©2009 Poultry Science Association, Inc.
Organic poultry: Consumer perceptions,
opportunities, and regulatory issues
P. G. Crandall,*1 S. Seideman,* S. C. Ricke,* C. A. O’Bryan,*
A. F. Fanatico,† and R. Rainey‡
*Department of Food Science and Center for Food Safety, University of Arkansas,
Fayetteville 72704; †National Center for Appropriate Technology, Fayetteville, AR 72701;
and ‡Cooperative Extension Service, Division of Agriculture, Little Rock, AR 72204
Primary Audience: Researchers
SUMMARY
Organic and all-natural foods have become an alternative in most mainstream retail food
outlets. Organic foods, although only 3% of total retail food sales, account for an estimated
$17 billion in sales in the United States, and this category has been growing at a rate 7 times
faster than the average food category, maintaining a sustained growth rate of more than 15%
per year. Organic meat is the fastest growing sector of the organic market, and organic poultry
is considered to be a gateway food, drawing in consumers who are just beginning to purchase
organic foods. Current organic consumers are a bimodal population consisting of one group
in their 20s and a second composed of aging baby boomers. The income distribution is also
bimodal, with young parents rebudgeting to pay the higher prices for organic foods at one extreme and older Caucasian families with household incomes in excess of $80,000 at the other.
African Americans, Hispanic Americans, and persons with personal or family health issues are
more interested in purchasing organic foods than members of the general population. Organic
food consumers have traditionally insisted the foods they purchase be raised by local farmers
with a strong respect for the environment and, as is the current organic standard, to be free from
growth hormones and synthetic chemicals. One of the principal beliefs is that organic foods are
safer than conventional foods. Many consumers base this belief in the safety of organic foods
on the prohibition of pesticides and chemicals in raising the organic food. However, their understanding of the risks from pathogenic microorganisms on organic foods is not clear. Researchers have documented many common consumer food safety errors in handling conventional
poultry. Whether organic poultry has similar food safety issues has yet to be determined.
Key words: consumer demand, organic, all-natural food, poultry
2009 J. Appl. Poult. Res. 18:795–802
doi:10.3382/japr.2009-00025
MARKET TRENDS AND POTENTIAL
Organic Farming
According to a 2006 worldwide survey, more
than 30 million hectares (74 million acres) of
1
Corresponding author: [email protected]
land is farmed organically on 700,000 farms.
Countries with the greatest organic acreage at
the end of 2006 were Australia, China, Argentina, and the United States. International sales
of organic foods reached more than $38 billion
796
in 2006, with Europe and the United States being the largest consumers, and demand has outgrown supply of many organic foods since 2005
[1].
Growth and Future Potential of US
Demand for Organic Foods
In the United States, organic foods have
reached only 3% of total retail food sales, and
the principal market driver for the purchase of
organic foods seems to be health concerns [2].
The current demand for organic foods outstrips
the domestic supply, causing retailers in the
United States to import $2 billion worth of organic foods annually. If the demand for organic
foods continues to grow, there will need to be
an increase in the number of organic producers
and the number of hectares dedicated to organic
production. However, the impact of the current
US economic downturn remains uncertain.
Much of the consumer and market data on
organic food originates from the Organic Trade
Association (OTA). The OTA conducts numerous surveys of producers, processors, and retailers of organic foods. The OTA has reported that
organic food sales almost tripled, from $3.5 billion in 1997 to more than $10 billion by 2003
[3]. The OTA asked its members to make predictions about the future growth in organic food
sales for the next 20 yr. The key prediction of
OTA members was for 10 to 15% growth in the
organic food sector from 2006 through 2010 and
for 5 to 10% additional growth from 2011 to
2025 [3, 4]. These predictions appear to be reasonable, given that the annual growth in organic
food purchases maintained an annual increase
of 16 to 21% per year from 1997 to 2004. This
projected growth will add approximately $2 billion in annual sales to the total projected organic
food sales of $50 to $70 billion in 2025. Growth
in the sale of organic foods has been increasing
at a sustained rate of 16 to 21% per annum [4].
The growth rate for organic foods in 2006 was
22.1%. This rate of growth is 5 to 7 times the
rate of most of the other food market sectors,
which have approximately 3% growth. In 2008,
sales of organic foods rose by approximately
16% to a total of $22.9 billion, in spite of the
recent economic downturn [5].
JAPR: Review Article
Another prediction by OTA members was
that 68.3% of all US food companies would offer organic foods as part of their product line by
2025 [3]. These glowing predictions from members of the organic community were based in
part on the growth of a strong infrastructure for
the production of organic foods and new marketing channels. A recent report from the USDA
Economic Research Service postulated that this
rapid growth in sales of organic foods was due in
part to an increase in consumer concerns about
the safety of conventional foods, combined with
the evolution of new organic production and
marketing systems [6].
If the prediction that by 2025 the average
consumer will purchase some organic food on
a regular basis is to become a reality, then an
organic food supply will need to be available
through almost every retail food outlet. The
results of a recent Harris Poll of 2,392 adults
found that young, affluent shoppers, especially
members of the millennial (ages 18 to 30) and
generation X (ages 31 to 42) populations, were
more likely to be regular organic food buyers
[7]. A recent Hartman Group Poll concluded
that Asian Americans, Hispanic Americans, and
African Americans would continue to purchase
organic food in greater numbers relative to the
general population [8].
Organic Production and Potential Problems
In a 2007 survey, Mogelonsky [9] reported
that 48% of respondents agreed with the statement that organic products are better for them
than nonorganic products, but 32% worried
about the safety of organic meat and produce.
This persistent consumer belief about the safety
of organic poultry is certainly another global issue that must be considered.
In addition to the escalating demand for organic foods and the global issues just discussed,
several other issues must be taken into consideration when considering organic poultry production, processing, and value-added products.
Perhaps the most important local issue is the
significant likelihood of a national food safety
recall of organic poultry. Prolonged negative
media coverage could deliver a serious blow to
the foundational organic consumer perception
Crandall et al.: PERSPECTIVE ON ORGANIC POULTRY
that all organic foods are inherently safer than
conventional foods.
In 2006, a total of 1,600 new food and beverage products with organic labels were introduced as part of 15,643 new products launched
[10]. Overall new organic product introductions
in 2006 were concentrated in the market segments of sauces, seasonings, bakery products,
and beverages. Within these new product categories that could potentially contain organic
poultry, there was an increase from 67 to 93
in the meal and meal-centered products. In the
overall processed meats category, new product introductions increased from 37 to 45 new
products in that year. However, individual companies that are considering the possibility of entering the organic poultry market would do well
to see if these new organic poultry-containing
products, especially those in the value-added
categories and store-branded organic meat products, would meet their expected sales goals and
market penetrations. Another major impact that
is largely outside the control of poultry producers is the unknown effect of the ever-changing
US governmental regulatory climate. Increased
surveillance and genetic fingerprinting of microbial pathogens from foodborne outbreaks may
have contributed to heightened media attention.
However, this issue is currently being affected
by at least 2 factors: 1) funding for the US Food
and Drug Administration has increased by only
$32 million, enough to cover inflation but not
for increased spending on hiring additional food
safety inspectors [11]; and 2) although most organic consumers characterize organic foods as
being better for them than conventional foods,
they do not necessarily think this translates into
less bacteria on organic foods [9].
There is confusion on the part of some consumers with respect to the terms “organic,” “natural,” “all natural,” “Naturally Grown,” “antibiotic free,” and “locally produced.” This issue
needs particular scrutiny before one should consider investing in a new organic poultry operation. The USDA regulations are highly restrictive regarding the use of the term “organic.” The
organic label is restricted to poultry production
systems that feed the chickens or turkeys only
certified organic feed (feed that is grown without
synthetic pesticides or fertilizers); poultry must
be grown according to an organic plan, and the
797
entire poultry production facility is inspected by
third-party auditors. Certified organic poultryprocessing plants must also follow an organic
plan, use only cleaning compounds and sanitizers that are on the National Approved List, and
be subjected to third-party audits. Producers or
manufacturers that label products as organic that
do not comply with all these regulations can be
penalized with fines of $10,000 [12].
Historically, the term “natural” could be used
on a label to indicate that it had no artificial ingredients or was minimally processed, and the
label would have an explanation for the use of
the term [13]. In January of 2009, the Agricultural Marketing Service of the USDA issued a
voluntary standard defining “naturally raised”
[14]. To meet this standard, livestock must be
raised entirely without growth promotants and
antibiotics (except for ionophores used as coccidiostats for parasite control) and must never
have been fed animal by-products [14].
CONSUMER BELIEFS
AND ATTITUDES
Misconceptions by US Consumers
Scientists, both academic and industrial,
should be aware of the potential for increased
risk to the consumers of organic and all-natural
poultry. This increased risk is related to 2 misconceptions. First is that most organic consumers believe organic food is inherently safer than
conventional food [15]. Second, because most
organic consumers believe organic poultry is
safer, there may be a relaxation of their adherence to the recommended precautions associated with handling any raw poultry.
Following is a summary of research findings
on consumer beliefs about organic foods. Based
on a consumer Health Belief Model, individuals
who perceive that they are “very unlikely to be at
risk for foodborne illness” are the same consumers who are less apt to use good food-handling
practices [16]. Maciorowski et al. [17] found a
significant difference between Hispanic American and Caucasian consumers. When asked to
choose among the risks from eating poultry,
beef, and pork, Caucasians tended to believe
that poultry presented the highest food safety
risk. Conversely, Hispanic American consumers
798
tended to believe that pork had the most harmful
bacteria. Most Hispanic American consumers
thawed frozen poultry outside the refrigerator,
whereas most Caucasians did not. Because Hispanic Americans make up a large portion of the
organic food market, the potential for foodborne
illness may be greater because of their mishandling of poultry.
Kentucky consumers who were more confident of the safety of the nation’s food supply
were more likely to engage in risky food-handling or unsafe consumer behaviors compared
with consumers who did not share their assurance [18]. Females were more likely than males
to perceive that foodborne illnesses were quite
common, and females also practiced better
food-handling practices and were less likely to
consume the highest risk foods [18].
College students, who are generally in the
millennial generation (born between 1977 and
1997), seem to be divided into groups of high
and low organic consumption; the high-consumption group seems to be correlated with
greater health consciousness and a perception of
having a better understanding of what organic
means [19]. These college students are among
some of the newest converts to buying organic
poultry. A nationwide survey of college students
identified their self-reported food-handling behaviors as well as their perceived knowledge of
safe food-handling practices [20]. The scores of
college students on best practices for food handling were generally poor, averaging below 50%
of the correct response in most cases. Thus, these
new organic poultry consumers were also at an
increased risk for foodborne illness because of
their poor food-handling practices.
In a more rigorous study that did not rely on
self-reported data, Anderson et al. [21] recruited
volunteers who were told they were participating in a marketing study; to avoid biasing the
study, participants were informed that their foodhandling practices were being noted. Volunteers
were videotaped while preparing an entrée and
a salad in their own kitchens. On average, the
participants failed to wash their hands on 7 different occasions to prevent cross-contamination
of the salad after handling raw meat, seafood, or
eggs. The researchers defined “failure to wash
hands” as a behavior that should have prompted
the subjects to wash their hands (e.g., handling
JAPR: Review Article
raw meat) and the subsequent failure to do so.
Most participants also failed to prevent potential cross-contamination by adequately cleaning
kitchen surfaces, especially after contact with
raw meat. Only 5 of 99 participants used a thermometer to determine if their meat was cooked
to a safe internal temperature. Almost one-half
did not know the recommended final internal
temperatures for cooking various meats. Only
17 of the 99 subjects had ever actually checked
the temperature of their refrigerators. When the
temperature of their home refrigerators was
checked, close to one-half had refrigerator temperatures above 40°F, the recommended refrigerator temperature, and some were even above
45°F, which is well into the optimal temperature
range for many bacteria.
Market Drivers for US Organic
Consumer Purchases
Onozaka et al. [22] conducted surveys to
define the market forces affecting the rapid increase in the production of organic foods. For
organic food producers, the premium price paid
for organic foods compared with conventional
products has been a major positive incentive.
Organic products have higher production costs
as well as unique costs associated with certification, and organic produce must be kept segregated throughout the entire distribution channel.
Demand for organic meat and dairy foods has
been greater than supply to the point that that
there have been significant price increases in
organic animal feed ingredients, such as highprotein organic soybean meal and dairy cattle
feeds [23]. This higher demand and these higher
prices may encourage the production of more
organic animal feeds. All these factors are in
addition to the firmly held perceptions by many
organic consumers that organic foods not only
provide additional health benefits to them and
their families, but also that organic farming
practices provide long-term environmental benefits [24].
Gabbett [25] summarized several reports on
market drivers for organic meat purchases. The
author [25] reported that although Walmart, a
major retailer, carries organic poultry, it has yet
to sell organic red meat, pork, or lamb. Gabbett
[25] quoted a retail consultant, Willard Bishop,
Crandall et al.: PERSPECTIVE ON ORGANIC POULTRY
as saying, “A lot of premium products skew with
income (decreased demand with higher price),
but not organics. A lot of average and below
average income households put a premium on
purchasing organics.” This should be taken into
consideration when pricing organic foods—
there may be a bimodal price distribution, with
one group consisting of households with high
disposable income, where price is no object,
and the other consisting of household groups in
which a single mom must do without purchasing other commodities to buy organic food that
she deems necessary for her family. According
to the 2007 Health and Wellness Trends Report,
most shoppers reported that they bought organic
foods to avoid pesticides, genetically modified
ingredients, and hormones or antibiotics. More
than one-half said they began buying organic
foods because “they are better for me” [26].
The American Meat Institute and the Food
Marketing Institute surveyed consumers and reported that the key drivers for consumers buying
organic or natural meats are 1) better health, 2)
better nutrition, 3) better treatment of animals,
and 4) better taste [27]. They reported that 63%
of consumers would buy more organic meat if it
had a lower price tag. The major purchase outlets for organic meat, poultry, and fish are shown
799
in Figure 1. In a 2006 Food Marketing Institute
survey, almost one-half (49%) of those surveyed
believed that bacterial contamination (germs)
was the most serious threat to their health and
safety. Pesticide or herbicide residues in foods
were classified as a serious risk by 37% of those
polled, genetically modified organisms by 20%,
irradiated foods by 18%, and additives or preservatives by 16% [27]. For more detailed information on consumer beliefs and attitudes, see
O’Bryan et al. [28].
REGULATORY IMPACT
The Role of Regulations in the
Growth of Organic Foods
After years of contemplation and receiving
stakeholder input, the USDA published strict
guidelines for USDA Certified Organic production as part of the National Organic Program
Rule and the National Organic Standards. These
regulations were established by the Organic
Foods Production Act of 1990, which was implemented on October 21, 2002 [29]. This act
provided a clear definition of what constitutes
organic foods and what production, processing,
and handling requirements are mandated. The
USDA Certified Organic foods have to be grown
Figure 1. Point of sale for organic meat, poultry, and fish, 2006.
800
following an approved production plan without the use of synthetic fertilizers, pesticides,
growth hormones, or antibiotics. Organic foods
are required to be processed in facilities that use
only approved chemicals and sanitizers. Both
production and processing facilities are subjected to third-party audits, and auditors check
for compliance with every aspect of the organic
plan every year. The USDA organic seal can be
used only on organic foods whose production
systems have been inspected and approved by
third-party certifying agencies and who are in
compliance with the regulatory requirements.
The USDA organic regulations require that
USDA-certified 100% organic broilers be grown
according to the producer’s written Organic System Plan. Broilers must be grown without antibiotics, such as the low levels of antibiotics that
were previously used as growth stimulators. All
the corn, soybeans, and the other constituents
in the poultry ration must be certified as being
organic, which means that they must be grown
without the use of synthetic fertilizers or pesticides. For new broiler producers, a 36-mo washout period is mandated, during which an organic
grower is required to operate under strict organic
guidelines but is not allowed to sell products as
USDA-certified organic until this wash-out period is completed. The only exception is when
a grower can prove that no synthetic inputs had
been used in the previous 36 mo of production.
Before organic production and processing facilities are allowed to be considered USDA Certified Organic, an accredited certifying organization, contracting with third-party auditors, must
make on-site inspections. Annual inspections
must also be conducted by third-party auditors,
according to 7 CFR 205.403(a). Legally imposed restrictions carry a hefty $10,000 fine for
each mislabeling violation of the USDA organic
standards [12].
Definitions of Organic and Natural Foods
The current USDA regulations call for a
3-tiered nomenclature for organic foods. Foods
labeled as “100% organic” contain no nonorganic ingredients. Foods labeled as “organic”
must contain more than 95% organic ingredients. Foods labeled as having been “made with
organic ingredients” must contain between 70
JAPR: Review Article
and 95% of the ingredients as organic. The term
“organic” may be used only on labels and in labeling of raw or processed agricultural products,
including ingredients that have been produced
and handled in accordance with the regulations.
Products for export to other countries may be
labeled in accordance with the regulations of
that country. Additional information is available
from online references at the National Agricultural Law Center (http://www.nationalaglawcenter.org/readingrooms/organicprogram/).
There were years of delay before governmental regulators imposed these legal definitions for
organic foods. In this void, marketers exploited
the terms “natural” or “all natural” on their labels to answer consumer demands in this area.
In addition, there evolved a “Certified Naturally
Grown” label, tailored for small-scale, direct-tomarket organic growers that circumvented the
extensive documentation required to become
certified organic growers [30]. The USDA has
recently defined the use of the term “naturally
raised” as a label claim [14].
RESEARCH OPPORTUNITIES
IN ORGANIC PRODUCTION
AND PROCESSING
Most of the current research conducted in US
academic institutions and chemical supply companies has tended to ignore the small but rapidly growing organic poultry niche. Consumer
research that has touched on organic food sales
through farmers markets has been limited, as
reviewed by Brown [31]. The development and
food product research conducted by chemical
companies is focused on volume sales opportunities in the conventional foods arena. For a detailed analysis of organic production practices,
see Crandall et al. [32].
Current research opportunities on organic
foods can be organized into 3 focus areas. The
first research focus would be substantiating or
refuting the organic marketing hypotheses that
organic broilers are safer because they contain
fewer pesticide residues, are safer because broilers raised organically will have fewer foodborne
pathogens, and are more nutritious or better
tasting than conventionally raised broilers. The
second area of focus would be substantiating the
hypothesis that organic farming practices are
Crandall et al.: PERSPECTIVE ON ORGANIC POULTRY
better for the environment. A third focus would
be investigating whether organically raised poultry are raised and slaughtered in a more humane
manner, although this is not currently a component of the organic regulations.
CONCLUSIONS AND APPLICATIONS
1. Comprehensive examination of data on
the worldwide food market reveals substantial opportunities in organic poultry.
2. Poultry is generally the first organic
meat new organic consumers buy, and is
generally purchased by a dedicated following of young mothers and women of
higher socioeconomic status, with an expanding group of purchasers among the
baby boomer and millennial groups and
among ethnic groups that have a preference for organic foods.
3. Although demand continues to increase,
supply has not kept up, and there are currently shortages of organic commodities,
including meat and chicken.
4. Some consumers continue to believe that
organic foods are both safer and more
nutritious than conventional foods, even
though scientific studies to support these
ideas are lacking.
5. Research opportunities exist to verify
that organic foods are more nutritious
than conventionally raised foods, as well
as to verify a difference in pathogen levels between organically and conventionally grown products.
REFERENCES AND NOTES
1. Willer, H., M. Yussefi-Menzler, and N. Sorenson.
2008. The world of organic agriculture: Statistics and emerging trends 2008. Int. Fed. Organic Agric. Movements, Bonn,
Germany/Res. Inst. Organic Agric. (FiBL), Frick, Switzerland.
2. Knudson, W. A. 2007. The organic food market.
Strateg. Mark. Inst. Working Paper. Michigan State University, East Lansing. http://www.productcenter.msu.edu/documents/Working/organicfood1.pdf Accessed Apr. 2008.
3. Givens, H., and L. Bell. 2005. The past, present and
future of the organic industry: A retrospective of the first 20
years, a look at the current state of organic and forecasting
the next 20 years. http://www.ota.com/pics/documents/Forecasting2005.pdf Accessed June 2008.
801
4. Organic Trade Association. 2007. U.S. organic sales
show substantial growth. http://www.organicnewsroom.
com/2007/05/us_organic_sales_show_substant_1.html Accessed June 2008.
5. Laux, M. 2009. Organic food trends profile. http://
www.agmrc.org/markets__industries/food/organic_food_
trends_profile.cfm Accessed June 2009.
6. Dimitri, C., and C. Greene. 2002. Recent growth patterns in the U.S. organic foods market. USDA, Econ. Res.
Serv., Washington, DC. http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/AIB777/ Accessed Dec. 2008.
7. Harris Interactive. 2007. Large majorities see organic
food as safer, better for the environment and healthier—But
also more expensive. http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=813 Accessed Dec. 2008.
8. Hartman Group Inc. 2006. Who’s buying organic?
Demographics 2006. http://www.hartman-group.com/hartbeat/2006-05-17 Accessed May 2008.
9. Mogelonsky, M. 2008. Organic food and drink—April
2008. http://www.preparedfoods.com/Articles/Article_Rotation/BNP_GUID_9-5-2006_A_10000000000000312341
Accessed May 2008.
10.NewProducts. 2007. Market research and data.
http://www.newproductsonline.com/Archives_Davinci?
article=2149 Accessed Apr. 2008.
11.Consumeraffairs.com. 2008. FDA budget request “falls short.” http://www.consumeraffairs.com/
news04/2008/02/fda_inspections.html Accessed Apr. 2008.
12.USDA-Agricultural Marketing Service. 2006. National Organic Program. http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/
NOP Accessed Dec. 2006.
13.USDA-Food Safety and Inspection Service. 2006.
Meat and poultry labeling terms. http://www.fsis.usda.gov/
FactSheets/Meat_&_Poultry_Labeling_Terms/index.asp
Accessed September 2009.
14.USDA-Agricultural Marketing Service. 2009. USDA
establishes naturally raised marketing claim standard. http://
www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/ams.fetchTemplateData.do?
template=TemplateU&navID=&page=Newsroom&result
Type=Details&dDocName=STELPRDC5074955&dID=
106698&wf=false&description=USDA+Establishes+
Naturally+Raised+Marketing+Claim+Standard+&topNav=
Newsroom&leftNav Accessed Sept. 2009.
15.USDA-Economic Research Service. 2007. Organic
agriculture: Organic market overview. http://www.ers.usda.
gov/Briefing/Organic/Demand.htm Accessed June 2008.
16.Schafer, R. B., E. Schafer, G. L. Bultena, and E. O.
Hoiberg. 1993. Food safety—An application of the health
belief model. J. Nutr. Educ. 25:17–24.
17.Maciorowski, K. G., S. C. Ricke, and S. G. Birkhold.
1999. Consumer poultry meat handling and safety education
in three Texas cities. Poult. Sci. 78:833–840.
18.Roseman, M., and J. Kurzynske. 2006. Food safety
perceptions and behaviors of Kentucky consumers. J. Food
Prot. 69:1412–1421.
19.Liu, M. E. 2007. U.S. college students’ organic
food consumption behavior. PhD Diss. Texas Tech University, Lubbock. http://etd.lib.ttu.edu/theses/available/
etd-10172007-140916/unrestricted/Liu_Ming_Diss.pdf Accessed Jan. 2009.
20.Byrd-Bredbenner, C., J. Maurer, V. Wheatley, E. Cottone, and M. Clancy. 2007. Observed food safety behavior
of young adults. Br. Food J. 109:519–530.
802
21.Anderson, J. B., T. A. Shuster, K. E. Hansen, A. S.
Levy, and A. Volk. 2004. A camera’s view of consumer foodhandling behaviors. J. Am. Diet. Assoc. 104:186–191.
22.Onozaka, Y., D. Bunch, and D. Larson. 2006. What
exactly are they paying for? Explaining the price premium
for organic fresh produce. Agric. Resour. Econ 9:1–4.
23.Dimitri, C., and K. M. Venezia. 2007. Retail and
consumer aspects of the organic milk market. Publ. LDPM-155-01. USDA, Econ. Res. Serv., Washington, DC.
http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/LDP/2007/05May/
LDPM15501/ldpm15501.pdf Accessed Apr. 2008.
24.Teasdale, J. R., C. B. Coffman, and R. W. Mangum.
2007. Potential long-term benefits of no-tillage and organic
cropping systems for grain production and soil improvement. Agron. J. 99:1297–1305.
25.Gabbett, J. 2007. Arrested development. http://
www.meatingplace.com/MembersOnly/archives/details.
aspx?item=3417 Accessed Apr. 2008.
26.Natural Marketing Institute. 2008. Emerging trends
in the organic marketplace, part II: The organic market continues to grow, however, so do the number of barriers. http://
www.thefreelibrary.com/Emerging+trends+in+the+organic
+marketplace:+part+II%3B+The+organic+...-a0181033493
Accessed Apr. 2008.
JAPR: Review Article
27.Food Marketing Institute. 2007. US grocery shopper
trends 2007: Food safety. http://www.fmi.org/foodsafety/
presentations/trends_food_safety_chapter.pdf
Accessed
Aug. 2007.
28.O’Bryan, C. A., P. G. Crandall, and C. M. Bruhn.
2009. Assessing consumer concerns and perceptions of food
safety risks and practices: Methodologies and outcomes. In
Perspectives on Food Safety Issues of Food Animal Derived
Foods. S. C. Ricke and F. T. Jones, ed. Univ. Arkansas Press,
Fayetteville. (In press)
29.USDA. 2000. National Organic Program Final Rule.
www.ams.usda.gov/nop Accessed April 2008.
30.Certified Naturally Grown. 2002. Home page. http://
www.naturallygrown.org/ Accessed Aug. 2007.
31.Brown, A. 2002. Farmers’ market research 1940–
2000: An inventory and review. Am. J. Altern. Agric.
17:167–176.
32.Crandall, P. G., C. A. O’Bryan, S. C. Ricke, S. C.
Seideman, R. Rainey, E. A. Bihn, T. Maurer, and A. Fanatico. 2009. Production and processing of organic and all natural poultry. In Perspectives on Food Safety Issues of Food
Animal Derived Foods. S. C. Ricke and F. T. Jones, ed. Univ.
Arkansas Press, Fayetteville. (In press)