No abstract

PurposeThe present study aims to explore and compare consumer perception and scientific evidence related to food quality and food safety aspects of organic versus conventional vegetables.Design/methodology/approachPrimary data on consumer perception were gathered in 2006‐2007 through a consumer survey with Flemish adults (n=529) and compared with scientific evidence from literature. Consumers of organic and conventional vegetables were selected by means of a convenience sampling procedure. Subjects were asked to complete a self‐administered questionnaire concerning the perception of the nutritional and toxicological value of organic relative to conventional vegetables. Data processing and analysis included descriptive analysis (frequency distributions), data reduction (Cronbach's alpha test, factor analysis), bivariate analysis (correlations, t‐test, ANOVA) and multivariate analysis (stepwise multiple regression).FindingsIt was found that organic vegetables are perceived as containing less contaminants and more nutrients, and as such, being healthier and safer compared to conventional vegetables. However, not enough evidence is currently available in the literature to support or refute such a perception, indicating a certain mismatch between consumer perception and scientific evidence. The gap between perception and evidence is larger among older consumers with children. The perception is stronger when the consumption frequency is higher, but is independent of gender, place of residence (rural or urban), education and income level. Also non‐users, on average, perceive that organic vegetables have a nutritional and toxicological advantage over conventional vegetables.Research limitations/implicationsA non‐probability convenience sampling method was applied which limits generalisation of the findings beyond the sample characteristics.Originality/valueThis paper is original in comparing consumer perception and scientific facts related to both nutritional and safety aspects of organic versus conventional vegetables.

No abstract

No abstract

Growing consumer interest in food and health has motivated the European food industry to provide more simple information about the nutritional composition of foods. In addition to the traditional back-of-pack nutrition table, simplified front-of-pack labels have been introduced by the food industry to allow consumers making better informed and healthier food choices. In this study, consumers' perceptions of simplified nutrition information, namely Guideline Daily Amount (GDA) and Traffic light (TL), in Germany and Belgium are explored. Consumer surveys in Germany (n = 147) and Belgium (n = 128) were conducted in 2008. Data were analysed by means of descriptive statistics and regression analysis. In both countries, the GDA is the most widely used simplified nutrition label. Whereas most consumers in Belgium indicate a preference for the GDA, in Germany the Traffic light is favoured most. Regression analyses indicate that the predilection for the different labels is affected by socio-demographic characteristics and perceptions towards the respective labels. European nutrition policy makers and food industries should be aware of cross-country differences regarding the perception of simplified nutrition labels. The challenge for both stakeholder groups is to raise awareness of the potential function of simplified labels in making informed and healthy food choices among European consumers.