Tilburg University

Bachelor Thesis

Reconnecting the Gap between Farmers and

Consumers

Maria Diana Vlad

ANR: 284622

Supervisor: Dr. Prof. Ellen Dreezens

Liberal Arts & Sciences

Tilburg School of Humanities

Tilburg University

July 6th 2015

Email: dianavlad93@hotmail.com

Phone: 0634037047

Abstract

This study has investigated the relationship between food choice, food sovereignty, and the gap

between consumers and producers, in order to determine whether food sovereignty could make a

significant contribution to minimizing the gap. With the onset of the industrial revolution, the

physical and mental distance between the consumers and producers has grown, resulting in a

decrease in local farming. With the conventional supermarkets of today, consumers are no longer

as aware of where their food is coming from, who produced it, and where it was produced. Food

Sovereignty is a global peasant movement that advocates a shift from passive consumerism to

active consumerism, by encouraging consumers to assume responsibility and their right to define

their own food. Its goal is also to encourage farmers to increase communication between

themselves and consumers through the spread of fresh locally grown produce and increase the use

of farmers’ markets. In this study, factors of food choice have been used to indirectly measure

food choice, and these factors will be referred to as food choice throughout the thesis. It is

predicted that food choice influences the level of food sovereignty in consumers, and food

sovereignty helps to bridge the gap between consumers and producers. After the relevant

literature has been discussed, a questionnaire was developed and sent out to Tilburg and Utrecht

University students to complete, upon which a mediation analysis following the method of

Preacher and Hayes (2014) was employed to determine the results. It turned out that food choice

does not influence food sovereignty, and that food sovereignty does not have a significant effect

on the gap between consumers and producers. Food choice alone exerted a meaningful influence

on the gap between consumers and producers, meaning that food sovereignty is not a strong

mediator. Out of the five factors of food choice, sensory appeal and ethics turned out to have the

most significant effect on the gap between consumers and producers, and ethics still had a

significant effect when food sovereignty was introduced. It is interesting that the results state that

as ethics increases in the consumer, the gap between consumers and producers actually widens,

not minimizes, which seems to contradict theory. The limitations and recommendations for future

research are included in Chapter 5.

Keywords: consumer food choice, factors, influence, food sovereignty, gap between

consumers and producers

ii

Table of Contents

Abstract ................................................................................................................................ i

Table of Contents ................................................................................................................ ii Chapter 1: Introduction and Problem Statement ................................................................. 1

1.1. Background and Motivation .................................................................................... 1 1.1.1. Physical Distance between Consumer and Producer ........................................ 2 1.1.2. Psychological distance between Consumer and Producer ................................ 2

1.1.3. Food Sovereignty .............................................................................................. 2 1.1.4. Purpose of this Paper ........................................................................................ 3

1.2 Problem Statement and Research Questions............................................................. 3 1.2.1. Research aim: .................................................................................................... 3 1.2.2. Problem statement:............................................................................................ 4 1.2.3. Pre-assumptions: ............................................................................................... 4

1.2.4. Research Questions: .......................................................................................... 4 1.2.5. Conceptual Model ............................................................................................. 4

1.3 Societal Relevance .................................................................................................... 5

1.4 Scientific Relevance.................................................................................................. 5 1.5 Structure of the Thesis .............................................................................................. 6

Chapter 2: Theoretical Framework ..................................................................................... 7 2.1. Introduction .............................................................................................................. 7 2.2 Factors Affecting Food Choice as an Indirect Measure of Real Food Choice ......... 7

2.3 Psychological Perspective ......................................................................................... 8

2.3.1. Emotions ........................................................................................................... 8 2.3.2. Stress ................................................................................................................. 9

2.4 Biological Perspective .............................................................................................. 9

2.4.1. Sensory Appeal ............................................................................................... 10 2.4.2. Health .............................................................................................................. 11

2.5. Socioeconomic Perspective ................................................................................... 12 2.5.1. Food Prices and Income .................................................................................. 12 2.5.2. Education ........................................................................................................ 13 2.5.3. Culture............................................................................................................. 14

2.6. Ethics Perspective .................................................................................................. 15 2.6.1. Treatment of Animals ..................................................................................... 15

2.7. Consumer Food Sovereignty.................................................................................. 16

2.8. Food Choice and Food Sovereignty ....................................................................... 17 2.9. Gap between Consumers and Producers ................................................................ 17

2.9.1. Farmers’ Markets ............................................................................................ 18 2.9.2. Food Miles ...................................................................................................... 18

2.10. Food Sovereignty and the Gap between Consumers and Producers.................... 19 2.11. Food Choice and the Gap between Consumers and Producers............................ 19 2.12. Interim Conclusion............................................................................................... 20

Chapter 3: Methodology and Research Design ................................................................ 21 3.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................ 21

iii

3.1.1. Approaches to Quantitative Research ............................................................. 21

3.1.2. Sampling ......................................................................................................... 24 Chapter 4: Results ............................................................................................................. 26

4.1. Preliminary Analyses ............................................................................................. 26

4.2. Data Manipulation ................................................................................................. 26 4.3 Validation of Factors Affecting Food Choice ......................................................... 26

4.3.1. Confirmatory Factor Analysis......................................................................... 26 4.4. Reliability ............................................................................................................... 28 4.5. Statistical Analysis ................................................................................................. 29

Chapter 5: Interpretation and Discussion .......................................................................... 32 5.1. Food Choice and Food Sovereignty ....................................................................... 32 5.2. Food Sovereignty and the Gap between Consumers and Producers...................... 32 5.3. Food Choice and the Gap between Consumers and Producers .............................. 33

5.4. Discussion .............................................................................................................. 34 5.4.1. Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 34

5.4.2. Limitations ...................................................................................................... 34 5.4.3. Recommendations for Future Research .......................................................... 35

Appendices ........................................................................................................................ 36 Appendix A: Questionnaire .......................................................................................... 36 Appendix B: Pattern Matrix .......................................................................................... 41

Bibliography ..................................................................................................................... 43

1

Chapter 1: Introduction and Problem Statement This chapter will present background knowledge and motivation of the thesis and the problem

statement with research questions. Key concepts will be introduced as well as what the structure

of the thesis will be. This is done in order to clearly introduce the topic and layout of the research,

and to explain what will be investigated.

1.1. Background and Motivation

In today’s globalized food system, consumers are increasingly disconnected from the sources of

food production. This has an impact on their health, eating habits, the environment, agricultural

production techniques, and ethical dilemmas such as animal welfare and fair treatment of farmers

(Dyg et al., 2014).

The consumption and production of food are two hot topics in discussions revolving around

natural resource depletion, climate change, growing obesity levels, food ethics, hunger, and food

poverty. Unsustainable patterns in the food production and consumption arenas are highly

responsible for environmental destruction, loss of biodiversity, greenhouse gas emissions which

affect climate change, and unfair distribution of resources (Dyg et al., 2014). Industrial

Agriculture is responsible for unsustainable production methods, and currently, this is the

dominant form of agriculture being used.

Consumption places a strain on natural resources and may lead to increased waste production.

Food consumption is not only about food buying and eating, but also encompasses transport,

leisure, and tourism, and consumer demand, for these services use up valuable resources (Leahy,

2007).

Each day people are faced with food choices on what to buy and what to cook. Their selection of

food is influenced by a set of factors including psychological, socioeconomic, and biological

factors. Food choice is a highly complicated process. These food choices are not only a result of

individual preferences, but also a result of complex social constructs, such as socioeconomic ones

like culture, education, and income (Vabø and Hansen, 2008). Food choices are dynamic,

complex, and situational, and they evolve and change over the course of someone’s life (Franchi,

2012). The system of consumer culture in which we find ourselves offers us many choices of

food products. It is this vast range of choices that makes it difficult for consumers to choose. This

can be a problem for consumers when they do not have enough knowledge about the products in

terms of how they were grown, manufactured, and sold. Clearly identifying the factors that affect

consumer choice can help to pinpoint the reasons for certain consumer choices as a result of those

factors.

There is a loss of connection between consumers and producers. With the industrialization of

agriculture, farmers were encouraged to grow monoculture crops for large-scale distribution,

primarily to export to other countries (Spector, 2003). This has led to several consequences

including the decline in small-scale farming, an increase in the use of chemical fertilizers, a

decrease of human labour on the farm, and the separation between farmers and consumers

(Spector, 2003). As a result of large-scale farming, a greater share of income was allocated to the

2

manufacturers and retailers, and not so much to the farmers, thus creating unequal income

distribution.

1.1.1. Physical Distance between Consumer and Producer

On average, food is shipped about 1,300 miles from place of production to place of consumption

(Spector, 2003). To give an example, food may be produced in France, and exported to the

Netherlands for consumption. This may offer more food choices, which not only makes it

difficult for the consumers to choose, but it has also resulted in a huge separation between food

producers and consumers. The problems with this distance is that feedback and communication

between producers and consumers is limited or entirely nonexistent, consumers have limited

knowledge about the production techniques used, and thus the impact that the use of these

techniques has on the environment and their health (Spector, 2003).

1.1.2. Psychological distance between Consumer and Producer

There is a “profound cultural divide” between producers and the rest of society (Spector 2003).

The physical distance between consumers and producers has also led to a psychological distance

due to the lack of communication on both ends. To get to the final consumer, the food product

passes through about 20000 hands. The value chain is really large. According to Liberman and

Trope (1998), concepts, in this case the gap between consumers and producers, are interpreted

differently depending on how psychologically distant that concept is from a given group of

people, in this case consumers. According to Liberman and Trope (2003), there are four

dimensions of psychological distance-time separation: (temporal dimension), space (spatial

dimension), social constructs (social dimension), or probability (hypothetical dimension). The

temporal dimension has been most researched. To apply this dimension to the current study, the

psychological distance between consumers and producers is greater now than it was three decades

ago. Knowledge contributes to how psychological distance is interpreted and responded to. Sigel

(1970) considered psychological distance as a function, existing in relation to other surrounding

objects and events. Psychological distance theory also sets the context for explaining phenomena

in terms of interpersonal relationships. In the context of the current study, the interpersonal

relationships in question are those between producers and consumers.

1.1.3. Food Sovereignty

Food sovereignty refers to “the right of people to healthy products produced through sustainable

methods, and their right to define their own food and agricultural systems” (Patel, 2009). If

consumers begin to more frequently exercise their food sovereignty on a larger scale, it may be

possible that this will have a direct positive effect for farming techniques used and food sold on

the market. Food sovereignty could be the solution to achieve “a fully integrated food system”-

one that connects the farm to the local community and allows the consumers to regain this lost

connection with the farmers that are growing their food (Spector, 2003). Food sovereignty has

very much to do with food knowledge-knowledge about how the food was produced, who

produced it, the effects on the environment and health. By minimizing the gap between farmers

and consumers, consumers might be able to move from being passive to being actively involved

in the production of the final products that they buy. In this paper, the concept of food

sovereignty will be explained, and whether it could help in bridging the gap between consumers

3

and producers. It is hoped that by developing a more accurate understanding of current levels of

knowledge and the reasons for inconsistency in putting knowledge to practice, that future action

will be implemented in helping consumers to overcome obstacles that inhibit them from fully

exercising their sovereignty to the foods that are produced and sold on the market, as well as to

their choice of foods.

1.1.4. Purpose of this Paper

The main purpose of this paper is to explore the relationship between consumers and producers,

and the role that food sovereignty can have in bridging the gap between them. To do this, the

researcher has investigated the factors that influence consumer food choice, as an indirect

measure of food choice. It must be made very clear that food choice itself was not directly

measured in this study due to lack of time and resources. However, please note that the concept

will be referred to just simply as food choice in this paper. The factors explored will be

psychological, biological, socioeconomic, and ethical. By exploring and understanding these

factors of food choice, the research undergone in this paper will explain whether increased and

proper utilization of consumer food sovereignty could recreate the bond and improve the

communication between consumers and producers, in order to reduce the impact of the

environmental, health, and social consequences that traditional agricultural production and

unsustainable consumption of food has led to. There has been plenty of research done on the

factors that affect food choice, and there is a fair amount of literature on food sovereignty and

some empirical research on the gap between consumers and producers. However, research has so

far kept the relationship between these three factors separate, and the aim of this paper is to find

out whether there exists a relationship between them. The main contribution of this paper lies in

determining whether food sovereignty has a significant effect or not in mediating the relationship

between food choice and the gap between consumers and producers.

Food choice, food sovereignty, and the gap between consumers and producers is examined

through a literature review which will analyze past and the most recent literature on these

concepts, comparatively. Food choice is examined from psychological, biological, ethical, and

socioeconomic points of view. According to Vabø and Hansen (2008), the most researched

perspectives on food choice have thus far been psychology and biology. More research into

socioeconomic factors (culture, demography) needs to be undertaken. Afterwards, the results

from quantitative analysis of a questionnaire will be discussed.

1.2 Problem Statement and Research Questions

With this background and motivation, the following aim, theses, and research goals were

formulated.

1.2.1. Research aim:

“To provide a theoretical perspective on food choice, food sovereignty, and the relationship

between consumers and producers.”

4

1.2.2. Problem statement:

How does food choice influence the degree of food sovereignty, and does food sovereignty

decrease the gap between consumers and producers?

1.2.3. Pre-assumptions:

1. Consumers’ food choices have an effect on the level of food sovereignty they exert.

2. Food Sovereignty may be the solution to bridging the gap between consumers and producers.

3. Food choice may indirectly influence the gap between consumers and producers through the

application of food sovereignty.

Based on these assumptions, the following research questions will be investigated in order to

address the problem statement and identify possibilities for future research and action and

theoretical perspectives.

1.2.4. Research Questions:

In order to address this problem, this paper will explore the issue by addressing three main

research questions using the 4 theoretical perspectives:

1. Which factors influence consumer food choice and how?

2. What is food sovereignty, and how can it be used to explain this lack of connection

between consumers and producers?

3. How can the producer-consumer divide be bridged?

1.2.5. Conceptual Model

a b

c

a = effect of food choice on food sovereignty

b = effect of food sovereignty on the gap

c = direct effect of food choice on the gap

a*b = indirect effect of food choice on the gap through food sovereignty

Food choice Gap between

Consumers and

Producers

Food

Sovereignty

5

1.3 Societal Relevance This topic is societally relevant, because it concerns the health and well-being of consumers, it

concerns the sustainability of the environment on which we so depend for our survival, and it

concerns the proper and fair treatment of farmers and all stakeholders involved in the production

of the food that we eat. This paper does not provide clear-cut solutions to this issue, but only

serves to offer knowledge and analysis to build on existing knowledge, and sets out a direction

for future research. The consumers need to share in this responsibility by becoming more

knowledgeable and aware of the nutrients found in food and production techniques which are

used to grow these foods which then become the final products (Lamine, 2005). The extent

consumers need to take control and firm action of what particular foods they want to eat will be

questioned. Knowing the main factors that underlie consumer food choice provides important

information about consumers’ interests and attitudes towards healthy eating (Carrillo et al., 2010).

Knowledge about perceptions towards healthy foods is useful for researchers, producers,

manufacturers, and health practitioners when developing public health policies and consumer

education strategies (Carrillo et al., 2010). The degree to which consumers must exercise their

sovereignty and take advantage of the fact that they have been given food rights will also be

questioned.

The research of Dyg et al (2014) is a very important piece of work, because it explains quite

clearly what the present situation is revolving around food production and consumption, about the

limitations of food knowledge, the relevance of food sovereignty, and the gap that has evolved

between producers and consumers. The views presented in this research as well as the particular

study implemented will be discussed with specific attention.

The study of Steptoe et al (1995) on food choice factors is also very relevant to this research, as

the questionnaire developed in the current study was based on this research. The FCQ (Food

Choice Questionnaire) is the most popular questionnaire used to measure the factors that

influence food choice.

1.4 Scientific Relevance With food sovereignty being a new phenomenon and with recent developments being made in

building the “fully integrated farm” in order to try and reconnect consumers and producers, this

thesis is scientifically relevant because it investigates the gap between producers and consumers

which has thus far been insufficiently researched (Spector, 2003). Previous rigorous scientific

analyses on the factors that influence food choice from multiple perspectives to determine the

extent to which food sovereignty influences the relationship between consumers and producers

has been examined in this thesis (Patel, 2009). The contribution of this thesis lies in its scientific

investigation of food sovereignty in determining the relationship between food choice and what

producers grow. By considering food sovereignty as a potential solution to the existing gap

between consumers and producers, this thesis builds upon the works of others who have

researched the psychological, socioeconomic, biological, and ethical factors that influence

consumer choice, and upon the works of those who chose to examine the problems revolving

around the long distance from producer to consumer (Carrillo et al., 2010). By investigating the

food choice, the researcher has attempted to explore the obstacles to food sovereignty, and

whether, if achieved, it could possibly serve as a long-term solution to reconnect the gap between

producers and consumers in order to establish an eco-friendly, consumer-friendly, and more

ethical food industry.

6

1.5 Structure of the Thesis The background and theoretical point of departure for this thesis has been presented earlier in this

chapter.

In Chapter 2 we will delve into existing literature and studies on this topic and will analyze them.

We will investigate the ethical, biological, socioeconomic, and psychological perspectives on

food choice. We will end by explaining the lost connection between consumers and producers,

and how food sovereignty might help to bridge this gap.

The explanation of how we will conduct the search will be further elaborated in Chapter 3 on

Methodology and Research Methods. Here we will also explain the analysis strategy

implemented.

In Chapter 4 we will present the empirical findings of the analysis.

In Chapter 5 we will interpret the results and conclude. This is where the findings and theoretical

knowledge gained upon completion of the study, and where original input and contribution will

be made clear. This section also concludes, with limitations and implications for future research.

7

Chapter 2: Theoretical Framework 2.1. Introduction Due to rapid globalization, traditional healthy diets are being replaced by diets high in fat,

carbohydrates, and artificial flavouring. Rapid globalization refers to information sharing across

the world, the global food market, and the ‘shrinking world’ concept (Grew, 2011). As a result,

there are increasing levels of obesity, not only in developed countries, but there are rising levels

in developing countries as well. The food choices that consumers exercise depend on a variety of

different factors which will be explored in detail in this section. Diets are changed by

globalization as cultures borrow foods and methods of food preparation from each other (Grew,

2011). The imperialist culture of the United States has resulted in the widespread dispersion of

fast food chains such as McDonald’s and Burger King all over the world. This is partly the reason

why there is a lost connection between consumers and producers. People resort to fast food for

lack of time, and they are not investing in locally grown food as much as before.

In this section, the food-buying behaviour of consumers is investigated from psychological,

ethical, and socioeconomic perspectives using evidence and theories from earlier studies, in order

to make a comprehensive sketch of food choice. Also to be examined is whether consumers have

adequate knowledge and information at hand to understand how their food choices impact their

health, the environment, their relationship with the producers, and ultimately how their choices

influence what food is grown. The section is ended with a discussion on how consumer food

sovereignty can be used to reconnect consumers and producers, by drawing conclusions from the

perspectives presented on food choice. Food sovereignty is broadly defined as “the right of local

people to control their own food systems, including markets, ecological resources, food cultures,

and production modes” (Wittman, 2011: pp. 87). The concept will be used to explore how food

sovereignty could help to bridge the gap between consumers and producers.

2.2 Factors Affecting Food Choice as an Indirect Measure of Real Food Choice

As was mentioned previously, food choice was not measured directly in the current study. Instead,

food choice is defined by the factors that affect it in this research. Food choice research

investigates how people select the food that they eat. Food choice is discussed on various

platforms, including food politics, and moral phenomena such as vegetarianism and religious

dietary laws, and economic issues, such as unequal food distribution. Food choice is a complex

human behaviour that is influenced by many different but interrelating factors (Shepherd, 1999).

Studies of actual food choice are derived from social psychological research into attitudes and

behaviours. With this approach it is assumed that the beliefs of individuals influence their food

choices, more than actual facts (Shepherd, 1999). The main distinction that should be made clear

between food choice and factors of food choice is that food choice explains the behaviour of

consumers when selecting their food, and factors of food choice explain the reasons behind those

selections. Steptoe, Pollard, and Wardle (1995) have developed a multidimensional measure for

the factors underlying food choice. The factors that they have investigated included health, price,

and emotions. These factors have also been investigated in the current study. It is interesting to

point out that Steptoe et al (1995) also measured dietary restraint and eating style, which is a

8

measure of food choice behaviour. The factors that were assessed were restraint eating, emotional

eating, and external eating.

2.3 Psychological Perspective In this section, the psychological factors emotions and stress towards food, influence consumer

choice is explored. When it comes to food choice, there is a great variety of products on offer,

and consumers do not always make rational healthy choices. Often there are other criteria related

to the human psyche that determine food choices.

2.3.1. Emotions

The relationship between food choice and emotions is complex. People choose certain foods in a

particular context with the intent of improving emotional states, such as decreasing depression.

The affect regulation hypothesis provides an interesting hypothesis describing the relationship

between emotion and consumption (Wegener and Petty, 1994). The hypothesis states that people

prefer food that maintains their positive emotions or that eliminates their negative emotions.

However, the hypothesis alone is not enough in explaining why consumers’ food choice is

affected by their emotions. There have also been empirical studies done on this, discussed below.

Positive Emotions

There are certain foods which have been considered to influence emotion in a positive way. Some

of these include coffee, tea, alcoholic beverages, and energy drinks (Zielinska, 2006). The

caffeine and carbohydrates seem to have a critical effect for mental freshness, and this enhances

the emotional state. Foods that contain caffeine and high energy density are commonly known as

‘comfort’ foods. The immediate effect after intake of high calorific foods is an increase in

positive emotions. This is why people who are initially experiencing negative emotions indulge in

such comfort foods.

The study of Christensen (2010) found that consumers in general think they are more likely to eat

carbohydrate rich meals following a happy event rather than a sad event. This is in line with

appetite suppression, a symptom of depression. Following a happy event, consumers are

generally in a state of calm and clear-thinking, and therefore their actual food selection reasons

are best understood then. According to Rozin (1996), participants were more likely to eat

vegetarian and healthy snacks following a happy event, in accordance with their cultural and

socioeconomic values. People with positive emotions make food choices taking into account

long-term health consequences (Fedorikhin and Patrick, 2010).

Negative Emotions

Cooper and Bowskill (1986) found a strong association between emotional breakdown and the

onset of compulsive eating. In contrast to what was stated under positive emotions with respect to

caffeine, according to some studies, healthy foods are usually associated with positive emotions

9

such as self-confidence, love, and happiness, whereas unhealthy foods are often associated with

negative emotions such as anxiety, boredom and depression (Zielinska, 2006). People with more

negative emotions make their food choices based on short-term mood consequences of the food

(Fedorikhin and Patrick, 2010).

Although the most commonly observed response to tense-induced situations is the loss of appetite,

some theorists argue that there are those who reply with excessive eating, otherwise known as

‘binge eating’ (Rogers, 1995). What eating has been proven to achieve, is that it suppresses

anxiety, and it is a human instinct to indulge in ‘comfort food’ in moments of distress. Emotional

eating is associated with craving intensity, and other negative emotional symptoms such as

depression, tension, and fatigue (Christensen, 2006). Many individuals that experience emotional

distress have reported to increase their consumption of sugar and high calorific foods

(Christensen, 2006). The immediate improval in mood following the intake of emotional foods

does not last long, and the cycle of craving and consumption of fat-rich foods begins again.

2.3.2. Stress

Studies on stress and food choice have developed from both animal and human studies of

psychopathology and depression (Gibson, 2006). Naturally occurring stressful situations such as

examinations or intense work periods provide an adequate environment for studying the effects of

stress on food choice. Generally, stress has been associated with higher energy intake and

unhealthy diets (Gibson, 2006). The study of Oliver and Wardle (1998) tested for the amount of

food intake under stress. The participants that reported eating more and eating less during times

of stress were about equal. The conclusion that this study drew was that people are more likely to

select energy-dense foods during stress.

The context in which stress is triggered can have a potentially significant impact on the level of

stress, and dietary choices. For instance, workplace stress has been identified with higher energy

intake in two separate studies, school examination stress shows mixed results in dietary changes,

and medical related stress as for example a surgery, has also produced no consistent results

(Oliver et al., 2000). It is not sure why these results differ, but it probably has to do with the

specific source of the stress, and this probably differs between individuals.

As it can be seen, stress is an important psychological variable that influences how consumers

select their food in a particular context, and which food they select. Stress has very much to do

with the emotional state of the consumer at the time of choice.

2.4 Biological Perspective This thesis takes biological factors to mean the physical make up of the human body. Our

physiological needs provide the fundamentals of food choice. Biological factors that are

responsible for food choices include taste, smell, appearance, texture, and health. Taste, smell,

appearance, and texture are factors of sensory appeal. Humans need energy and nutrients to

survive, and they have a diverse set of choices from which to select, be it of animal or plant

origins. When humans consume food, the brain receives signals from different sensory inputs,

those being visual, gustatory, olfactory, tactile, or trigeminal. The information is stored into the

10

final sensory appeal of the food (Vabø and Hansen 2014). Feelings of hunger and satiety are the

result of physiological processes. In this thesis we will focus on sensory appeal and health.

2.4.1. Sensory Appeal It is generally accepted that human beings have five senses, those being sight, smell, taste, touch,

and hearing. The perception of food results from the application of all these senses to a certain

extent by the physiochemical properties in the food (Kilcast, 2004). The sensory characteristics of

foods are grouped into three categories, those being appearance, flavour, and texture (Kilcast,

2004). Research into appetite has shown that sensory properties of food play an important role in

people’s food selection and the amount of intake (Sørensen et al., 2003). Most studies which have

investigated the importance of sensory perception in food selection have concluded that the most

important sense is taste, followed by texture and appearance (Kilcast, 2004).

Taste

Sensory qualities, in particular taste, have a significant role to play in the determination of food

preferences. When taste buds come in contact, they send signals to the brain to interpret flavour.

The ways tastes are perceived are determined genetically. Some researchers have said that

humans’ food consumption patterns differ based on what type of “taster” they are (Vabø &

Hansen 2014). Taste is usually the last sensory perception taking place (Magoulas, 2009). The

example of coffee can be used to illustrate. People that are more sensitive to bitter tastes will

reject caffeine in their coffee. The role of sweet taste per se in food selection is not yet very clear.

Some studies show a significant effect, while others show no effect (Sørensen et al., 2003).

Texture

It is not just the taste in itself that is important, but also how the texture of the food product feels

orally (Vabø & Hansen, 2014). Sensory studies have shown that consumer evaluation of meat

depends mostly on the feel of texture, and to a lesser degree, smell (Drewnowski, 2008). Texture

characteristics of food generally refer to the feel of moisture or fat (e.g. wet, oily, and greasy).

Texture is closely related to the structural and mechanical properties of food (Kilcast, 2004).

Previous studies have shown that often, textural characteristics are less meaningful to consumers

than are more abstract qualities such as high-calorie, heavy, rich, or fattening (Drewnowski,

2008). Texture is perceived by the sense of touch, and consists of somesthesis (response from

skin), and kinesthesis (response from muscles and tendons). Visual stimuli may also generate a

textural response (Kilcast, 2004).

Smell

For smell, there is a lot of controversy surrounding the experimental findings to date. Olfactory

preferences for food can be influenced by many factors including nutrition and personal

behaviour of individuals, but the way in which the olfactory system processes food odours in

order to make a preference on the type of food is not known (Harris et al., 2014).

11

Appearance

Because people look at their food before they eat it, hence, before they taste it, the eyes send

signals to the brain before the taste buds. This determines how the taste is perceived before

actually tasting it (Sørensen et al., 2003). Usually color is the first element that is noticed in the

appearance of food. From a very young age, humans begin to associate color with specific types

of food, and then associate these foods with certain tastes.

Studies

The results of Gagic et al (2014) show that sensory appeal, such as taste, texture, and smell, is the

most important factor determining food choice among Serbian consumers. Similarly, the original

study of the British population showed the same results, and this was also confirmed by findings

on New Zealanders with European origin (Prescott et al., 2002). The study of Carrillo et al (2010)

also found sensory appeal to be the most important factor of choice. Sensory appeal is an

important physiological factor that influences consumer food choice, and it is related to the state

of mood a consumer is in a particular moment, and depending on which intention and their level

of stress, they will choose a certain product over another. In their study based on the FCQ,

Carrillo et al (2010) found that the item “tastes good” was the most important factor that

influenced consumer food choice.

Carrillo et al (2010) conducted a study based off of the food choice questionnaire designed by

Steptoe et al (1995) to investigate the factors that influence consumer choice and consumers’

attitudes toward healthy eating. The mean scores show that the item tastes good was the most

important. The results show that sensory appeal was the most important factor for consumers,

followed by price, ethical concern, health, mood (emotion), and familiarity (culture) (Carrillo et

al., 2010).

2.4.2. Health The Wurtman Hypothesis, the most common hypothesis concerning diet, states that a high

carbohydrate meal increases the ratio in the plasma of tryptophan in the blood (Benton and

Donohoe, 1999: 404). The increase of tryptophan in the brain results in an increase in serotonin

levels (Benton and Donohoe, 1999). Serotonin is a chemical responsible for maintaining mood

balance, and a deficit of serotonin leads to depression. Wurtman (1987) theorized that increased

uptake of carbohydrate diets increases the serotonin levels, which reduces the negative emotions.

A similar relationship between biological and psychological factors exists when it comes to

vitamin deficiency. Benton and Donohoe (1999) found that vitamin deficiency leads to faster

observed psychological symptoms of deficiency such as depression, hysteria, and hypochondria,

than biological symptoms. Riboflavin is positively related to the ability to think abstractly. The

elderly were found to have a higher risk of micro-nutrient deficiency than young adults. Many

studies have been employed on thiamine to examine the relationship between vitamin deficiency

and effect on mood. Some foods that contain thiamine are eggs, fish, legumes, and milk. These

were administered to the respondents; their first symptoms were anorexia, muscle fatigue,

irritability, and depression (Benton and Donohoe, 1999). In the study of Benton et al (1999),

multi-vitamin supplements including thiamine were administered to young healthy females. It

was discovered that mood improved when thiamine levels increased, and mood worsened when

thiamine levels went down.

12

Ares and Gambaro (2007) examined the association of food choice with health. Their subjects

were Uruguayan consumers, and they showed that several factors, including “feeling good and

safety”, “sensory appeal”, and “health”, were the most important for the consumers for selecting

their food.

In principle, food choice is sometimes motivated by a bodily need to gain more nutrients, or a

vitamin, mineral, fatty acid, or amino acid (Gibson, 2006). There is evidence that suggests that

some types of personalities are in need of a specific amount of macronutrients, especially in

stressful situations (Gibson, 2006).

2.5. Socioeconomic Perspective Socioeconomic factors encompass both the economic and social aspects involved in the selection

of food. The economic factors are related to the price of food, income and affordability of

individual consumers, and availability of food. The social factors include social class, other

influences, as for example from parental influences, peer influences, or from the media. Culture is

also an important social factor. Food consumption and food selection behaviours evolve and

change over time in parallel to societal development (Vabø and Hansen, 2014). Societal or

socioeconomic factors are just a category of many factors that influences dietary behaviours, food

choice being the behaviour of central focus in this thesis. In this section, price, education, and

culture is discussed.

2.5.1. Food Prices and Income Prices play a prominent role in the decision-making of consumers when selecting their food.

Typically, foods of higher quality cost more, and already prepared and processed foods are

cheaper (Darmon et al., 2014). So what usually happens is that consumers that are unable to

afford healthy, organic/biological food resort to high energy-dense food, also because it will

prevent them from getting hungry too soon (Darmon et al., 2014). Higher food prices may mean

improved dietary quality, but also increased socio-economic inequalities (Darmon et al., 2014).

To give a specific example, low-income individuals do not shop for sufficient fruits and

vegetables, and instead buy refined cereals full of GMOs (Darmon et al., 2014). Naturally,

researchers and policy analysts have proposed the idea that energy dense foods should be more

expensive, and healthy products such as fruits and vegetables should be lowered in price, so that

those individuals with a low income would be encouraged to eat healthier and discouraged from

eating junk food. The quantitative study undertaken by Darmon et al (2014) confirms the theory

that low-income consumers make less healthy choices than medium-income consumers.

According to them, the more disadvantaged groups in society are more susceptible to higher rates

of obesity, diabetes, dental cavities, osteoporosis, and some forms of cancer (Darmon and

Drewnowski, 2008).

Antin and Hunt (2012) have investigated the effects of certain factors on food choice, cost being

one of them. They interviewed a man of low income. He said, “My kids really enjoy raviolis. And

I buy cans and cans and cans of it. It’s so cheap. You know what I mean? It’s so cheap, and I

know it’s not all that healthy, but it fills them up. And that’s the main thing. I want my kids to be

full.” (Hough and Sosa, 2015: pp. 338). It must be taken note of the fact that he acknowledges

that raviolis and fast food are unhealthy. To him it is more important that his family does not

13

starve, and that he is still able to pay his bills in order to support them. Malnutrition such as

described by this man is not only found in developing countries, but in developed countries as

well. Many low income families suffer from obesity and other forms of malnutrition and under-

nourishment, not because they lack knowledge of proper nutrition, but because they cannot afford

better quality foods (Hough and Sosa, 2015). This is a great paradox in international development

studies. Scientists and policy makers try and come up with ways in which to make food more

accessible and equally distributed, because of the observation that many low income earners do

not have proper nutrition, yet income disparities are actually increasing and the price of healthy

foods remain high (Hough and Sosa, 2015).

2.5.2. Education

Cooking Knowledge

Cooking skills are defined as a set of mechanical or physical skills used in meal preparation

(Short, 2003). Moreover, cooking skills involve the conceptual, perceptual, planning, and the

fundamental skills of food nutrition (Short, 2003). Cooking skills allows the consumer to be self-

reliant and have a healthy diet, without relying on pre-prepared convenience foods (Ternier,

2010). It has been found that the most effective ways to acquire cooking skills is from knowledge

passed down by mothers, and from cooking classes (Ternier, 2010). Gender, age, income, social

class, and attitudes determine the context in which consumers acquire their knowledge. It has

been proposed by some researchers that convenience food leads to the ‘deskilling’ of consumers

with regards to food preparation at home (Ternier, 2010). Knowledge of cooking is important

because it ensures nutritional knowledge, self-reliance, and health. Home prepared meals have

higher dietary quality than convenience foods in terms of nutrients, fibre, and essential vitamins

and minerals. Another problem with heavy dependence on convenience meals is that the

consumer is placing his or her trust on the nutritional information of those products (Ternier,

2010). There is more on nutritional information in the next subsection. In schools, cooking

classes are beginning to be replaced by theoretical nutritional knowledge, which makes it more

difficult for children to gain cooking knowledge. Research has shown that combined practical and

theoretical knowledge is the most effective method in teaching children cooking skills (Ternier,

2010).

Nutritional Labelling

The food label is one way consumers use to gain more information about a product before buying.

Nutrition labelling plays a prominent role in informed choice (Grunert et al., 2013). Labels

provide information on nutritional value, ingredients used, and information about any allergens,

or for religious and ethical reasons. Consumers depend on accurate labels. Health conscious

consumers are dependent on accurate food labelling for their health. Food labelling also serves as

a marketing tool (Venter, 2010). The consumer himself is dependent on the food labelling to

make an informed decision, but it must be noted that he is also responsible to make sure that the

label is accurate and precise enough. The consumer must be critical and exercise his sovereignty

by demanding to know and to clarify if he has any doubts. Doubt has to do with the concept of

exploitation. Once consumers discover that they have been exploited, then the food industry is

undermined. A Finnish study on ethical consumerism found that only 1% of respondents regarded

information given to them by retailers and manufacturers as trustworthy and reliable (Venter,

14

2010). This could have a devastating influence on consumers’ food choices, as they do not really

know anymore what they should buy.

Incomprehensible labels can be considered unethical, but this misunderstanding can also be

attributed to lack of nutritional knowledge on the part of the consumer. Previous consumer

studies have shown that consumers are aware of food safety, but that there are some knowledge

gaps which may result in food borne diseases (Jevsnik et al., 2007). Therefore, the educational

level of the targeted consumers must be taken into account when making labels (Venter, 2010). In

their study, Jevsnik et al (2007) have discovered that consumers believe that they are not as

responsible for food safety as farmers and other agents of the food industry. According to

Sammarco et al (1997), it is necessary to study consumer awareness regarding home food safety

and cooking practices in order to plan proper education programs (Jesnik et al., 2007). Koster

(2009) argues that habits which have been formed subconsciously and are repeated over and over

are the most difficult to change, so simply providing accessible education about how to properly

interpret nutritional labelling may not be sufficient. What is needed is a more direct persuasion by

offering people healthier, and at the same time, still pleasant alternatives.

2.5.3. Culture

There are differences in food choices between cultures that can be observed. Throughout history,

food has been a major part of most cultures of the world. It is one trait that a culture uses in

classifying itself, and presenting itself to other cultures (Vabø and Hansen, 2008). Cultural food

brings together people of different ethnicities and makes them experience another world, and

hence another point of view, for a short while. The choice of food does not only and always

depend on likeability, or taste, which is a biological construct. There is more to it than that. The

choice of food also depends on the culture to which we belong (Vabø and Hansen, 2008). Culture

itself is embedded in a set of factors, those being the natural environment, ritual and belief system,

community and family structure, the degree of innovation in society, and the degree of mobility

(Vabø and Hansen, 2008).

Franchi (2012) had an interesting description of the relevance culture has on people’s food

choices. He wrote that “culture can be seen as a sort of collective memory that influences

individual behaviour” (Vabø and Hansen, 2008: 150). Rozin (1996) said that culture is the

strongest factor of food choice (Prescott et al., 2002). However, it must be taken note of the fact

that food choice is a result of a complex combination of sensory and non-sensory factors (Prescott

et al., 2002). Each individual has their own personal likes and dislikes, but their everyday

environment, which is their culture, religion, and other social influences, play a direct role in

those individual differences. The historical and political contexts of a specific culture are also

important social factors that determine food choice. Of course, religion also forms a part of

culture. If we look at Islam, for example, they have specific foods that are considered to be haram,

and are not to be eaten for various reasons, as for example, they completely avoid pork. Muslims

eat only halal foods, which is by definition, “all good and clean foods”, as written in their holy

scriptures (Riaz and Chaudry, 2004: pp. 2).

Culture is a determining factor in the selection of food choices, because people become used to a

certain food since they are children, and their selection later in life is to a large extent influenced

by what they had been eating with their families.

15

2.6. Ethics Perspective Ethics is defined as the “morals that persons or entities apply to their behaviour” (Venter, 2010:pp.

408). Food ethics determines the morals and behaviours of various entities in the food industry

such as the producers, manufacturers, retailers, and consumers. Not only that, food ethics also

determines the care and treatment of the natural environment where the food is grown and mass

produced (Venter, 2010). The manner in which food ethics is dealt with is an important concern

for consumers since food directly affects their life and well-being physiologically, biologically,

culturally, and socially (Venter, 2010). Nowadays, consumers have become increasingly

dependent on the food industry to do everything for them, that they are not actively involved in

influencing the policies that concern them. Therefore they should be more pro-active in their role

as consumers.

There is disambiguity between the knowledge and intention that consumers have and their actions

in terms of ethical consumption (Carrington et al., 2010). The disambiguity is that consumers

may know how they should behave to uphold ethical consumerism, but they do not do it because

something hinders them, as for example time constraints or laziness. This gap is important to

researchers and to the food industry, but it is not well understood. Auger and Devinney (2007)

and Carrington and Attalla (2001) argue that consumers are not as ethically-minded as many

researchers think. Carrington et al (2010) accept the possibility of this argument, but add that in

fact many consumers do have ethical intentions, but are inhibited from fully acting on them

because they forget, or it is inconvenient to them because of price or time. The ideal ethical

consumer is concerned about issues such as the environment, sustainability concerns, workers’

rights, fair trade, and animal welfare (Carrington et al., 2010). It has long been understood in the

field of social psychology that intentions are not a determinant of actual behaviour. Authors like

Auger and Devinney (2007) and Carrington and Attalla (2001) suggest that in consumer studies,

respondents often respond with answers they believe to be socially acceptable, and thus they

exaggerate as to the importance they accord ethical consumption.

2.6.1. Treatment of Animals

There are many definitions given to animal welfare. In terms of policy analysis, animal welfare

can be defined using UK’s Farm Animal Welfare Council’s ‘Five Freedoms’: freedom from thirst,

hunger, and malnutrition; freedom from discomfort; freedom from pain, injury, and disease;

freedom to express normal behaviour; freedom from fear and distress (Webster, 2001). Animal

welfare is affected by animal husbandry procedures, farm structure, and many other factors

including legislation (Winter et al., 1998). Many aspects of animal husbandry go against the

ideals of animal welfare. For example, animal husbandry makes use of genetic engineering, while

the welfare ideal is to refrain from it.

During the past 5 decades, animal agriculture has increased (Tawse, 2010). There is evidence that

intensification of the industry has led to an increase in the productivity of animal farming, but a

decrease in farm animal welfare (Tawse, 2010). There has been a large amount of scientific

research done on animal welfare, and several surveys show that consumers have a positive

attitude towards animal welfare. This has led to greater public demand for animal welfare

practices, as can be seen with the integration of new legislation (Tawse, 2010). However, most

consumers, despite supporting the idea of better animal welfare practices, do not get out of their

way to buy higher welfare products. Studies show that only about 10% of consumers actively

16

search for such products (Tawse, 2010). Reasons for this could be that consumers do not have the

time to search for higher welfare products, are unwilling to pay more for the higher welfare

products, or are altogether unaware of the welfare issues involved.

The study of Tawse (2010) examined the possible reasons for concern or lack of concern for farm

animal welfare in a population. Pigs were used as a case study. The results of this study showed

that the consumers showing higher levels of concern for treatment of animals are more likely to

have more positive attitudes to pigs, more likely to be interested in the well-being of animals,

more likely to have knowledge of pork production techniques, and more likely to have visited a

pig farm in the past (Tawse, 2010).

Aside from concerns about animal welfare, concerns for food quality and safety have also

increased in the past decades (Tawse, 2010). Food quality and safety are considered to be higher

in animal welfare products as opposed to standard products. Fresh meat serves as a good example.

Thus, consumers may be more concerned for their own safety and health rather than the treatment

of animals itself, and this may be why they purchase higher welfare products.

2.7. Consumer Food Sovereignty

It is important to first acknowledge the fact that the term ‘food sovereignty’ is over-defined, and

there is no clear definition of what it actually is. Thus, this section does not attempt to define it, as

that would be too simplistic. Instead, this section seeks to incorporate this concept into the

discussion about consumer food knowledge, food choice, and the relationship with the producer.

In other words, food sovereignty as used in this paper is dealt with scientifically to determine

whether its anatomy could potentially offer a solution to the negative aspects of consumer choice

and the disconnection with producers.

The concept was first founded in 1993 by La Via Campesina, an international peasants’

organization in opposition to the neo-liberalization of trade (Beauregard, 2009). It is “broadly

defined as the right of local people to control their own food systems, including markets,

ecological resources, food cultures, and production modes” (Wittman, 2011: 87).

As defined by La Via Campesina in 2002, food sovereignty is “the right of peoples to define their

own food and agriculture; to protect and regulate domestic agricultural production and trade in

order to achieve sustainable development objectives; to determine the extent to which they want

to be self-reliant; to restrict the dumping of products in their markets; and to provide local

fisheries-based communities the priority in managing the use of and the rights to aquatic

resources.” This definition gives evidence to a diverse set of opinions and positions from various

disciplines. Food sovereignty is about the well-being of small farm owners and to help them meet

the local food needs by protecting them from unfair food trade practices (Cudjoe, 2014). The

1996 La via Campesina definition stated: Food sovereignty is the right of each nation to maintain

and develop its own capacity to produce its basic foods respecting cultural and productive

diversity (Patel 2009: 4).

La Via Campesina’s Nyeleni Declaration of 2007 offers another interesting definition of food

sovereignty, because of its contradictory nature. Crucial quotations taken from this definition are:

“food sovereignty prioritizes local and national economies and markets and empowers peasant

and family farmer-driven agriculture, artisanal fishing, pastoralist-led grazing, and food

17

production, distribution and consumption based on environmental, social and economic

sustainability” (Patel, 2009: pp. 666). This part of the definition explains what the aim of food

sovereignty could be. What remains consistent in most definitions of food sovereignty is an

exclusive focus on rights, in particular the rights of peoples to define their own food, agriculture,

trade systems, and policies, so as to achieve a locally and culturally appropriate and

environmentally sustainable development goals (Patel, 2009). On the subject of environmental

ethics, food sovereignty has been proposed to as a solution for “wildlife-friendly farming”

(Isakson, 2009).

2.8. Food Choice and Food Sovereignty

The current study investigates whether food choice could influence the level of food sovereignty

in a consumer. So, for example, whether positive emotions could lead to more food sovereignty

or negative emotions to less food sovereignty. It is hypothesized that healthier food choices and

more ethical food choices that take into account the well being of farmers and animals would in

turn lead to the consumer becoming more food sovereign, and take more responsibility for his or

her choices. Food Sovereignty is a global movement to make way for a world in which “…all

peoples, nations and states are able to determine their own food producing systems and policies

that provide every one of us with good quality, adequate, affordable, healthy, and culturally

appropriate food” (Patel, 2009). The Nyeleni Declaration on Food Sovereignty defined food

sovereignty as a basic human right that needs to be observed by people, communities, states, and

international bodies (Patel, 2009). In this chapter, ethics has been discussed as a factor of food

choice, and ethics is closely tied to food sovereignty. As was mentioned earlier, educated

consumers may know about how their food choice impacts the environment, animals, and farmers,

but they do not put in the effort to exercise ethical behaviour. Food Sovereignty is about the

responsibility that consumers adopt for their food choices in relation to their own health and well

being, and also in relation to the other consumers, the environment, and the producers. It is

predicted that food sovereignty cannot be achieved unless consumers become more responsible

for their food choices. So food choice should influence food sovereignty, and not the other way

around.

2.9. Gap between Consumers and Producers In this section the existing gap in the agri-food business between consumers and producers is

explained. Along with the visible increase in distance between consumers and producers, the

social bonds and relations between them has also decreased. Before the 1850s, farmers and

consumers used to meet each other regularly at a farm or market, discussing how the food was

produced and how best to prepare it (Åsebø et al., 2007). In contemporary times, technology has

begun to take over farming jobs. Every farm began to produce what was best for itself, without

paying attention to local needs. Consumers in a way became disconnected from their sources of

food. The distance began to represent the separation of knowledge of consumers from how their

food was produced and transported (Åsebø et al., 2007).

18

2.9.1. Farmers’ Markets

Farmers’ markets as a place for farmers to directly sell their products to consumers have

gradually begun to increase over the last 3 centuries, but a more substantial and solid increase is

needed (Henderson and Van En, 1999). They were first introduced in the U.S. during the 1970s.

It A 1997 British definition of farmers’ markets that is still used today is: A farmers’ market is

one in which farmers, growers, or producers from a defined local area are present in person to

sell their own produce, direct to the public. All products should have been grown, reared, caught,

brewed, pickled, baked, smoked, or processed by the stallholder” (Henderson et al., 1999).

The Farmers’ market is one of several alternative models to the dominant industrial agriculture

present today. It embodies aspects that are absent in conventional food systems, and can be a

means to preserve knowledge of traditional food production of old, and reduce mental distance

between consumers and producers. Farmers’ markets might be able to connect the social,

economic, and nature-related parts of food systems (Åsebø et al., 2007). Farmers’ markets have

been recognized to contribute to several aspects publicly, including: trust and social contact

between producers and consumers; supporting innovations among farmers; economic gain for

both consumers and producers; environmental conservation; fresh quality produce; and education

(Åsebø et al., 2007).

Although consumers are offered a large variety of information about food, from doctors, food

labelling, the media, and the food industry, information about actual food production is hard to

find. Improving the sustainability of agriculture will need technological innovation, farmer-

farmer networks, and farmer-consumer solidarity (Altieri, 2009). Farmer to farmer movements

prioritize local and indigenous knowledge, and culture. Traditional small-scale farms still exist in

many parts of the third world, which is fortunate. Research shows that small farmers use natural

resources with more care (Altieri, 2009). Small farms are also more resilient to climate change

(Altieri, 2009). These systems could form the basis of food sovereignty, aligning with the

definition: “the right of each nation or region to maintain and develop their capacity to produce

basic food crops with the corresponding productive and cultural diversity” (Wittman, 2011: pp.

104).

2.9.2. Food Miles

The physical distance between market and consumers is known as “food miles”, km of distance to

market (Åsebø et al., 2007). It may also be defined in terms of knowledge, feelings, and attitudes

(Åsebø et al., 2007). According to the study of Åsebø et al (2007), producers travelled on average

between one and 500 km to get to the market in Norway. Results from the study indicated that

producers on average travelled greater distances than consumers to get to the markets. Norwegian

consumers being studied generally responded that it was important to them to know how and

where their food is produced, and wanted to promote communication between producers and

consumers. Knowledge was considered to be more important than distance, however. Since much

food is global and produced outside the country, many Norwegian respondents were not really

concerned about where food is produced, but care more about quality and freshness.

19

2.10. Food Sovereignty and the Gap between Consumers and Producers

In countries like the US, there are a very small number of small-scale farmers, and this increases

the demand for consumers to have more control over what they eat, and to inform themselves of

the conditions in which it was produced, and who produced it. This is food sovereignty (Wittman,

2009). Food Sovereignty is an attitude on the part of the consumer and producer to change

production and consumption practices to better connect consumer to producer (Spector, 2003).

This thesis focuses on the attitudes of consumers, but producers should also be briefly mentioned.

Food sovereignty advocates shifting consumer attitude away from passive to active (Spector,

2003). Consumers need to take time to learn about who makes their food, where it is produced,

and how it is produced. This is why it is predicted that consumer food sovereignty can help to

bridge the gap between consumers and producers. As was mentioned earlier, the gap between

consumers and producers is both a mental and a physical one. The food that consumers buy at

conventional super markets has a very high likelihood of having been produced in another

country, and so unnecessary fuel and resources were consumed so that it can arrive at its final

destination. Because of this physical distance, there is also a mental distance between consumers

and producers. Consumers have a more difficult time to communicate with the producers, and so

they usually think about how their actions indirectly influence the environment and producers.

This is why consumers should invest more in farmers’ markets and other local outlets in which

they have better access to the origins of their food (Spector, 2003). The following six guiding

principles of food sovereignty help to illustrate how it could possibly bridge the gap between

consumers and producers: (1) focuses on food for people; (2) values food providers; (3) localizes

food systems, (4) puts control locally; (5) builds knowledge and skills; (6) works with nature

(Patel, 2009). Since one if its top priorities are to localize food systems, it is predicted that, if

exercised by consumers, in time, it could lead to bridging the gap. This paper investigates

whether food sovereignty mediates the relationship between food choice and the gap between

consumers and producers.

2.11. Food Choice and the Gap between Consumers and Producers

The model in this study shows that there could be a direct association between food choice and

the gap between consumers and producers, as well as an indirect association through food

sovereignty. It is predicted that there is an indirect association through food sovereignty. It is

possible if food sovereignty would turn out to be a strong mediator, that there would still be a

direct effect of food choice on the gap. However, if there would only be a direct effect present

and no indirect effect, this would mean that food sovereignty is not a strong mediator and other

unidentified mediators could be present. The choice of food that consumers make may reflect

greater or lesser concern for their health, the environment, where and how the food was produced,

and the treatment of animals. But as it has been discussed in the literature, even though

consumers may be fully aware of the consequences of their food choice, they may still

consciously make decisions that would widen the gap between themselves and producers even

more. For example, if they wish to improve their health, they may take the time to go to local

farmers’ markets and ask the producers about food preparation and for their recommendations on

certain food products. However, if they are experiencing negative emotions, they may indulge in

comfort foods high in fat and sugar, bought from conventional supermarkets to make them feel

20

better, without considering much where that food comes from and how it was produced. This

decision may work to separate consumers from producers.

2.12. Interim Conclusion In this section we have described psychological, biological, socioeconomic, and ethical factors

that influence consumer food choice. These factors of food choice have been used to explain food

choice itself. Food choice is a potentially important variable which in turn may affect the level of

food sovereignty present in consumers. Food sovereignty could potentially contribute

significantly to bridging the gap between consumers and producers, and to mediate the

relationship between food choice and the gap. Consumers may be very aware of the negative

consequences that processed and high caloric foods have on their health, but, say, due to certain

factors such as lack of time available and lack of interest in cooking, would result in the

consumers not putting that knowledge to practice. Food sovereignty is a term that applies to both

consumers and producers. Producers have the right and duty to exercise their sovereignty over the

land that they need to use, and over what they grow and how. Consumers have the sovereignty

and responsibility to demand what food products they would like to buy and eat, by fully

educating themselves about what the products should contain, how the farmers are being treated,

and what the production techniques are. As was discussed, nutritional labelling is a crucial factor

that transmits information about a certain food product to the consumers, but the consumers

should be responsible for making sure that the information provided is accurate, as their health

and well-being depends on it.

The gap that currently exists between consumers and producers needs to be bridged in order to

better ensure sustainable agriculture and in order that consumers understand better how food is

treated and produced, and how this directly affects them and the environment. Food sovereignty

is a concept proposed in this paper to bridge this gap, by encouraging consumers to be more

actively involved in the food industry, through the mitigation of activities that would help them to

combine daily life with principles of sustainability.

21

Chapter 3: Methodology and Research Design

3.1. Introduction The methodology employed is quantitative with the use of a questionnaire about the factors

affecting food choice, food sovereignty, and the consumer-producer divide. The questionnaire

that was employed in this study is based on existing questionnaires and questions, and modified

in accordance with the limitations of previous studies.

3.1.1. Approaches to Quantitative Research

A quantitative approach was selected for this research in order to find out if there is causality

between the factors affecting food choice and food sovereignty, and between food sovereignty

and the gap between consumers and producers. A brief overview of the methods for the

questionnaires is provided before describing the research process. The questionnaire can be found

in Appendix A.

Measure of Factors Affecting Food Choice

In this paper, emotions, stress, sensory appeal, health, price, education, culture, and ethics as

factors that affect food choice have been discussed.

In this thesis, the food choice questionnaire adopted from Steptoe et al (1995) was used to

measure the factors affecting food choice. Subjects will be asked to react to the statement “It is

important to me that the food I eat on a typical day….” for each item by choosing between four

responses just like in the original: not at all important, a little important, moderately important,

and very important, scored 1 to 4 (Steptoe et al., 1995:5). The factors that have been taken from

the original questionnaire are: health, emotion, sensory appeal, price, familiarity, and ethical

concern. Education and stress have been added by the researcher.

There are several items for every factor. All the items included in this questionnaire come from

Steptoe et al (1995), aside from those of education and stress, which have been created following

the guidelines of Singleton and Straits (2005), and the addition of one extra item for the ethics

factor. First of all, they are all closed questions, and consist of 4 categories from which

respondents could select their choice, in the same manner as for the other already existing

questions. The four categories are not at all important, somewhat important, moderately

important, and very important.

22

Health Factor

Factor health has 7 questions. The answer scale ranges from 1 not at all important to 4 very

important. These questions are exactly as the ones posed in the research of Steptoe et al (1995).

One of the original items keeps me healthy, has been taken out because it is considered to be

redundant, as it is already covered by the other questions. An example of a question is: It is

important to me that the food I eat on a typical day…contains a lot of vitamins and minerals.

Emotions Factor

Factor emotion also comes from Steptoe et al (1995). It has 6 questions. The only change in this

study is that the name has been changed from mood to emotion, and this is because it is taken to

have the same meaning in many studies, and the current paper refers to it as emotion in the

theoretical framework. The answer scale is again ranging from 1 not at all important to 4 very

important. An example of an item is: It is important to me that the food I eat on a typical

day…helps me cope with stress.

Stress Factor

Factor stress was not in the original questionnaire of Steptoe et al (1995), but there are two items

that pertains to it under factor emotion, namely helps me cope with stress, and helps me relax.

Therefore it is not necessary to create a separate measure for stress, as those questions alone are

considered to be all-encompassing.

Sensory Appeal Factor

Factor sensory appeal stayed the same as in the original questionnaire of Steptoe et al (1995.

There are 4 items measured on the scale 1 not at all important to 4 very important. An example of

an item is: It is important to me that the food I eat on a typical day…smells nice.

Price Factor

Factor price was kept almost the same as in the original questionnaire. There are 2 items

measured on the scale 1 not at all important to 4 very important. One of the items, It is important

to me that the food I eat on a typical day… is cheap, was left out because it is taken to mean the

same as is not expensive, another item which was kept.

Culture Factor

Factor culture has been kept the same, only the name has been changed from familiarity to culture,

because the questions posed are very much in line with what has been discussed in the theoretical

framework under culture. Also, one of the items, It is important to me that the food I eat on a

typical day… is what I usually eat, was removed because it is taken to mean the same as is

familiar. There are 2 items ranging from 1 to 4, from not at all important to very important.

23

Factor Ethics

Factor ethics has 4 items. The items have been kept the same, except one additional item has been

added as it is considered crucial, also by a few other researchers who implied that the ethical

dimension needs to be elaborated upon in future research. The new item that has been added

states: It is important to me that the food I eat on a typical day…Is produced from ethically

treated animals.

Education Factor

Factor education has been added solely for this specific research, and does not exist in the

original questionnaire. There are two items, carefully formulated to meet the basic requirements

of a closed question. It is also measured on a scale of 1 to 4, from not at all important to very

important. The first item is: It is important to me that the food I eat on a typical day…has

accurate nutritional labelling. The second item is: It is important to me that the food I eat on a

typical day…is cooked in proper and safe appliances. This factor has been created following the

guidelines of Singleton and Straits (2005).

Measure of Food Sovereignty

The factors that have been discussed thus far in this research have an effect on consumer food

choices. The questions that have been used to measure food sovereignty are borrowed from the

food sovereignty assessment of the First Nations Development Institute in 2004, and the rest have

been created by the researcher according to the criteria of Singleton and Straits (2005). In total

the questionnaire contains 4 questions about food sovereignty. The questions that have been taken

from the Food Sovereignty Assessment have been modified to fit the format of the questionnaire

in the current study. The questions in the assessment are open questions, but the current study is

limited to closed questions. All questions have been ranked on a 3-point scale from 1 to 3, and the

options respondents are instructed to choose from cater to the specific questions, in increasing

order.

Questions measuring food sovereignty have been adapted from the Food Assessment survey of

2004, and have been slightly modified to increase clarity in the questionnaire, and also to fit the

format of a closed question. An example of such a modification is the question, is it safe? which

has been changed to how safe is the food available in your community? This question is ranked

on a 1 to 3 point scale, ranging from not very safe to very safe. The second question used was how

fair is the price for healthy foods in your community? This question was ranked a 3-point scale

ranging from not very fair to very fair. The third question used was how far does food travel to

get to your community? This question was also ranked on a 3-point scale ranging from 0 miles (it

is produced in my community), less than 1,500 miles, and more than 1,500 miles. The fourth and

final question used was Local markets refer to markets that sell fresh organic produce grown in

the same area. How often do people in your community shop at local markets? This question was

ranked on a 3-point scale ranging from less than once a year, at least once a month, and more

than once a week.

24

Measure of the Gap between Producers and Consumers

As in the previous sections of the questionnaire concerning factors affecting food choice and food

sovereignty, the part used to measure the gap between producers and consumers is directed solely

at consumers. The questions are already existing questions taken from several sources which

employed a similar study. The section begins by offering a small introduction to the topic, and the

definition of locally grown, taken from the study of Brown (2003).

The set of questions used in this study were not originally questionnaire questions, but they are

existing research questions taken from the study of Åsebø et al (2007). This section consists of 5

questions. These questions deal with respondents’ opinions about bridging the gap between

consumers and producers. They also designed a survey but it is not included in the paper. Their

survey questions aimed to answer these questions which have been slightly modified in the

current questionnaire to fit the format. All of these questions have been ranked on a 1 to 4 scale

ranging from not at all important, to very important. Respondents were asked to select their most

preferred option. An example of a question is: how important is the way food produced to you?

3.1.2. Sampling

The Target Population

The target audience for the questionnaire administered in this study are college-level students.

Students from Tilburg and Utrecht Universities particularly were asked to take this survey.

Sampling Design

The sample were be Liberal Arts and Sciences students, Outreaching Honours Programme

students from Tilburg University, and students following the Sustainable Development master

programme at Utrecht University. The reason Liberal Arts and Sciences were asked is because

this study is interdisciplinary in nature, and these students have been trained to think about

various subjects in an open and critical manner. Outreaching Honours students were also targeted

from Tilburg University because these students come from a variety of backgrounds and they are

heavily engaged in their community. Sustainable Development students at Utrecht University

have been sampled for convenience, because it is assumed they already have concern for

environmental research. Convenience sampling was generally used. The researcher selected a

requisite number from cases that were conveniently available.

Administration Method

The questionnaire was administered via qualtrics, a special software for questionnaire

development and analysis for the social sciences. It was sent out anonymously via facebook

groups to Liberal Arts and Sciences students and Outreaching Honours students at Tilburg

25

University, and Sustainable Development master students at Utrecht University. Students were

kindly asked to fill out the questionnaire and were informed that it was purely for scientific

research purposes to fulfill the requirements of a bachelor thesis. They were told that answers

were to be kept anonymous. One reminder was sent out 5 days later. The data collection process

took one week, and at the end there were 70 entries.

26

Chapter 4: Results In this section it is explained how the data from the questionnaire was analyzed, and how it can

be interpreted. The data was collected in qualtrics software, and after the data collection was

finished, it was imported to SPSS. The sample consisted of a total of 70. The respondents were all

university level students at the bachelor and master level between the ages of 18 and 47. The

educational degrees were the social sciences, environmental sciences, business and management,

humanities, law, economics, and econometrics.

4.1. Preliminary Analyses Some preliminary analyses were done, in order to explore the nature of the data file. Firstly, a

quick screening for errors was done. To check for any out of range variables, the frequencies of

each of the variables were inspected. The descriptive phase of the data analysis followed for

ordinal variables. All items were selected and the frequencies command was run. Firstly, there

were 27 missing cases. Many respondents did not answer the questions from the food sovereignty

scale. This may be because they did not know what to select.

4.2. Data Manipulation Before undergoing statistical analysis, total scores were calculated for each of the scales

measuring food choice, food sovereignty, and the gap between consumers and producers. There

were no negatively worded items, so that step was skipped. Also, a confirmatory factor analysis

was done on the food choice scale to determine its validity.

4.3 Validation of Factors Affecting Food Choice

Since the scale used to measure food choice was adapted from the already existing scale of

Steptoe et al (1995), the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) solution would be most appropriate.

4.3.1. Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Confirmatory factor analysis was run in SPSS syntax using maximum likelihood estimation and

Oblimin rotation. The approximate chi-square value was obtained from the KMO and the

Bartlett’s test of Sphericity output, which is provided in Table 1. This output shows us that factor

analysis can be carried out, since the KMO measure is above 0.6, and the significance test from

the Bartlett’s test shows that statistical significance of the correlation matrix.

27

Table 1. The approximate chi-square value was obtained from the KMO and the Bartlett’s test of

Sphericity output

KMO and Bartlett's Test

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy .655

Bartlett's Test of

Sphericity

Approx. Chi-Square 633.933

df 253

Sig. .000

Oblimin rotation was chosen because the researcher has decided that the factors should be

correlated since they are all supposed to measure the total food choice scale.

To determine how many factors to extract, Kaiser’s criterion was used in order to select only the

factors that had an eigenvalue of 1 or more. Upon examining the Pattern Matrix showing the

rotated factor solution, it was discerned that only 5 of the factors had 2 or more items loading

strongly above 0.3 on each of the factors. Therefore, the researcher has decided to retain only 5

factors. Afterwards, the new Pattern Matrix, shown in Appendix B.1, was analyzed in order to

identify the factors and determine which items demonstrate the greatest factor loadings on each of

the factors. The means and factor loadings of each item are presented in Table 2 below.

Table 2. The means and factor loading of the factors

FCQ-Items: Means and Factor Loading (n = 200) for answer to: “It is important to me that the food I eat on a typical day”

Factors and Items

Factor 1. Health Mean Factor Loading

Is high in fibre and roughage 2.6 0.747

Is high in protein 2.4 0.697

Contains a lot of vitamins and minerals 2.91 0.602

Is good for my skin/teeth/hair/nails etc 2.26 0.55

Is nutritious 3.04 0.579

Factor 2. Emotions

Helps me cope with stress 2.31 0.986

Helps me cope with life 2.37 0.713

Helps me relax 2.49 0.761

Makes me feel good 3.17 0.591

Factor 3. Sensory Appeal

Looks nice 2.67 0.865

Smells nice 2.91 0.841

Has a pleasant texture 3 0.503

Factor 4. Ethics

Is produced from ethically treated animals 2.67 0.826

Is packaged in an environmentally friendly way 2.27 0.799

Has the country of origin clearly marked 1.84 0.681

28

Factor 5. Education

Has accurate nutritional labelling 2.81 0.886

Is cooked in proper and safe appliances 3.1 0.409

The means of each of the items appear to be reasonable as each of the items is measured on a 4-

point Likert scale. The factor loadings are also relatively high, with the greatest being for the

factors sensory appeal and ethics. Sensory appeal was also determined by other researchers to

have the greatest influence on food choice. The goodness-of-fit test, presented in Table 3 below,

shows a significance of 0.451, which means that the 5-factor model solution is a fairly good

description of the data, since the value is greater than 0.05; the default requirement.

Table 3. Goodness-of-fit test results

Goodness-of-fit Test

Chi-Square df Sig.

131.313 130 .451

The factors that were identified were health, emotions, sensory appeal, ethics, and education.

Factor stress, which was not in the original questionnaire but added to this specific study, was

included in the factor emotions. The Pattern Matrix showed that these two items more strongly

measured emotions. Factor culture was also removed, which was initially measured by the items

is familiar and is like the food I ate when I was a child.

4.4. Reliability The Cronbach’s alpha was calculated for each of the scales to check for internal consistency. For

a scale to be considered relatively reliable, the Cronbach’s alpha should be above 0.7.

For the scale measuring the factors affecting food choice, with 23 items initially, a Cronbach’s

alpha assessment was done for each subscale of the factors affecting food choice following the

factor analysis. For total health it is 0.796, 0.854 for total emotions (with the removal of the item

makes me feel good), 0.801 for total sensory appeal (with the removal for the item has a pleasant

texture), 0.830 for ethics, and 0.583 for education. The overall Cronbach’s alpha for the food

choice scale is 0.807.

The reliability of the food sovereignty scale, with 3 items turned out to be 0.313, which is

extremely low. The item concerning food miles was removed due to too many missing cases

which heavily distorted the internal consistency. The average inter-item correlation was about 0.2,

which is within an appropriate range for such a small scale. After the Cronbach’s alpha was

recalculated, a new total score was calculated for Food Sovereignty.

Lastly, the Cronbach’s alpha for the scale measuring the gap between consumers and producers,

which had initially 5 items, is 0.846; with the removal of the item how important is the way food

is produced to you?

29

4.5. Statistical Analysis The statistical indirect effect mediation analysis for multiple independent variables from Hayes

and Preacher (2014) was implemented to study the relationship between food choice, food

sovereignty, and the gap between consumers and producers. The output matrix provides

information regarding R-squared values, p-values, and beta coefficients of the effect of food

choice on food sovereignty, and food sovereignty on the gap between consumers and producers.

A bootstrapping method was also implemented depicting the confidence intervals showing the

indirect effects of the independent variables of food choice on the gap between consumers and

producers, through food sovereignty. Several tables have been presented to show these results.

Table 4 shows the effects that the factors affecting food choice have on food sovereignty. The R-

squared value is 0.1087, which means that food choice explains about 11% of the variance in

food sovereignty. Food choice does not contribute to food sovereignty in a statistically significant

way, seeing as the p-value for the model summary is above 0.05, and none of the p-values for

each factor of food choice is significant. This does not necessarily mean that there is no mediation

between food choice and the gap between consumers and producers through food sovereignty, so

analysis can be continued.

Table 4. The effects that the factors affecting food choice have on food sovereignty

Outcome variable: Food Sovereignty

Model Summary

R-sq p

0.1087 0.49

Model Coefficients

Coeff p

Constant 5.6116 0

Health 0.0036 0.9544

Emotions 0.0586 0.3968

Sensory Appeal 0.1839 0.1508

Ethics -0.0731 0.349

Education -0.0625 0.6249

The total effect that the factors affecting food choice and food sovereignty have on the gap

between consumers and producers is presented in Table 5. This table shows the total direct and

indirect effect of food choice on the gap between consumers and producers. It can be seen that

food sovereignty has absolutely no effect on the gap between consumers and producers, which

means that it also cannot mediate food choice on the gap between consumers and producers.

Together, food choice and food sovereignty explain 57% of the variance in the gap between

consumers and producers. Sensory appeal turns out to be marginally significant with a p-value of

0.0660. It can be seen that, when food sovereignty is added to the model, the other variables lose

their significance. Only ethics remains statistically significant with a p-value of 0, and with a beta

coefficient of 0.4060. This table shows that food sovereignty cannot act as a mediator in this

relationship.

30

Table 5. Total effect of food choice and food sovereignty on the gap between consumers and producers

The direct effect that food choice has on the gap between consumers and producers without the

influence of food sovereignty is presented in Table 6. This means that food choice also explains

about 57% of the variance in the gap between consumers and producers on its own, which is

considered to be relatively high. The R-squared is only slightly lower than that in Table 5,

confirming that food sovereignty does not have a large effect. Sensory appeal and ethics are food

choice factors that are statistically significant, with p-values 0.0520 and 0 respectively. For every

unit increase in sensory appeal, the gap between consumers and producers decreases by a factor

of 0.4763. For every unit increase in ethics, the gap between consumers and producers increases

by a factor of 0.7593. Education is marginally significant, with a p-value of 0.0958. It does not

have a significant effect, but it can be taken into account as being pretty close, as compared to the

other factors, so it should not be entirely overlooked.

Table 6. The direct effect of the independent variables food choice on the gap between consumers and

producers

Outcome variable: Gap between consumers and producers

Mode Summary

R-sq p

0.5651 0

Model Coefficients

Coeff p

Constant 5.1586 0.010

Health -0.0012 0.9927

Emotions 0.0775 0.5396

Sensory Appeal -0.4763 0.0520

Ethics 0.8153 0

Education 0.4085 0.0958

A bootstrap for the indirect effect that food choice has on the gap between consumers and

producers through food sovereignty is presented in Table 7. The table shows the values of the

regression coefficients and confidence intervals. This shows that food choice as a whole has no

indirect effect on the gap between consumers and producers when mediated by food sovereignty.

Statistically, this can be seen since the value 0 is found between the lower limits and upper limits

Outcome variable: Gap between consumers and producers

Mode Summary

R-sq p

0.5653 0

Model Coefficients

Coeff p

Constant 5.3794 0.0465

Food Sovereignty -0.0393 0.9010

Health -0.0011 0.9928

Emotions 0.0820 0.5376

Sensory Appeal -0.4669 0.0660

Ethics 0.7593 0

Education 0.4060 0.1035

31

of the confidence interval, which means that the effect is not statistically different from 0. This

means that food sovereignty is not a strong mediator, meaning that it cannot bridge the gap

between consumers and producers.

Table 7. Indirect effect of food choice through food sovereignty on the gap between consumers and

producers showing the lower and upper limits of the confidence intervals

Indirect Effect Through: Food Sovereignty (boot)

Effect (Reg. Coeff)

Lower Limit Confidence Interval

Upper Limit Confidence Interval

Health -0.0001 -0.0434 0.0479

Emotions -0.0023 -0.0697 0.0584

Sensory Appeal -0.0072 -0.1444 0.1393

Ethics 0.0029 -0.0553 0.0818

Education 0.0025 -0.0734 0.1261

Conceptual Schematic Diagram with mediation effects

Fig 2. Diagram showing the Cronbach’s alphas of the factors of food choice, the effect of the factors of

food choice on food sovereignty, and the total effect of food choice and food sovereignty on the gap

between consumers and producers

32

Chapter 5: Interpretation and Discussion In the previous chapter, the results of the statistical analysis were presented, and in this chapter

we will interpret the results of the current study. The first subsection will explain the relationship

between food choice and food sovereignty. In the next subsection the relationship between food

sovereignty and the gap between consumers and producers is interpreted. This is where the

principle contribution of this thesis was added; to determine whether food sovereignty has a

significant effect on size of gap between consumers and producers, in order to determine whether

food sovereignty could mediate the relationship between food choice and the gap between

consumers and producers. The last subsection concerns the outcome of the influence food choice

on the gap between consumers and producers, because it turned out to be significant, and so it is

relevant to discuss.

5.1. Food Choice and Food Sovereignty

As shown in Table 4, food choice does not contribute to food sovereignty in a statistically

significant way. The conclusion that can be drawn from this is that the food choices that people

make do not influence the level of food sovereignty that they have. The relationship could

possibly be the other way around; that food sovereignty influences food choice, but that was also

tested by the researcher and no significant results were found for that either. There does not seem

to be a relationship between food choice and food sovereignty, according to the current study. As

was discussed in the theoretical framework, ethics appears to be closely linked to food

sovereignty, but according to the results, it has an insignificant effect on food sovereignty. The

lack of influence may mean that food sovereignty is not dependent on food choice, and it exists

independently. In other words, consumers make their food choices under the influence of their

education, emotions, sensory preferences, and their income. These choices that they make do not

raise or lower their food sovereignty. Their food sovereignty may be influenced by other factors

other than food choice, such as their occupation, or personal factors such as having close friends

or family that are farmers. Perhaps they have lived certain experiences in impoverished countries,

or highly consumptive societies. It must also be remembered, that this thesis did not measure food

choice directly, but factors of food choice. Perhaps if food choice were measured directly then

maybe the results would have been significant.

5.2. Food Sovereignty and the Gap between Consumers and Producers

If we look at Table 5, which shows the total effect of the independent variables food choice and

mediating variable food sovereignty on the gap between consumers and producers, we see that

food sovereignty does not contribute to the gap in a statistically significant way. This is a very

interesting and strange finding. The aim of this study was to determine whether food sovereignty

could mediate the effect of food choice on the gap between consumers and producers in a

significant way. According to theory, it seems as though food sovereignty would influence the

gap between consumers and producers in a significant way. The main goals of food sovereignty

are to make sure people, in all communities, are free to exercise their rights to define their own

food and mode of production, and it also opts for more locally produced food. It is a movement

with the aim to encourage the consumers to be more actively involved in their food consumption,

and how the food is produced. This would mean going more frequently to local markets as

33

opposed to conventional super markets, and establishing open communication with the producer

about how the food was produced and under what conditions. Because we see this lack of

significance between food sovereignty and the gap between consumers and producers, it is no

surprise then that there was no relationship found for food choice and food sovereignty either. It

was also found that there is a significant influence of the independent variables on the dependent

variable. It was previously believed, as discussed by Baron and Kenny (1986), that mediation is

strongest when there is an indirect effect but no direct effect. However, most articles now show

that mediation is often accompanied by a direct effect. In the case of the current research, though,

there is a direct effect, but no indirect effect, therefore there is no mediation. According to Zhao

et al, (2010), what we have is termed a direct-only nonmediation. This lack of mediation could be

a problem in the theoretical framework. In other words, another variable, not discussed in this

research, could be doing the mediating instead. The next section explains the significance of the

relationship between food choice and the gap between consumers and producers in more detail.

5.3. Food Choice and the Gap between Consumers and Producers

Table 6 shows the direct effect of food choice on the gap between consumers and producers,

without taking food sovereignty into consideration. It can be seen that this relationship is

statistically significant, meaning that food choice does influence the gap between consumers and

producers in a meaningful way. Ethics and sensory perception are the two factors measuring food

choice that have a relevant effect on the gap, with ethics having the greatest effect. The factor

loadings show that sensory appeal, particularly the items smells nice and looks nice, are the most

important determinants of food choice. And as the use of sensory appeal as a determinant of food

choice increases, the gap between consumers and producers decreases. Ethics also has a relatively

high factor loading; especially the item is produced from ethically treated animals. As ethical

consumer practice increases, the gap between consumers and producers increases as well, which

is a counter-intuitive finding, as was discussed earlier. Another interesting finding is that ethics is

the only food choice factor that influences the gap between consumers and producers in a

statistically significant way when food sovereignty is introduced. Even though food sovereignty

is overall not a strong mediator, ethics remains significant. The items measuring ethics were

produced from ethically treated animals, is packaged in an environmentally friendly way, and has

the country of origin clearly marked. These items indicate an awareness of food production and

the wider implications it has on animals and on the environment. According to theory, proper

ethical practice should lead to a smaller gap between consumers and producers. It might be that,

as stated in the literature, there is a possibility that consumers show concern for animal welfare

primarily because the meat produced from the animals directly affects their health, but they are

not concerned about the animals’ treatment per se. This may in fact act to distance the

psychological gap between consumers and producers.

The most important finding in this thesis is that when food sovereignty was introduced as a

potential mediator between food choice and the gap between consumers and producers, it was

found that it does not exert a statistically significant effect on the gap, and thus it cannot mediate

the relationship. Table 7 also shows evidence of no indirect effect. Since food choice exerts a

statistically significant effect on the gap between consumers and producers, it can be inferred that

there are potentially other mediators that could actually play a significant role in this relationship.

34

5.4. Discussion

5.4.1. Conclusion

The purpose of this study was to determine the relationship between food choice and the gap

between consumers and producers, and whether food sovereignty could play a significant role in

mediating this relationship. The factors affecting food choice that were investigated in this study

were taken from the original questionnaire of Steptoe et al (1995), and some modifications were

done on it, including the addition of two factors, stress and education. Because of these

modifications, a factor analysis was conducted to determine whether any of the items or factors

needs to be removed to improve reliability before undergoing any further statistical analysis. It

was discovered that factors culture, and price are not very relevant measures of food choice in

this particular study, and that stress actually falls under the emotions factor. The items that

initially measured stress in this study were actually originally used to measure emotions in the

study of Steptoe et al (1995), and the factor analysis in this study confirmed that those items are

more appropriate for measuring emotions. Therefore factors stress and emotions are related in the

way they affect food choice. The results from mediation analysis following the method of

Preacher and Hayes (2014) for multiple independent variables showed that overall food choice

has a significant direct effect on the gap between consumers and producers, with factors ethics

and sensory appeal having the greatest contribution. The result was surprising because it showed

that as ethical food consumption increases, the gap between consumers and producers widens,

which does not adhere to what is theoretically known from the literature. The results also showed

that food choice does not influence food sovereignty in a significant way and that food

sovereignty is not a strong mediator. Mediation is typically strongest when there is both a direct

and an indirect effect. In this case there is a direct effect but no indirect effect. The direct effect of

food choice on the gap between consumers and producers is statistically significant, and explains

more than half of the variance in the gap. Food sovereignty explains an insignificant amount of

this variance, and so there must be another variable or set of factors that also contribute to the gap

between consumers and producers in a more significant way. As was discussed in the theoretical

framework, the ethics factor is connected to food sovereignty, and this is perhaps why it is the

most significant in explaining the gap, with food sovereignty present, and without food

sovereignty. It could be possible that ethics, or a similar factor, might mediate the relationship

between food choice and the gap between consumers and producers in a more significant way.

Perhaps ethics should be better used as a mediator between food choice and the gap, and not a

measure of food choice.

5.4.2. Limitations

The current study had several important limitations, which, if avoided, could have led to more

accurate and significant results. Firstly, the scale measuring food sovereignty had a very low

reliability of 0.313, even after removing the item regarding food miles. This may be partly why

food sovereignty was not found to contribute significantly to the gap between consumers and

producers. Perhaps if additional questions were added, the reliability would have been improved.

Additional questions could have specifically dealt with the communication between consumers

and producers, and more about the specific goals of food sovereignty and whether or not

respondents believed they could be achieved. Secondly, food choice was not measured directly,

but factors affecting food choice, therefore it was only an indirect measure. In addition, the study

35

could have been improved if the questionnaire was also sent to a wider target audience; to more

university students, but also to younger and elderly people and people from various forms of

occupations. This would make it easier to test for how the different psychological, biological,

socioeconomic, and ethical factors affect consumer food choices in different contexts. Moreover,

the current study did not take into account the gender of the respondents, and the number of

students from each study. It would have been helpful to see whether groups differed.

5.4.3. Recommendations for Future Research

A recommendation for future research would be to conduct a measure for food choice specifically,

as opposed to just factors affecting food choice. This could be done experimentally, perhaps by

testing different groups separated by age, occupation, and cultural background, and to test to see

how participants would select their food. The study could also be done through field research as it

might yield better results. Future research should also conduct similar studies but shifting the

focus from consumers to producers, to determine how food choice impact on their decisions, what

their ideologies are, and what they see as affecting the widening gap between themselves and

consumers.

It would be useful and interesting if a subsequent study similar to this one were to be undergone,

but a wider sample selection with specific information about gender, age, and occupation, and a

more reliable scale for food sovereignty. Future research should also investigate whether other

variables such as ethics, as was previously observed, could help to better bridge the gap between

consumers and producers.

36

Appendices

Appendix A: Questionnaire

Thank you for volunteering to participate in this survey. The first part is about how certain factors

influence your food choice. Please keep the following statement in mind when circling your

preference on each of the factors: “It is important to me that the food I eat on a typical day…” for

each of the items by choosing between 4 responses: not at all important, a little important,

moderately important, and very important. Your answers will remain anonymous and will be used

purely for scientific research. Please answer to the best of your ability.

Factor 1 - Health

Please circle one of the following alternatives in response to the statement: “It is important to me

that the food I eat on a typical day…”

1. Contains a lot of vitamins and minerals

Not at all important A little important Moderately important Very important

2. Is nutritious

Not at all important A little important Moderately important Very important

3. Is high in protein

Not at all important A little important Moderately important Very important

4. Is good for my skin/teeth/hair/nails etc

Not at all important A little important Moderately important Very important

5. Is high in fibre and roughage

Not at all important A little important Moderately important Very important

Factor 2 - Emotion

Please circle one of the following alternatives in response to the statement: “It is important to me

that the food I eat on a typical day…”

6. Helps me cope with stress

Not at all important A little important Moderately important Very important

37

7. Helps me to cope with life

Not at all important A little important Moderately important Very important

8. Helps me relax

Not at all important A little important Moderately important Very important

9. Keeps me stay awake/alert

Not at all important A little important Moderately important Very important

10. Makes me feel good

Not at all important A little important Moderately important Very important

Factor 3 - Sensory Appeal

Please circle one of the following alternatives in response to the statement: “It is important to me

that the food I eat on a typical day…”

11. Smells nice

Not at all important A little important Moderately important Very important

12. Looks nice

Not at all important A little important Moderately important Very important

13. Has a pleasant texture

Not at all important A little important Moderately important Very important

14. Tastes good

Not at all important A little important Moderately important Very important

Factor 4 - Price Please circle one of the following alternatives in response to the statement: “It is important to me

that the food I eat on a typical day…”

15. Is not expensive

Not at all important A little important Moderately important Very important

16. Is good value for money

38

Not at all important A little important Moderately important Very important

Factor 5 - Culture

Please circle one of the following alternatives in response to the statement: “It is important to me

that the food I eat on a typical day…”

17. Is familiar

Not at all important A little important Moderately important Very important

18. Is like the food I ate when I was a child

Not at all important A little important Moderately important Very important

Factor 6 - Ethical concerns

Please circle one of the following alternatives in response to the statement: “It is important to me

that the food I eat on a typical day…”

19. Has the country of origin clearly marked

Not at all important A little important Moderately important Very important

20. Is packaged in an environmentally friendly way

Not at all important A little important Moderately important Very important

21. Is produced from ethically treated animals

Not at all important A little important Moderately important Very important

Factor 7 - Education

Please circle one of the following alternatives in response to the statement: “It is important to me

that the food I eat on a typical day…”

22. Has accurate nutritional labelling

Not at all important A little important Moderately important Very important

23. Is cooked in proper and safe appliances

Not at all important A little important Moderately important Very important

39

The next part concerns the emerging concept of Food Sovereignty, broadly defined as “the right

of local people to control their own food systems, including markets, ecological resources, food

cultures, and production modes”. Your answers to these questions will remain anonymous, and

will be used purely for scientific research. Please answer as best as you can, according to your

own opinion.

1) How safe is the food available in your community?

( ) Not very safe

( ) Moderately safe

( ) Very safe

2) From your own experience, how fair is the price for healthy foods in your community?

( ) Not very fair

( ) Moderately fair

( ) Very fair

3) How far does food travel to get to your community?

( ) 0 miles (it is produced in my community)

( ) Less than 1,500 miles

( ) More than 1,500 miles

4) Local markets refer to markets that sell fresh organic produce grown in the same area.

How often do people in your community shop at local markets?

( ) Less than once a year

( ) At least once a month

( ) More than once a week

The last part concerns the increasing gap between producers and consumers, and the limited

communication between producers and consumers. For the following questions, locally produced

means the food was grown on a local family farm or made by a local company. Your answers

to these questions will remain anonymous, and will be used purely for scientific research. Please

answer as best as you can, according to your own opinion.

40

1. How important is the way food is produced to you?

Not at all important A little important Moderately important Very important

2. How important is the relationship between consumers and farmers?

Not at all important A little important Moderately important Very important

3. How important is improving the education of consumers about food production?

Not at all important A little important Moderately important Very important

4. How important is the location where food is produced?

Not at all important A little important Moderately important Very important

5. How important are farmers markets as a place to learn more about sources of food

Not at all important A little important Moderately important Very important

Thank you for taking the time to complete the questionnaire!

41

Appendix B: Pattern Matrix

Pattern Matrixa

Factor

1 2 3 4 5

Stress: Helps me cope

with stress 1.005

Relax: Helps me relax .735

Copelife: Helps me to cope

with life .684

Goodfeeling: Makes me

feel good .567

Alertness: Keeps me stay

awake/alert

Diet quality: How would

you rate the nutritional

quality of your diet?

.765

Fibre: Is high in fibre and

roughage .672

Vitamins: Contains a lot of

vitamins and minerals .668

Protein: Is high in protein .624

Skin: Is good for my

skin/teeth/hair/nails etc. .422 .558

Health: Would you say

your health in general is: -.303 .526

Nutrition: Is nutritious .472

Look: Looks nice .871

Smell: Smells nice .794

Texture: Has a pleasant

texture .518

Expense: Is not expensive

Value: Is good value for

money

42

Animal welfare: Is

produced from ethically

treated animals

.858

Packaging: Is packaged in

an environmentally friendly

way

.761

Country label: Has the

country of origin clearly

marked

.689

Familiarity: Is familiar -.430 .303

Taste: Tastes good .430

Childhood: Is like the food I

ate when I was a child

Labelling: Has accurate

nutritional labelling .335 .615

Cooking appliances: Is

cooked in proper and safe

appliances

.472

Extraction Method: Maximum Likelihood.

Rotation Method: Oblimin with Kaiser Normalization.

a. Rotation converged in 16 iterations.

43

Bibliography Journals:

Altieri, M. A. (2009). Agroecology, Small Farms, and Food Sovereignty.

Antin, T., and Hunt, G. (2012). Food choice as a multidimensional experience. A qualitative

study with young African American women. Appetite,Vol. 58, Issue 3, pp. 856-863.

doi:10.1016/j.appet.2012.01.021.

Ares, G., and Gambaro, A. (2007). Influence of gender, age and motives underlying food choice

on perceived healthiness and willingness to try functional foods. Science Direct Journal,

Appetite,Vol. 99, pp. 148, 158.

Åsebø, K., Jervell, A.M., Lieblein, G., Svennerud, M., and Francis, C. (2007). Farmer and

Consumer Attitudes at Farmers Markets in Norway. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, Vol. 30,

No.4, pp. 67-91.

Auger, P., and Devinney, T.M. (2007). Do What Consumers Say Matter? The Misalignment of

Preferences with Unconstrained Ethical Intentions. Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 76, pp. 361-

383.

Baron, R.M., and Kenny, D.A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social

psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51, pp. 1173-1182.

Beauregard, S. (2009). Food Policy for People: Incorporating food sovereignty principles into

State governance. Urban and Environmental Policy.

Bell-Sheeter, A. (2004). Food Sovereignty Assessment Tool. First Nations Development Institute.

Benton, D., and Donohoe, R. (1999). The effects of nutrients on mood. Journal of Public Health

Nutrition, Vol. 2, No. 3a. pp. 403-409.

Brown, C. (2003). Consumers’ preferences for locally produced food: A study in southeast

Missouri. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture, Vol. 18, No. 4, pp. 213-224. DOI:

10.1079/AJAA200353.

Carrigan, M., and Attalla, A. (2001). The myth of the ethical consumer- do ethics matter in

purchase behaviour? Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 18, Iss: 7, pp. 50-578.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/07363760110410263.

Carrillo, E., Varela, P., Salvador, A., and Fiszman, S. (2011). Main Factors Underlying

Consumers’ Food Choice: A First Step for the Understanding of Attitudes toward “Healthy

Eating”. Journal of Sensory Studies 26, pp. 85-95. doi:10.1111/j.1745-459X.2010.00325.x.

Carrington, M.J., Neville, B.A., and Whitwell, G.J. (2010). Why Ethical Consumers Don’t Walk

Their Talk: Towards a Framework for Understanding the Gap Between the Ethical Purchase

Intentions and Actual Buying Behaviour of Ethically Minded Consumers. Journal of Business

Ethics, Vol. 97, pp. 139-158. DOI 10.1007/s10551-010-0501-6.

44

Christensen, L. (2001). The effect of food on mood. Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 20, pp. 161-166.

Cooper, P.J., and Bowskill, R. (1986). Dysphoric Mood and Overeating. British Journal of

Clinical Psychology, Vol. 25, Iss:2, pp. 155-156.

Cudjoe, K.S. (2014). Impact of climate change and globalization on safety of fresh produce-

governing a supply chain of uncompromised food sovereignty. Norwegian Veterinary Institute.

Darmon, N., and Drewnowski, A. (2008). Does social class predict diet quality? The American

Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 87, pp. 1107-1117.

Darmon, N., Lacroix, A., Muller, L., and Ruffieux, B. (2014). Food price policies improve diet

quality while increasing socioeconomic inequalities in nutrition. International Journal of

Behavioural Nutrition and Physical Activity, Vol. 11, No. 66, pp. 1-12.

Drewnowski, A. (2008). Nutritional Review, Vol. 1, pp. 23-39. doi: 10.1111/j.1753-

4887.2007.00003.x.

Dyg, P.M. (2014). Fostering Food Literacy and Food Citizenship through Farm-School

Cooperation and Beyond. Aalborg University, Copenhagen.

Fedorikhin, A., and Patrick, V.M. (2010). Positive Mood and Resistance to Temptation: The

Interfering Influence of Elevated Arousal. Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 37, No. 4, pp.

698-711.

Fotopoulos, C., Krystallis, A., Vasallo, M., and Pagiaslis, A. (2009). Food Choice Questionnaire

(FCQ) revisited. Suggestions for the development of an enhanced general food motivation model.

Appetite, Vol 52. pp. 199-208.

Franchi, M. (2012). Food Choice: Beyond the Chemical Content. International Journal of Food

Sciences and Nutrition, Vol. 63 (S1): 17-28.

Gagic, S., Jovivic, A., Tesanovic, D., and Kalenjuk, B. (2014). Motives for Food Choice Among

Serbian Consumers. Journal of Economics of Agriculture, Vol. 61, No. 1. pp. 41-51.

Gibson, L. (2006). Emotional influences on food choice: Sensory, physiological and

psychological pathways. Journal of Physiology and Behaviour, Vol. 89. pp. 53-61.

Grew, R. (2011). The Globalization of Food (review). Technology and Culture, Vol. 52, No. ,

pg.210-211.

Grunert, K.G., Hieke, S., and Wills, J. (2013). Sustainability labels on food products: Consumer

motivation, understanding and use. Food Policy, Vol. 44, pp. 177-189.

Harris, G., Shen, Y., Ha, H., Donato, A., Wallis, S., Zhang, X., and Zhang, Y. (2014). Dissecting

the Signaling Mechanisms Underlying Recognition and Preference of Food Odours. The Journal

of Neuroscience, Vol. 34, No.28, pp. 9389-9403. DOI:10.1523.

45

Hayes, A.F., and Preacher, K.J. (2014). Statistical mediation analysis with a multicategorical

independent variable. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, Vol. 67, pp.

451-470. DOI:10.1111/bmsp.12028.

Hough, G., and Sosa, M. (2014). Food choice in low income populations-A review. Food Quality

and Preference. Vol. 40, pp. 334-342.

Jevsnik, M., Hlebec, V., and Raspor, P. (2007). Food Safety Knowledge and Practices among

Food Handlers in Slovenia. Journal of Food Control, Vol. 19, No.12, pp. 1107-1118.

Koster, E.P. (2007). Diversity in the determinants of food choice: a psychological perspective.

Food Quality and Preference, Vol. 20, pp. 70-82.

Lamine, C. (2005). Settling Shared Uncertainties: Local Partnerships between Producers and

Consumers. Sociologia Ruralis, Vol. 45, Number 4. pp. 325-342.

Liberman, N., and Trope, Y. (1998). Temporal construal theory of intertemporal judgment and

decision. Economic and psychological perspectives on intertemporal choice, pp. 217-240.

Lieberman, H.R., Wurtman, R.J., Emde, G.G., Roberts, C., and Coviella, I.L.G. (1987). The

effects of low doses of caffeine on human performance and mood. Journal of

Psychopharmacology, Vol. 92, pp. 308-312.

Lindeman, M., and Vaananen, M. (1999). Measurement of ethical food choice motives. Appetite,

Vol.34, pp. 55-59.

Magoulas, C. (2009). How color affects food choices. University of Nevada, Las Vegas.

Oliver, G., Wardle, J., and Gibson, L. (2000). Stress and Food Choice: A Laboratory Study.

Journal of Psychosomatic Medicine, Vol. 62. pp. 853-865.

Patel, R. (2009). Food Sovereignty. The Journal of Peasant Studies, Vol. 36, No. 3. pp. 663-706.

DOI: 10.1080/03066150903143079

Prescott, J., Young, O., O’Neill, L., Yau, N.J.N., and Stevens, R. (2001). Motives for food choice:

a comparison of consumers from Japan, Taiwan, Malaysia and New Zealand. Journal of Food

Quality and Preference, Vol. 13. pp. 489-495. DOI: 10.1016/S0950-3293(02)00010-1.

Rozin, P. (2002). Human food intake and choice: Biological, Psychological, and Cultural

Perspectives. Food Selection: From genes to culture, pp. 7-24.

Sammarco, M.L., Ripabelli, G., and Grasso, G.M. (1997). Consumer attitude and awareness

towards food related hygienic hazards. Journal of Food Safety, Vol. 17, No. 4, pp. 215-221.

doi:10.1111/j.1745-4565.1997.tb00188.x 14.

Shepherd, R. (1999). Social Determinants of Food Choice. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society,

Vol. 58, pp. 807-812.

Short, F. (2003). Domestic Cooking Skills-what are they? Journal of the HEIA, Vol. 10, No. 3,

pp. 13-22.

46

Spector, R. (2003). Fully Integrated Food Systems: Regaining Connections between Farmers and

Consumers. International Forum on Globalization.

Tawse, J. (2010). Consumer attitudes towards farm animals and their welfare: a pig production

case study. Bioscience Horizons, Vol.3, No.2, pp. 156-163.

Ternier, S. (2010). Understanding and measuring cooking skills and knowledge as factors

influencing convenience food purchases and consumption. Studies by Undergraduate

Researchers at Guelph, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 69-76.

Vabø, M., and Hansen, H. (2014). The Relationship between Food Preferences and Food Choice:

a Theoretical Discussion. International Journal of Business and Social Science. Vol. 5, No. 7.

Venter, M. (2010). A consumer perspective on food labelling: ethical or not? Koers, Vol. 75, No.

2, pp. 405-428.

Wegener, D., and Petty, R. E. (1994). Mood management across affective states: the hedonic

contingency hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 66, No. 6, pp. 1034-

1048.

Winter, M., Fry, C., and Carruthers, S.P. (1998). European agricultural policy and farm animal

welfare. Food Policy, Vol. 23, No. 3, pp. 305-323.

Wittman, H. (2011). Food Sovereignty. A New Rights Framework for Food and Nature?

Environment and Society: Advances in Research, Vol .2, pp. 87-105.

doi:10.3167/ares.2011.020106.

Zielinska, E. B. (2006). Role of Psychological Factors in Food Choice- A Review. Polish Journal

of Food and Nutrition Sciences, Vol. 15, No. 4, pp. 379-384.

Zhao, X., Lynch, J.G., and Chen, Q. (2010). Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and Truths

about Mediation Analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 37, pp.197-206. DOI:

10.1086/651257.

Books:

Kilcast, D. (ed.) (2004). Texture in Food. Volume 2: Solid Foods, Woodhead/CRC Press.

Pallant, J. (2007). SPSS Survival Manual. Berkshire: Open University Press.

Riaz, M., and Chaudry, M.M. (2004). Halal Food Production. London: CRC Press LLC.

Singleton, R.A., and Straits, B.C. (2005). Approaches to Social Research. New York, Oxford:

Oxford University Press, Inc.