Christine Hoefkens

The nutritional and toxicological value of organic vegetables: Consumer perception versus scientific evidence

Purpose – The 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/approach – Primary 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 (Cronbachs alpha test, factor analysis), bivariate analysis (correlations, t‐test, ANOVA) and multivariate analysis (stepwise multiple regression). Findings – It 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/implications – A non‐probability convenience sampling method was applied which limits generalisation of the findings beyond the sample characteristics. Originality/value – This paper is original in comparing consumer perception and scientific facts related to both nutritional and safety aspects of organic versus conventional vegetables.Purpose – Sustainable agriculture implies the ability of agro‐ecosystems to remain productive in the long‐term. It is not easy to point out unambiguously whether or not current production systems meet this sustainability demand. A priori thinking would suggest that organic crops are environmentally favourable, but may ignore the effect of reduced productivity, which shifts the potential impact to other parts of the food provision system. The purpose of this paper is to assess the ecological sustainability of conventional and organic leek production by means of life cycle assessment (LCA).Design/methodology/approach – A cradle‐to‐farm gate LCA is applied, based on real farm data from two research centres. For a consistent comparison, two functional units (FU) were defined: 1ha and 1 kg of leek production.Findings – Assessed on an area basis, organic farming shows a more favourable environmental profile. These overall benefits are strongly reduced when the lower yields are taken into account. Related to org...

The nutritional and toxicological value of organic vegetables

Purpose – The 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/approach – Primary 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 (Cronbachs alpha test, factor analysis), bivariate analysis (correlations, t‐test, ANOVA) and multivariate analysis (stepwise multiple regression).Findings – It was found that organic vegetables are perceived as containing less contam...

Consuming organic versus conventional vegetables: The effect on nutrient and contaminant intakes

The health benefits of consuming organic compared to conventional foods are unclear. This study aimed at evaluating the nutrient and contaminant intake of adults through consumption of organic versus conventional vegetables, namely carrots, tomatoes, lettuce, spinach and potatoes. A probabilistic simulation approach was used for the intake assessment in two adult populations: (1) a representative sample of Belgians (n=3245) and (2) a sample of Flemish organic and conventional consumers (n=522). Although significant differences in nutrient and contaminant contents were previously found between organic and conventional vegetables, they were inconsistent for a component and/or vegetable. These findings were translated here into inconsistent intake assessments. This means that the intake of specific nutrients and contaminants can be higher or lower for organic versus conventional vegetables. However, when considering the consumption pattern of organic consumers, an increase in intake of a selected set of nutrients and contaminants is observed, which are explained by the general higher vegetable consumption of this consumer group. In public health terms, there is insufficient evidence to recommend organic over conventional vegetables. The general higher vegetable consumption of organic compared to conventional consumers outweighs usually the role of differences in nutrient and contaminant concentrations between organic and conventional vegetables.

Explaining the effects of a point-of-purchase nutrition-information intervention in university canteens: a structural equation modelling analysis

BackgroundThe importance of canteen meals in the diet of many university students makes the provision of simple point-of-purchase (POP) nutrition information in university canteens a potentially effective way to promote healthier diets in an important group of young adults. However, modifications to environments such as the posting of POP nutrition information in canteens may not cause an immediate change in meal choices and nutrient intakes. The present study aimed at understanding the process by which the POP nutrition information achieved its effects on the meal choice and energy intake, and whether the information was more effective in changing the meal choice of subgroups of university canteen customers.MethodsThe POP nutrition-information intervention used a one-group pretest-posttest design. A sample of 224 customers of two university canteens completed the baseline and 6-months follow-up surveys. A multi-group structural equation modelling analysis was used to test mediation effects of individual difference variables (liking, understanding and use of the information, subjective knowledge and attitude) on the energy intake from canteen meals, moderated by the objective nutrition knowledge and motivation to change diet.ResultsSignificant relations were identified between liking of the information and its use on one hand and a positive effect in attitude towards healthy canteen meals on the other hand. Motivation to change diet and sufficient objective nutrition knowledge were required to maintain a recommended energy intake from canteen meals or to lead to a decrease in energy intake. Participants with greater objective nutrition knowledge had a greater understanding of the POP nutrition information which also resulted in a more effective use of the information.ConclusionsThe results suggest that nutrition-information interventions may be more effective when using nutrition information that is generally liked by the target population in combination with an educational intervention to increase objective nutrition knowledge.Trial registrationNCT01249508

Consumers’ health-related motive orientations and reactions to claims about dietary calcium.

Health claims may contribute to better informed and healthier food choices and to improved industrial competitiveness by marketing foods that support healthier lifestyles in line with consumer preferences. With the more stringent European Union regulation of nutrition and health claims, insights into consumers’ health-related goal patterns and their reactions towards such claims are needed to influence the content of lawful claims. This study investigated how consumers’ explicit and implicit health-related motive orientations (HRMOs) together with the type of calcium-claim (nutrition claim, health claim and reduction of disease risk claim) influence perceived credibility and purchasing intention of calcium-enriched fruit juice. Data were collected in April 2006 through a consumer survey with 341 Belgian adults. The findings indicate that stronger implicit HRMOs (i.e., indirect benefits of calcium for personal health) are associated with higher perceived credibility, which is not (yet) translated into a higher purchasing intention. Consumers’ explicit HRMOs, which refer to direct benefits or physiological functions of calcium in the body—as legally permitted in current calcium-claims in the EU—do not associate with reactions to the claims. Independently of consumers’ HRMOs, the claim type significantly affects the perceived credibility and purchasing intention of the product. Implications for nutrition policy makers and food industries are discussed.

Country Differences in the History of Use of Health Claims and Symbols

Health-related claims and symbols are intended as aids to help consumers make informed and healthier food choices but they can also stimulate the food industry to develop food that goes hand in hand with a healthier lifestyle. In order to better understand the role that health claims and symbols currently have and in the future potentially can have, the objective of the CLYMBOL project (“Role of health-related claims and symbols in consumer behaviour”, Grant no 311963) is to investigate consumers’ understanding of health claims and symbols, and how they affect purchasing and consumption [1]. As part of this endeavour, it is important to understand the history of use of claims and symbols in Europe. What have consumers been exposed to and how were these health-related messages used and discussed among the public? In this study, we interviewed key stakeholders across Europe about how health claims have been regulated in their country, how health symbols have been and currently are being treated, what form of monitoring there is or should be and how both health claims and symbols have been debated in the public opinion. In 26 European Union (EU) Member States, opinions from 53 key informants from up to three different stakeholder groups were gathered: national food authorities, representatives of the food industry, and consumer organisations. While 14 Member States reported (at least partial) regulation of the use of health claims and/or symbols before the introduction of the EU Regulation (EC 1924/2006) on nutrition and health claims made on foods [2], mandatory reporting of use had only been in place in three EU Member States. A number of voluntary codes of practice for health claims and/or symbols (i.e. pre-approval or justification when challenged) was said to be in use in 15 Member States. There are only a few national databases on health claims and symbols available, the data for which is often incomplete. Only eight Member States reported having some form of database from which information about health claims and symbols could be extracted. The stakeholders interviewed expressed a strong interest in measuring the impact of health claims and symbols, particularly research into the effects on consumer behaviour (e.g. awareness and understanding, attitudes towards products carrying claims and symbols and purchase/consumption effects), public health (health outcomes and changes in national health status due to the introduction of claims and symbols on food products) and economic aspects including sales, return on investment and reputation measurements. Public debates were said to have evolved around the topics of consumer understanding of claims, acceptance as well as trust in the information presented but also the effects on vulnerable groups such as children and elderly consumers. Another field of debate was said to have been the question of the effectiveness of health claims and symbols. Lastly, stakeholders reported that public debates focussed mainly on the legislative aspects, i.e. how to apply the EU Regulation (No 1924/2006) with regards to wording issues, the evaluation process at the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), the status of various claims and the nutrient profile modelling to be introduced in Europe.

Nutrient-specific perceptions of food healthiness and the role of nutrition knowledge: a comment on Rizk and Treat.

This study [1] investigates consumers’perceptions of the healthiness of foods. It contributes to a rapidly growing body of literature aiming to better understandperceivedfoodhealthiness. AW eb of Science search using the search string {food AND (perception OR perceived) AND (health OR healthiness)} yields more than 2,500 results since 2005. Adding {… AND consumer} results in more than 750 hits, which is four times as many as during 1995–2004. Knowing what nutritional attributes consumers mainly rely on when evaluating food healthiness is relevant for food policy makers and marketers in developing nutrition-related strategies. The results may imply that interventions like productreformulationsorthedevelopmentoffoodclaimsfocusing