Natural. Locally produced. Eco-friendly. Organic—Marketing buzzwords or meaningful descriptors?

Credit: Creative Commons
Credit: Creative Commons

[B]ased on a survey of 37 000 consumers in 40 countries, [r]espondents are generally most interested in natural, locally produced, eco-friendly and organic claims. Trust and broader attitudes and beliefs regarding the environment play an important role in shaping consumers’ willingness to pay more for products with a sustainability claim. For most claims, willingness to pay is also higher among consumers with higher incomes and education. Even after controlling for these factors, there are significant differences among countries. In some countries, people are generally distrustful of claims, while in others people have greater trust. This suggests that consumer trust may be shaped less by the specifics of a claim and more by country-specific factors. This interpretation is consistent with data suggesting that consumers have only a limited understanding of what different claims mean.

Mis- and disinformation are distorting science and public policy. Subscribe to our Daily and Weekly Digests for incisive coverage of ‘disruptive’ innovations in AI, agricultural biotechnology, food, chemicals, nuclear energy, vaccines, and other disruptive innovations.

  • Changes in consumer behaviour could play an important role in improving the environmental sustainability of food systems, but there are many open questions around consumers’ beliefs,attitudes, and behaviours. This paper presents new cross-country evidence on how consumers interact with sustainability claims and labels on food products, based on survey responses of 37 000 consumers in 40 countries.
  • Even well-known claims such as organic or natural tend to have a relatively low prevalence, when looked at across all food products and countries. However, some studies suggest that the market share for food products with environmental sustainability claims may be growing. Among the different food product claims that consumers may perceive as involving environmental sustainability, consumers in the surveys are generally most interested in natural, locally produced, eco-friendly (environmentally friendly), and organic claims.
  • Several factors make it less likely that consumers will purchase products with sustainability claims. These are a lack of affordability (a high price of sustainable products relative to alternatives), confusion (e.g. unclear labeling) and a lack of understanding (consumers are not sure what sustainability features to look for), a lack of availability in the places where consumers typically shop, a lack of trust in the claims made on products, and broader attitudes and beliefs (e.g. a lack of interest in sustainable products).
Note: Colours reflect the share of respondents in each country reporting a willingness to pay more for a food product with the corresponding claim (where red denotes a low share of respondents and green denotes a high share). The minimum, median, and maximum are shown to facilitate interpretation of the colour scale. Credit: OECD analysis of Euromonitor data.
  • Statistical analysis on survey responses of 37 000 consumers in 40 countries confirms that trust and broader attitudes and beliefs regarding the environment play an important role in shaping consumers’ willingness to pay more for products with a sustainability claim. For most claims, willingness to pay is also higher among consumers with higher incomes and education. Age differences were found for some but not all claims, while gender effects are generally quite small. Even after controlling for these factors, there are significant differences among countries.
  • Consumers’ trust in claims is highly correlated within a country: in some countries, people are generally distrustful of claims, while in other countries people have greater trust. These findings suggest that consumer trust may be shaped less by the specifics of a label or assurance scheme and more by country-specific factors. This interpretation is consistent with data suggesting that consumers have only a limited understanding of what different claims mean.

Conclusion

The consumer survey used here asks which claims consumers look for when buying food, and for which claims they would be willing to pay more. On both questions, consumers are generally more interested in natural, locally produced, eco-friendly (environmentally friendly), and organic claims, as well as strong or well-known brands (as perceived by the respondent). There is much less interest in claims around support to charitable causes or grass fed production.

[T]he high correlation across the 40 countries of average levels of trust in organic claims and trust in natural claims (85%), despite the fact that organic claims are usually strictly regulated while natural claims are usually not regulated at all. These findings suggest that stricter standards, stricter audits or other actions by individual labels/assurance schemes play only a limited role in shaping consumer trust (and hence willingness to pay); trust may be shaped more by general factors in a country. This interpretation is consistent with data suggesting that consumers have only a limited understanding of what different claims mean.

This is an excerpt. Read the original post here

Related Articles

Infographic: Global regulatory and health research agencies on whether glyphosate causes cancer

Infographic: Global regulatory and health research agencies on whether glyphosate causes cancer

Does glyphosate—the world's most heavily-used herbicide—pose serious harm to humans? Is it carcinogenic? Those issues are of both legal and ...

Most Popular

Screenshot-2026-09-16-at-2.26.42-PM
Viewpoint: How to ecologically damage America’s forests: Ban glyphosate
Screenshot-2026-09-20-at-9.03.54-AM
From Malaysia to the world: A pioneering science communicator reimagines global science communication for a digital age
ChatGPT-Image-Sep-17-2026-12_28_43-PM
Vitamin D, omega-3 fish oil and glucosamine supplements could cause brain damage 
ChatGPT-Image-Mar-10-2026-01_39_01-PM
Viewpoint—“Miracle molecule” debunked: Why acemannan supplements don’t work
Screenshot-2026-09-20-at-4.31.28-PM
White House drafting executive order to control what OMB Director Vought claims are “woke” NIH science grants
ChatGPT-Image-Sep-20-2026-04_22_32-PM
What’s Trump’s ‘AI Force’? Administration rushes to announce ill-defined watchdog agency and czar amid criticism of its resistance to curb AI acceleration
Screenshot-2026-08-12-at-11.31.46-AM
AI is helping develop new vaccines
Screenshot-2026-09-14-at-4.31.14-PM
Viewpoint: What’s the likely impact when the EPA loosens rules limiting methane pollution from oil and gas wells?
Screenshot-2026-08-19-at-6.19.42-PM
Facts & Fallacies podcast: 'Regenerative farming'? RFK Jr.’s federal push romanticizes the past and risks food security
ChatGPT-Image-Sep-18-2026-10_49_24-AM
‘Symptom borrowing’: Young people are copying health problems they see on TikTok
ChatGPT-Image-Aug-28-2026-03_33_46-PM
Viewpoint: Bad science—Five bogus Trump administration claims about vaccines and autism
ChatGPT-Image-Sep-9-2026-02_48_24-PM
Viewpoint: Trump-RFK Jr. report on “Gender Ideology & Left-wing Ideology’ targets LGBTQ community—and science
glp menu logo outlined

Get news on human & agricultural genetics and biotechnology delivered to your inbox.