Recent Developments in Organic and Local Foods

While the production and consumption of organic foods first attracted interest among the counterculture; today there is increased support among mainstream consumers for these foodsReference Berlin, Lockeretz and Bell¹. US consumer demand for organic foods has been increasing steadily with estimated annual sales growth of between 17 and 21% since 1997Reference Fromartz^2, Reference Greene and Dimitri³. In 2005, organic food sales were estimated at $13.8 billion with more recent sales estimated at $23.6 billion⁴. Experts estimate that this pattern of growth will continue as more consumers seek out these foods.

While organic food production and consumption have increased, there also has emerged discontent among some regarding how the organic food system is evolving. One of the most contentious aspects of the organic food system's development of the last decade has been its regulationReference Rigby and Caceres⁵. In the US, the development and formalization of national organic standards have been viewed by some critics as undermining the longstanding traditions of organic philosophy and practiceReference Guthman^6, Reference Vos⁷. At one point in the process of developing national standards, substantial controversy arose from the disparity between the technical definition of organic initially released by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the recommendations of the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB)Reference Vos⁷. According to critics, what was released by the USDA did not reflect NOSB recommendations and allowed a number of substances, as well as genetically modified organisms, sewage sludge and food irradiation to be included as organic. These allowances (and other issues) that did not uphold the integrity of organic as understood by many longtime sustainable agriculture and organic food system participants led to an onslaught of public comment and criticism of USDA and the proposed standards.

While the proposed rules were revised, some critics contend that the ultimate organic food standard adopted by USDA reflects a narrow understanding of organic as the presence or absence of certain substances and does not encapsulate some of the social and economic ideals, such as production occurring via an environmentally friendly system of small- and medium-scale independent producers serving local marketsReference Guthman^8, Reference Hall and Mogyorody⁹. Some AFS advocates are also critical of the emerging organization of the organic food system—with distribution and retailing increasing in scale, global rather than local sites of production, farms that are capital intensive and highly mechanizedReference Hall and Mogyorody^9, Reference Rigby and Caceres⁵.

As organics have become more mainstream and the critique of ‘industrial’ organic has evolved, locally grown foods (organic or otherwise) and the development of local food systems have emerged as an alternative pathway for achieving a more sustainable and just food systemReference DeLind^10, Reference Ilbery and Maye¹¹. The term ‘beyond organic’ has gained prominence in the public dialogue to describe the importance of qualities beyond chemical free and to suggest the importance of local food productionReference DeLind¹². Among some local advocates, locally produced foods are deemed superior to certified organic because they embody a commitment to an economically, environmentally and socially sustainable system of agriculture and food production that is reliant on local resources and serves local markets and consumers, whereas organic production has become more about meeting the standardized criteria of organic and capitalizing on the premium that such criteria currently command in the marketplaceReference Lyson¹³. There are scholars, however, who caution that it is premature to privilege local over other forms of production, noting that just because food is produced locally does not ensure that it is more ecologically sustainable and socially justReference Born and Purcell^14–Reference Hinrichs¹⁶.

Despite this caution, many different attributes of local are touted. An especially prominent argument for local food systems is that the dollars spent on locally produced foods circulates more through the community than dollars spent on foods produced elsewhere by multinational food corporationsReference DeLind^17, Reference Ostrom¹⁸. Another potential benefit of local food systems is that, through closer connections between producers and consumers, a greater respect and a long-term commitment to farming emerge among all food system stakeholdersReference DeLind^17, Reference Ostrom¹⁸. In fact, local food systems are believed to shorten the distance between producers and consumers both spatially and psychologically, allowing a greater trust and confidence in the food system to developReference Raynolds¹⁹. Local food systems are also argued to privilege small- and medium-scale farm and food businesses because they are less vulnerable to being incorporated into the industrialized food system due to their dependence on direct producer and consumer networksReference Hall and Mogyorody⁹.

Personal and Social Basis of Consumer Interest in Organic and Local Foods

The steady growth of the organic sector, the growing interest in local food systems, and some of these debates on the merits of organic versus local that have cropped up in recent years prompt us to investigate whether the same or different subsets of consumers are attracted to the local and organic attributes. A number of agro-food scholars caution against characterizing alternative food system movements as internally coherent and harmonious, rather they might be characterized by competing interests and tensions, although research disentangling differences and similarities has been limitedReference Berlin, Lockeretz and Bell^1, Reference Raynolds¹⁹. A number of studies have focused on motivations and preferences for one or the other attribute and a review of this research suggests that support for local foods could be motivated by some different factors compared to support for organic productionReference Berlin, Lockeretz and Bell^1, Reference Winter²⁰. In the next couple of paragraphs, we outline some motivations for local or organic food consumption identified in the research.

One of the factors driving organic food consumption is some consumers’ desire food from a production system that does not require the application of synthetic and potentially harmful chemicals to the environment. A number of studies have indeed found an association between environmental concern and organic food consumptionReference Berlin, Lockeretz and Bell^1, Reference Berlin, Lockeretz and Bell^21–Reference Dimitri and Greene²³. Organic food consumers are also motivated by food safety concerns. In the modern food system, consumers are increasingly responsible for reflecting on what they will and will not let in their body, leading some consumers to modify their food consumption practices to manage potential food-related risksReference DuPuis^24–Reference Michaelidou and Hassan²⁶. Choosing organic foods is a way some consumers choose to manage perceived risks in food production where they perceive residues from chemical sprays, fertilizers, artificial additives and preservatives as possible risks. Several studies have found food safety concern to be an important motivating factor in choosing organic foodsReference Tomazic, Katz, Harris, Wimberly, Harris, Molnar and Tomazic^27–Reference Huang³⁰.

Among some consumers, the organic attribute is simply not only less risky but also perceived as healthierReference Halkier²⁵. According to DeLind, the absence of chemical residues on or in organically raised and processed food provides organic a reputation for quality among the health consciousReference DeLind¹². For example, in the Hartman Group's national 2000 Organic Lifestyle Shopper Survey, it was found that 66% of organic food purchasers were motivated by health and nutrition factorsReference Dimitri and Greene²³.

Studies of the motivations behind consumer interest in local foods lags behind that of organic foods, but relationships have been identified between environmental concern, food safety concern and interest in supporting local farming. A number of extant studies have found a positive association between support for local food systems and environmental concern. For example, HassaneinReference Hassanein³¹ found that 82% of community supported agriculture (CSA) shareholders in Missoula, Montana indicated that one of the personal benefits of being a CSA member was to support efforts to protect the environmentReference Hassanein³¹. In another study conducted in Iowa, TegtmeierReference Tegtmeier³² found a positive and significant correlation between the importance attributed to buying locally grown foods and closely following or monitoring environmental issues.

Purchase of local foods has also been perceived by some consumers as safer. And some suggest that local food systems or practices have grown as a result of anxiety or uncertainty related to the contemporary food system. Historically, perceptions of food quality were often the result of personal observation and social networks in the local communityReference Renting, Marsden and Banks³³. Knowing where and who has produced a food served as an informal quality assurance program, whereas with mass-produced foods and markets, expert systems of quality assurance now exist devoid of any spatial or personal observation of the consumer. In Tegtmeier's Iowa study of consumers in Black Hawk County, food safety concern had the strongest association with support for buying foods grown locallyReference Tegtmeier³².

While environmental and food safety concerns are common concerns of both local and organic food system supporters, a distinct motivation of some local supporters is their desire to support local farming and farmers. A strong appreciation of local agriculture and a desire to support local farmers, whose loss is perceived as having negative consequences for local communities and their economies, is one reason identified as motivating consumer support of local food systemsReference Pugliese^34, Reference Cone and Kakaliouras³⁵. A number of studies find a relationship between concern for the local community and support for local foods. For example, two early consumer studies found that purchasing locally grown produce was viewed as a way of supporting local farmers and the local economyReference Stephenson and Lev^36, Reference Bruhn, Vossen, Chapman and Vaupel³⁷. Other more recent studies have found similar patternsReference Ostrom^18, Reference Hassanein^31, Reference Alkon³⁸.

While the realization of improved health, improved environmental quality and more vital farming communities are all relatively new criteria consumers weigh, traditional food purchasing considerations remain quite salient for organic and local foods purchasesReference Berlin, Lockeretz and Bell¹. Intrinsic qualities of food or those things that are physically part of a product, such as taste, nutritional value and appearance, have been identified as important qualities considered by organic or local foods consumersReference Ostrom¹⁸. Price, access and convenience (sometimes referred to as expediency factors) are also typical considerations most studies of food choice have examined and high price, inconvenience and unavailability have all been articulated as factors that may reduce consumer's interest or support of alternative foodsReference Tegtmeier^32, Reference Hill and Lynchehaun^39, Reference Weatherell, Tregear and Allinson⁴⁰.

In sum, this brief review reveals some shared interests and differences in motivations of organic or local food consumption. Organic consumption would appear to have a stronger personal health motivation, while local has a stronger agrarian and community economic motivation. Concern for the environment and food safety concern are likely motivations for both. In our research, we are interested in the relative strengths of these purchasing considerations and preferences and are also curious about the configuration and relative strength of factors that motivate consumers who seek out foods that are both organic and local versus local only or organic only. We also consider the extent to which certain classes or demographics of people are relatively more interested in one attribute or the other.

Research Approach

Our research approach is designed to identify and profile distinct subsets of consumers who are variably interested in the organic and local food attributes. We compare and contrast these subsets of consumers across a range of characteristics. We anticipate that there will be some consumers interested in one or both food attributes as well as consumers with little interest in either. We anticipate that differences will exist among these consumer sets, particularly in terms of environmental, food safety and health concerns as well as their desire to support local farmers. We also consider the extent to which typical food purchasing considerations (taste, price and convenience) are related to preferred food attributes and whether there might be socio-demographic differences among these consumer groups.

From a practical standpoint, our approach leads to the creation of profiles of potentially distinct alternative food system supporters that might inform marketing, procurement and production strategies. From an academic standpoint, we expect there will not only be similarities but also differences that raise questions about the homogeneity of the alternative food system movement.

Typology construction

Segmenting and profiling consumers in an effort to better understand them is a common practice among market researchers. According to Baker and Burnham, markets are segmented by groups of consumers with similar needs and wantsReference Baker and Burnham⁴². Historically, those who study markets have segmented consumers by age, gender or income. Contemporary consumers, though, are not as easily classified according to these criteria and traditional segmentation criteria must be supplemented with an understanding of socio-cultural or attitudinal factorsReference Dagevos⁴³. Two of the leading consumer research and market analysis firms specializing in health, wellness and natural foods, The Hartman Group and the Natural Marketing Institute, include attitudinal factors in their profiles of consumer segments interested in alternative foods. For example, the Hartman Group delineated four organic consumer types (the organic engaged; the organic attracted; the organic borderline; and the organic uninterested) based on their interest in organic products, their actual purchasing behavior and their attitudes about select health and environmental issuesReference Hartman⁴⁴. We follow a similar approach to develop our (consumer) profiles.

Cluster analysis techniques in SPSS were utilized to classify Ohio Survey respondents into distinct groups according to their interest in local or organic foods. Cluster analysis is an empirical method of classification used for market segmentationReference Weatherell, Tregear and Allinson^40, Reference Punj and Stewart⁴⁵. The intent of cluster analysis is to organize the observed data into a taxonomy based on maximizing group attribute similarities and minimizing attribute differencesReference Wolfson, Madjd-Sadjadi and James⁴⁶. Cluster analysis aims at identifying structures in data without necessarily explaining why they exist, although subsequent analysis of clusters through multivariate techniques can be pursued to investigate them more closelyReference Aldenderfer and Blashfield⁴⁷.

Our final cluster solution resulted in respondents being assigned into five clusters based on the level of importance the respondent attributed to either foods being locally grown or produced or labeled organic as a purchasing consideration (with 1 being not important and 7 being very important). One set of respondents rated neither the local nor organic attribute as an important consideration (we refer to them as the ‘disinclined (DI),’ n=342). Respondents who rated locally grown foods as very important but the organic attribute as not important fall into what we call the ‘locally inclined (LI)’ cluster (n=359). Respondents reporting a high level of importance to food being labeled organic but not locally grown comprise the ‘organically inclined (OI)’ cluster (n=100). Respondents reporting a modest level of importance to foods being both locally grown and labeled organic are part of the ‘moderately inclined (MI)’ cluster (n=634). Respondents rating a high level of importance to foods being both locally grown and labeled organic are labeled the ‘superinclined’ (SI) cluster (n=343). The percentage of respondents falling within each cluster is represented in Fig. 1.

Figure 1.

Final clusters or types identified using K-means cluster analysis, Ohio Survey.

In their review of validity and cluster analysis, Punj and Stewart indicate that the user of cluster analysis should demonstrate that clusters are related to variables other than those used to generate the solutionReference Punj and Stewart⁴⁵. Two other measures of support for local and organic foods were utilized to assess the validity of the cluster solution—frequency of purchasing and willingness to pay for local and organic foods were analyzed in relation to the clusters to assess our solution (Figs. 2 and 3). In terms of frequently purchasing foods organically grown or produced, the OI and SI report most frequently purchasing these foods (Fig. 3). Twenty-one percent of the SI cluster and 14% of the OI report frequently purchasing organic foods. Very few DI or LI respondents report frequently purchasing organically grown or produced foods. The pattern of frequency of purchasing local by consumer cluster is presented in Fig. 2. In terms of frequently purchasing local, the DI report less frequently purchasing local (10.9%) and, as expected, the LI group reports more frequently purchasing locally grown or produced foods (39.8%). The SI, or the cluster including individuals rating both local and organic as very important, report most frequently purchasing local (54%).

Figure 2.

Percent frequently purchasing locally grown or produced foods by consumer types, Ohio Survey (DI=disinclined; LI=locally inclined; OI=organically inclined; MI=moderately inclined; and SI=superinclined).

Figure 3.

Frequently purchasing organically grown or produced foods by consumer types, Ohio Survey, (DI=disinclined; LI=locally inclined; OI=organically inclined; MI=moderately inclined; and SI=superinclined).

The pattern of each cluster's willingness to pay for organic or local reveals a similar pattern as purchasing frequency. Those favorable toward the organic attribute are more willing to pay more for organic. Over half of the OI (56%) and SI (53.9%) report a willingness to pay more for organic and just half of the MI are willing to pay more. A majority of the DI and LI are not willing to pay more for organic foods (80.7 and 80.7%, respectively). The OI and the SI are most willing to pay greater than 10% or more for organic compared to the other groups. In terms of willingness to pay more for locally grown or produced foods, a similar pattern exists, with the LI group reporting a willingness to pay more for these foods, which is similar to those rating both the local and organic attribute as a very important purchasing consideration. Over half of the LI (68%), the MI (60.9%) and the SI (70.2%) clusters report a willingness to pay more for these foods. The DI are least willing to pay more and only about half of the OI are willing to pay more for these foods. A larger percentage of LI and SI report a willingness to pay 10% or more for foods grown locally. Table 1 shows the percentage willing to pay a premium for organic and local. Overall, the patterns of purchasing and willingness to pay for local and/or organic validate the cluster solution.

Table 1.

Percent willing to pay more for organic and local by consumer types, Ohio survey (DI=disinclined; LI=locally inclined; OI=organically inclined; MI=moderately inclined; and SI=superinclined).

To further situate support for local and organic foods in the general population, we include comparisons with a reference group of MFC, who are known to have enrolled in ‘movement’ style alternative food system organizations. By including the MFC, we are able to make comparisons among those supportive of AFS in the general population and an even more refined subpopulation, persons known to be engaged in alternative food networks. This helps to fill a significant gap in our understanding of support for AFS and provides an even more nuanced picture of the possible heterogeneity of consumer support for sustainable or AFS.

Results and Discussion

We now turn our attention to profiling each of the five consumer types identified in our general population as well as the motivated consumers (the members of an alternative food co-op or non-profit educational organization promoting environmental and social responsibility). We describe the characteristics of each consumer type, highlighting similarities and differences among the various types. Because we anticipated some concern and attitudinal differences, we are able to consider the extent to which the various consumer types conform to our expectations. We conclude our profiles with a synthetic summary of key patterns identified and questions we have for future consideration.

Consumer profiles: DI

DI consumers (19% of the respondents) are interested in neither the local nor organic attribute. Not surprisingly, they reported the lowest level of agreement with all three food safety concern questions and the lowest level of diet health consciousness, the lowest level of agro-environmental concern, and the lowest level of farmer and farming concern (Table 4). In terms of standard food purchasing considerations, they rated price, availability where they normally shop, and taste as important considerations, comparable with the MI, LI and SI groups. On the other hand, they rated nutritional value and added health benefits beyond basic nutrition as less important purchasing considerations than any of the other consumer types.

DI's attention to traditional purchasing considerations but limited sympathy for contemporary food, environmental and farming issues suggests that these are not alternative food consumers seeking to realize various social and personal goals via food consumption beyond basic sustenance. Demographically, our data do not reveal any sharp distinctions from the other consumer groups (Table 2). Because we do not know what this group's perceptions of local and organic are, future qualitative research might investigate this group more closely to understand their view of these attributes as well as their overall view of food's connection to health.

Table 2.

Socio-demographic comparisons across clusters and MFC (DI=disinclined; LI=locally inclined; OI=organically inclined; MI=moderately inclined; SI=superinclined; MFC=motivated food consumer).

¹ F-test significant at 0.05-level.

² Pearson χ² statistic significant at 0.05-level.

MI

The MI were the largest consumer type identified, comprising 36% of the respondents. As their name suggests, they have a moderate interest in local and organic foods. Comparatively, they reported moderate food safety concern, diet health consciousness, agro-environmental concern and farmer and farming concern (Table 4). They rate price, availability where they normally shop and taste as important considerations at similar levels as the DI and LI (Table 3). Nutritional value and added health benefits beyond basic nutrition were rated moderately important compared to the other groups. Demographically, the MI was quite similar to the DI, LI and OI (Table 2). The sheer size of this group and their modest interest makes them a potential target for those interested in expanding the local or organic customer base.

Table 3.

Other food purchasing considerations across consumer types (DI=disinclined; LI=locally inclined; OI=organically inclined; MI=moderately inclined; SI=superinclined; and MFC=motivated food consumer).

¹ F-test significant at 0.05-level.

LI

The LI (20% of the respondents) rated local as an important food attribute, but not organic. Compared to the OI and the SI, the LI expressed lower food safety concern, diet health consciousness and agro-environmental concern (Table 4). They did express relatively high farm and farming concern (not quite as high as the SI) (Table 4). The importance they place on price, availability where they normally shop and taste are comparable to the levels reported by the DI and MI. The importance they place on nutritional value and added health benefits beyond basic nutrition is comparable to the DI and lower than the OI, MI and SI (Table 3). Demographically, the LI are less educated than the MI or SI (Table 2). A relatively high proportion of the LI grew up in a rural area and they are the most likely to regularly converse with a farmer.

Table 4.

Personal and social attitudes/concerns by consumer type (DI=disinclined; LI=locally inclined; OI=organically inclined; MI=moderately inclined; SI=superinclined; and MFC=motivated food consumer).

¹ F-test significant at 0.05-level.

In general, the LI appear to represent a consumer population that has an affinity for agriculture and farming, and their support of local may be a manifestation of that sentiment. On the other hand, their level of concern for food safety and health situates them near the DI and MI and might explain their low affinity for the organic attribute. As will become apparent in profiling the SI, this is one of two quite distinct consumer subtypes attracted to the local attribute. The existence of two distinct types is consistent with studies comparing consumers in four counties in Washington, USA and documenting distinct local food meanings and constituenciesReference Selfa, Jussaume and Winter⁴⁸. It also raises some interesting questions about the extent to which the local attribute represents a food attribute valued for where it is produced, versus its transformative potential to reconstruct a more sustainable food systemReference Weatherell, Tregear and Allinson^40, Reference Ostrom¹⁸.

Conclusions and Future Research

Our cluster analysis utilizing the local and organic food attributes resulted in an intuitive and logical set of consumer groups. The cluster analysis results reveal consumers valuing the local attribute distinct from the organic attribute and a large segment of consumers favorable toward both attributes. This cluster solution suggests that a sizable subpopulation exists interested in local, but not excited by the organic attribute, as well as a sizable subpopulation interested in both the local and organic attribute (although we are unable to determine from our data the extent to which both attributes are simultaneously desired by these consumers). One limitation to be noted is that our data are from two Ohio-based mail surveys conducted several years prior to the economic downturn. Generalizations based on these results to consumers outside of Ohio should be made with caution; although, our results provide a benchmark for exploring patterns of interest and support in other areas. While the results are still timely in that they distinguish consumer interest in local from organic, the economic downturn has likely increased all consumers’ interest in price as a purchasing consideration and may be perceived as a much greater barrier for purchasing local and organic foods than when the data were originally collected for this study. Future research should explore the impact of the downturn on consumer perceptions and interest in local and organic foods and, specifically, in what ways is consumption and support of local foods impacted differently than support and consumption of organic foods. In terms of the discourse related to the decoupling of local from organic and the importance of both characteristics in definitions of sustainable agriculture, these results suggest that there may be market segments seeking production that satisfies one or the other or both criteria.

Consistent with our expectations, and shedding light on the diversity among alternative food system supporters, the profiles document some systematic differences among local and organic supporters. Organic supporters are more agro-environmentally concerned, more diet health conscious, and more concerned about food safety than the LI. The LI are more concerned about local farmers and rural communities than OI consumers. From a practical standpoint, these attitudinal differences point to the importance of developing marketing and communication strategies addressing or aligning well with these concerns.

Some critical considerations and questions emerge with regard to these findings, especially pertaining to future local food system development. On the practical side, the results suggest that there may be two different routes for promoting local foods, one through appeals to support local farmers and the other appealing to the triumvirate of local farmer support, diet-health benefits and environmental benefits. Promotion of diet-health benefits and environmental benefits draws the organic attribute into the mix as well. An interesting question that might be probed further is the extent to which the local-only crowd might actually be reluctant or repelled by the organic attribute (a possibility suggested by the fact local is valued but not organic by some consumers), but untestable with our data. Future research should probe the local food system support among different subsets of consumers qualitatively, as our measurement approach forced responses to closed ended questions and it would be interesting to learn how different subsets might express their motivations without the restrictions of a mail survey instrument.

With regard to local foods and availability, the findings suggest that even if there are high levels of support for local foods, having to go out of your way to purchase them (an inconvenience) may pose a significant barrier to a substantial proportion of potentially supportive consumers. If local foods are not convenient to purchase, then growing the market and movement for these foods may be difficult beyond the most motivated. The fact that price and availability are important purchasing considerations for many local food consumers also raises questions about maintaining the social and environmental ideals sometimes associated with local production, while seeking to mainstream local and getting products on traditional grocery shelves at competitive prices. Also, mass production of local produce (which may be necessary to overcome issues of availability and price) may benefit certain classes or scales of producers not currently associated with niche and farmer's market outlets and even undercut the price needs of these traditional local food producers.

Another interesting question related to the desire to support local farmers via local food purchases has to do with the growing social distance from farming among the US population. As people become further and further removed from agriculture, the critical question will be whether or not supporting rural people, farmers and rural places will continue to be valued and whether or not this is a frame that will resonate with future generations. Practitioners should be sensitive to this possible generational challenge and future research should address the extent to which views of food and farming change across the life course, but also the extent to which they are tied to particular generational experiences.

Similarly, with regard to the SI, our findings also reveal possible future generational challenges that may pose some unique challenges for practitioners working to increase awareness and consumption of local foods and may impact purchasing decisions among food retailers. Future AFS research should explore reasons for greater interest in local and organic foods among older consumers as we did not anticipate this. Perhaps the association is due to older respondents having greater familiarity and appreciation of minimally processed foods, with locally produced foods most likely being purchased in their basic, unprocessed form. The critical question emerging is whether or not younger generations will be as interested in AFS, especially local foods, as they require knowledge, time and interest in cooking with unprocessed foods.

A number of analysts have noted that the frames used by local advocates must also integrate social justice matters to truly meet expectations beyond organicReference Allen⁴⁹. One noteworthy limitation of this research is we did not assess attitudes about improving food access or working conditions for farm workers. Future research should consider the possibility that there might be differences across consumer types with regard to these social justice concerns. These types of comparisons would substantially improve our understanding of AFS supporters and may help to shift some of the focus to other aspects of these systems that have been largely ignored by the organic movement, as well as the newer ‘beyond organic movement.’

Finally, with regard to organic supporters, a couple of interesting questions emerge that warrant future attention. If organic supporters are less price conscious (Table 3) and willing to pay more for organic foods (Table 1) and similar attitudinally to the MFC—are they a more loyal or committed consumer to organic than the LI are to local? Will preferences for organic and advocacy for a more sustainable agro-food system embodied in the government sanctioned organic attribute outlast efforts for more localized food systems due to their willingness to pay for attributes believed to contribute to that outcome? Will they become more engaged in groups or organizations supportive of a more sustainable or alternative agro-food system?