack of pesticides and genetically modified ingredients. Choosing organic foods can benefit all of us, but I’m most excited about the benefits for children. One of the benefits of organic food is that it is grown without persistent pesticides. Exposure to some of these pesticides has been linked to developmental and learning problems such as ADHD… Another advantage of choosing organic food is that it is grown without the use of ge¬netic modification. When my 16-year-old was born, genetically modified organisms (GMOs) were not part of our food supply. Today, more than 30 percent of our cropland has been taken over by GMO crops. During the same time, food allergies have increased rapidly, and I’m concerned that GMO foods may be one of the reasons. GMO corn and soy are the dominant foods fed to most of the animals we use for conventional meat, milk, poultry, and eggs. They are what they eat (Green, 2011, para. 2, 3 & 6). Stonyfield Farms also targets the perceived risks of pesticides to infants and children. Liza Dube (2013), Stonyfield Farm’s Consumer Communications Specialist writes on the company blog, “After our oldest son was born and began eating solid foods, we made the choice to feed him as much organic food as we could, and while we didn’t know all of the reasons to choose organic, we only needed one-pesticides (para. 1).” Organic Valley takes risk-based marketing to children even further with both branded and un-branded campaigns including a branded “Farm Friends Kids Club” with promotional materials distributed to school children grades K-3 (ages 5-8). These promotional materials included a coloring and activities book for children and resources for parents to help organize campaigns to get organic-only milk and foods served in schools. Organic Valley’s “activity book” informs children: Wow, mothers sure are good at loving their babies! If mom’s knew how good organic milk is they’d know it was the best milk to give kids when they’re done nursing. Adding under their “top facts” about Organic Valley organic milk: It’s Healthy!… It’s pure milk, made without hormones, antibiot¬ics or pesticides! Organic Valley’s accompanying “Concerned Parent Organic Tool¬kit” includes organizing and lobbying tips and resources to inform other parents and school policy makers on “why organic milk is im¬portant, how it’s different from conventionally produced milk, how to approach education and foodservice professionals…” Adding, “Our children’s health is our most vital and precious resource for the fu-ture. Many schools are successfully replacing poor nutritional choic¬es with healthy ones, and yours can too – all the way to organic.” Like Horizon, Organic Valley enlisted Dr. Alan Greene, to include a letter in the accompany parent tool kit lobbying for organic milk and foods be served in local schools. Green cites concerns about rising health risks including: high blood pressure, type 2 diabetes, depres¬sion and cancer in support of Organic Valley’s campaign for con¬cerned parents to choose organic foods at home and to get schools to purchase them as well noting: As research continues to reveal the risks related to pesticides and other pollutants resulting from industrialized food produc¬tion, the healthiest food choices become increasingly obvi¬ous. I recently visited an organic dairy with my family. It was wonderful. Your actions can help sustain this gentle way of producing food. They buying power of one school district, and then another school district, and yet another, helps ensure our access to safe foods in the future by sustaining family farms and healthy farming practices. While many organic brands openly communicate an anti-pesti¬cide/anti-GMO position when they amplify risk claims around food safety, some brands indirectly take a side on these issues through less transparent means. Again, Organic Valley provides an example of unbranded marketing via less-than-transparent advocacy tactics