Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

ФЕДЕРАЛЬНОЕ ГОСУДАРСТВЕННОЕ БЮДЖЕТНОЕ ОБРАЗОВАТЕЛЬНОЕ УЧРЕЖДЕНИЕ

ВЫСШЕГО ПРОФЕССИОНАЛЬНОГО ОБРАЗОВАНИЯ

«САНКТ-ПЕТЕРБУРГСКИЙ ГОСУДАРСТВЕННЫЙ УНИВЕРСИТЕТ»

Доверие потребителя к органическим продуктам питания на рынках России и Германии

Consumer trust in organic food on the German and Russian markets

Диссертация на соискание степени магистра по основной образовательной программе высшего образования по направлению 040100 «Социология»,

профиль «Европейские общества» / MA «Studies in European Societies»

Ivanova Mariia Sergeevna

professor, Dr. Vera Minina.

Рецензент / Reviewer:

Independent Researcher, Project Coordinator, SIAR

Elena Ganskau

Санкт-Петербург

2017

Table of contents

Introduction

Chapter 1. Trust on the organic food market in Russia and Germany: theoretical framework

1.1 The general concept of organic food: basic ideas and explanations

1.2 Legislative base for organic production

1.3 Understanding and estimating trust in organic food

Chapter 2. Building trust on the organic food market: comparative analysis of Russian and German cases..

2.1 Methods and data collection

2.2 Trust in organic food among Russian and German consumers: comparative analysis of empirical data

2.3 Organic food issues in Russian and German mass media

2.4 The impact of governmental and private standards on building trust on the organic food market in Russia and Germany

Conclusion

Bibliography

Appendix I. Research program for empirical study

Appendix II. Questionnaire for consumers (in English)

Appendix III. Interview guide (in English)

Appendix IV. Table of respondents

Appendix V. Example of the interview transcript (German)

Appendix VI. Example of the interview transcript (Russian)

Introduction

It is evident that nowadays a market for organic food in Europe, and especially in Germany, is constantly growing (European Commission). The same trend can be also observed in Russia (Bruschi et.al. 2015). Despite numerous differences between German and Russian organic food markets, there is one common problem which is typical for both. This is the problem of information asymmetries. Organic products are often even called credence goods because information about the nature of the product is asymmetric: while producers know whether the product is really organic or not, in most cases the presence or absence of the organic characteristics are not detectable by consumers even after purchase and use of the product (Giannakas, 2002). It means that consumers generally cannot distinguish organic products from conventional ones by their appearance or taste. More than that, it is hardly possible to say if the product is organic or not even after the consumption (Schneider et.al. 2009). In other words, buyers do not really sure if the product is organic unless they are told so. Surely, this issue is relevant for any market in general, whether it is the automobile, insurance, credit or labor markets (Akerlof, 1970), and for the food market in particular (Nestorowicz, 2014). This is explained by the fact that producers, in comparison to consumers, from the very beginning possess more information about goods they offer. However, at the same time, this problem becomes even more important for the organic food market due to the peculiarity of traded goods.

From the one hand, reasons for purchasing organic food are seemed to be very altruistic. Thus, originally organic farming has been emerged as an alternative production system to help preserve the environment, and reduce the negative impact on natural resources such as soil, air, and water (Vega-Zamora et.al. 2013). This goes along with the striving for rural economic development (Ibid.). On the other hand, motifs for buying such products are also rather egoistic. Individual health and food safety together with the quality and flavor are in the spotlight for many people (Ibid.). However, in both cases commodities, which are purchased by people who claim themselves as organic food consumers, are endowed with a bigger value. It is difficult to argue that a person would choose organic product instead if it's conventional counterpart without having a strong reason. And this very strong reason makes organic food and organic food market unique. In order to satisfy their particular needs, it is important for consumers to be sure that money is invested in a truly organic product. For this reason, information provision can affect consumers' willingness-to-pay for environmental goods (Rousseau & Vranken, 2013). And this confidence cannot be totally complete until the problem of information asymmetries is solved.

Actually, one of the possible solutions for this problem is the formation of consumer trust toward organic food. Moreover, there is a general agreement on the importance of trust in decisions on organic food (Schneider et.al. 2009). Nevertheless, the question arises: how customers could trust in the truly organic origin of a product under the conditions of information shortage? Because the necessity for trust is argued to be usually caused by uncertainty what is actually the lack of important knowledge (Sztompka, 1999). In this case, the main problem is where consumers obtain necessary information and how does it influence their trust in organic food at the end.

Generally, there is an opinion that “social institutions and arrangements <…> are better viewed as the efficient solution to certain economic problems” (Granovetter, 1985). In this case, quality uncertainty and trust formation could be attributed to these problems as well. It is possible to mention that there are studies that prove the importance of institutions in regard to the food safety and trust in food in general (Kj?rnes et. al. 2007). Thus, G. Akerlof (1970) identifies four basic types of such institutions: guarantees, brand-name, chains and licensing practices or certifications. What is more, literature review in the field of organic food consumption gives an evidence that the most common way to enhance consumer trust especially in this kind of commodities is the establishing of various institutions, like labels, brands, laws, regulations (Giannakas, 2002; Schneider et.al. 2009; Zagata, Lostak, 2012; Janssen, Hamm, 2012; Brcic-Stipcevic, Petljak, 2012; Smed et. al. 2013; Hamzaoui-Essoussi et. al. 2013; Anisimova, Sultan, 2014; Vittersш, Tangeland, 2015).

However, the occurrence of these institutions does not lead to absolute protection against a fraud. It could be explained by the fact that introduction of these activities sometimes creates incentives for such manipulations as, for instance, mislabeling of conventional food as organic (Giannakas, 2002, Mьller, Gaus, 2015). It means that consumers sometimes are provided with false information. In other words, it shows that certification and labeling are necessary but insufficient for winning the trust of consumers. In this perspective, we agree with G. Akerlof (1970, 500), who writes that “informal unwritten guarantees are preconditions for trade and production”. Consequently, there should be some other ways to enhance consumer trust in organic food except mentioned formal institutions. Thus, one of the possible solutions could be an interaction between market agents, especially communication between consumers. It is a common knowledge that people tend to ask advice or recommendations from other buyers in order to clarify some issues about future purchasing. In other words, other consumers are the most reliable source of information about organic food which enhances their level of trust in it. M. Granovetter (1985) also argues that market is not an impersonal mechanism because people tend to turn it into the network of social relations, which are, in turn, a reliable and trustful source of cheap and detailed information. Despite the fact that German organic food market is known as better regulated than the Russian one, there are a number of laws and controlling bodies, it could be assumed that personal interaction still plays a great role in the process of trust formation on the both of these markets. Hence, the major research question could be formulated as follows: how consumer's trust in organic food is constructed on the market? Consequently, the main aim of the thesis is to reveal common and specific factors that influence the process of consumer trust formation on Russian and German organic food markets. The following hypotheses are tested in the study: 1) personal communication among consumers related to organic food consumption positively affect consumer's trust in these products both in Russia and Germany; 2) institutions regulating Russian and German organic food market influence consumer's trust in these products; 3) personal communication plays more important role than institutional arrangements in the process of consumer's trust formation both in Russia and Germany.

In order to address the research question and hypotheses, the following tasks have been fulfilled:

1. Giving the basic definition of organic food based on the analysis of literature related to the organic food concept and current legislative base for organic food production;

2. Defining trust in organic food and the possible ways of its measurement;

3. Providing the explanation of trust formation on the market through network and neo-institutional approaches;

4. Comparison of Russian and German consumers' motivation for purchasing organic food and estimation of their trust level in these products;

5. Detection of the factors that influence consumer trust in organic food among Russian and German consumers the most;

6. Finding differences and similarities in Russian and German Mass Media coverage of organic food topic;

7. Comparison of governmental laws and private standards for organic production in Russia and Germany.

The object of the study is organic food market in Russia and Germany. The subject of research is the formation of consumer trust in organic food on the Russian and German market. The study is based on case study approach. Organic food systems (Kj?rnes et.al. 2007) in Russia and Germany are investigated as the cases in the research. The spheres of production, distribution, consumption, and regulation are covered by the organic food system. The latter both in Russia and Germany includes manufacturers, retailers, consumers, government, mass media, expert organizations and controlled bodies. Two specialized organic food stores in Russia and two in Germany together with a private controlling authority from each country are considered as objects of comparison along with media sources which are nationwide newspapers and news websites, and current national legislation on organic food. Empirical data for the hypothesis testing is obtained by following methods: the qualitative analysis of documents; the qualitative analysis of Mass Media content; the online survey among organic food consumers; semi-structured interviews with organic products purchasers.

This paper consists of a theoretical chapter, the outline of research design and methodology, description and analysis of empirical findings in a comparative perspective, a conclusion containing some ideas for further research, and several appendices. The chapter represents the theoretical framework the research is built on. The framework is organized around basic concepts: organic food and trust in organic food on the market. Consumer trust is analyzed on the basis of classical sociological theories of trust, produced by a range of outstanding scientists (Sztompka, 1999; Luhmann, 1979; Giddens, 1990; Simmel, 1978; Fukuyama, 1995; Seligman, 1997; Coleman, 1990; Granovetter, 1985; Akerlof, 1970); along with the analysis of current studies on consumer trust on the food market (Kj?rnes et.al. 2007; Gracia & De-Magistris, 2016; Rampl et al. 2012). Analysis of organic food markets was done on the basis of secondary sources (Giannakas, 2002; Schneider et.al. 2009; Zagata & Lostak, 2012; Janssen & Hamm, 2012; Brcic-Stipcevic & Petljak, 2012; Smed et. al. 2013; Hamzaoui-Essoussi et. al. 2013; Anisimova & Sultan, 2014; Vittersш & Tangeland, 2015) along with some investigation into the question of prices for organic food made in Germany and Russia. Empirical part represents the results of an online survey and analysis of semi-structured interviews conducted by the author in a comparative way together with the comparative analysis of documents and media content. The paper concludes with the final chapter where the empirical findings are summarized and connected to the theoretical concepts discussed in the first chapter. This section also includes discussion on limitations of the research and provides some ideas for further investigation.

Chapter 1. Trust on the organic food market in Russia and Germany: theoretical framework

This chapter describes the general theoretical and methodological background of the paper. It begins with the discussion of the general understanding of organic food, which could be found in a current literature considered the topic. This covers the description of the organic food production process, including such stages as growing, processing, and distribution. On the base of comparison between conventional and organic food, special features of the latter are eliminated. It proceeds further to the analysis of basic principles of organic production defined on the international level and common both for Russia and Germany. Moreover, basic sociological concepts of trust are considered due to the fact that trust is a complex phenomenon and could be interpreted in different ways, especially speaking about trust on the market. Definition of trust and trust relations in connection to organic food is given. What is more, the question of trust measurement is addressed. Key factors which allow measuring the level of trust in organic food are discussed. And, finally, network and institutional approaches to market analysis are introduced in terms of trust formation process explanations.

1.1 The general concept of organic food: basic ideas and explanations

Process-oriented approach to defining organic food

Organic food is a complex phenomenon, which could be analysed and interpreted in different ways. The understanding of what organic food really is depends on the range of factors, which influence the final item - organic product. Thus, it could be stated that there are two basic approaches to the definition of organic food: process-oriented approach, which looks exactly at the process of food production; and quality-oriented approach, which considers mostly the question of the effect that organic food has on consumer health and their perceptions of these items (Kahl et.al. 2012). Moreover, the process-oriented approach usually goes along with agro-ecology approach - underlying paradigm for organic agriculture, where processing plays a major role (Ibid.). For this reason, the description of organic processing is given below.

O. Schmid and A. Beck (2004) have traced the historical development of organic food processing on the basis of official regulations, starting from the 1970s, when some private standards for organic food processing have been already established. This was the document of the Demeter association in Germany, which made manufacturer the main responsible actor in the process of organic production and is mostly concentrated on the process of growing. A little bit later, in 1980 and 1982, the first international standards were developed by the International Federation of Organic Agricultural Movements (IFOAM), which slightly touched upon the processing stage. Since the 1990s a number of national regulations were approved regarding the process of organic food processing. What is special in food processing, based on organic principles, is that it is connected with such categories as freshness, minimal processing, careful treatment and sustainability (Gallmann, 2000; Nielsen, 2004; Beck, 2014). The latter, in turn, connects organic processing with decentralization, simplicity, environment and social values (Schumacher, 1973). Schmid and Beck (2004, 17) conclude that organic processing methods should be “suitable to guarantee genuineness, authenticity and conserve natural properties of the raw materials and follow the three principles <…>, which are freshness, minimal processing, and careful treatment”.

When speaking about processing, it is important to define what it is exactly, what procedures are included in this stage and how it is different from all other stages of food production. Processing is defined in various sources differently, we will refer to the definitions made by already mentioned here J.Kahl et.al. According to these authors, generally, processing is “the phase of transformation, of change of the food ingredients, by means of some active principles; processing is a method including technology, additives, aids, a recipe and packaging” (Kahl et al. 2014, 2584). Regarding organic production, all the components of processing should be regulated and controlled with the main goal of production, which is in this particular case to increase safety and quality of a product. Active principles, mentioned in the definition, could include mechanical, chemical, physical, thermal cooking, preservation, cleaning, protection or any combinations of them (Ibid.). Generally, three broad groups of processing methods could be distinguished. Those are physical processing (thermal, mechanical, electric, etc.), chemical (oxidization, polymerisation, etc.) and biological (fermentation, biotechnological, etc.) (Ibid.)

What is important to mention in this regard is that processing is not connected to the process of product growing, it includes the following process of product or raw material preparation for the final use. It is of great significance because rather often processing doesn't deserve a special attention in the literature and either combined with the process of growing or is just missed. It seems to be a big fault due to the fact, that the processing stage takes even bigger part of the whole production chain. Consequently, the neglecting of organic principles at this stage of manufacturing could have a negative impact on the ultimate outcome of the production. It would lead to the loss of important organic characteristics of a product, what is inappropriate if the main goal of production is to produce bioproduct.

As it was mentioned before organic food processing has some specific characteristics, which mark it out from other types of production. First of all, organic food processing is associated with freshness or naturalness. It means that natural properties of the raw material are maintained through the processing process (Schmid & Beck, 2004). To put it more simply, at the end product should contain as many nutritional substances as possible; the biggest part should be saved and not be lost in the process of product preparation for further sale. Organic food processing takes raw material from nature rather than from synthetic origin. That is what is commonly known as “field-to-fork” approach. One of the possible ways to achieve this goal is by means of minimal processing. The main distinction of this method is that it aims to reduce any impact of processing on such product qualities as nutrient density and taste, but at the same time trying to prolong the “shelf life” of a fresh product (Kahl et al. 2014). Thus, the microbiological, sensory and nutritional “shelf life” of minimally processed vegetables should be at least 4-7 days, but preferably even longer (Ahvenainen et al. 1994). Moreover, minimal processing guarantees a product to be fresh, but convenient for people to consume (Ibid.). In other words, a minimally processed product has the same characteristics as the original one, for example, fruit or vegetable, but usually do not need any additional preparations before eating (Gil & Allende, 2012). Ahvenainen et al. (2014) also make clear that minimal processing could be described as the mildest possible preservation adapted to a particular food.

Nevertheless, minimal processing could not be totally equated with organic processing, due to the fact that minimal processing is used not only for the production of organic food. It could be implied within the production of conventional food as well, for example, ready-to-eat salads. Therefore, minimally processed fruits or vegetables are not necessarily organic, just because of the way they were prepared for the sale. As J. Kahl et al. (2013) highlight, minimal processing focusses on the saving of fresh-like properties during the post-harvest stage, while the growing itself could be the very ground for claiming a product organic. However, it could be an important part of the organic production chain, when preservation in this way is considered to be one of the main goals for producers. To put it in other words, minimal processing is important, but not sufficient to claim a product organic. And, what is more, under these circumstances, safety of a product is still questioned, because there could be found a wide range of documented cases of contaminated vegetables and fruits, as well as other items, which brought about large eruptions of microbial infections (Gil & Allende, 2012), what, in turn, has nothing to do with organic food.

One more characteristic of organic food processing is careful processing. It takes into consideration not only a product itself but also another actor, involved in the production chain. It refers to care, undertaken while preparing raw material in such a way that maintain their purity as far as possible, that all known nutrients are saved, while they are believed to be beneficial to human health. What is more, it takes into account the importance of careful handling of animals, as well as concerning about environment. In other words, any biotic and abiotic factors, both directly and also indirectly involved in the process of production (Kahl et al., 2013). Besides, careful processing is undertaken in such a way that it cares for and takes care of people involved in the processing (Ibid.). Nevertheless, careful processing is again a significant part of organic processing, but they could not be understood as equal. And, finally, organic processing is also based on the sustainable processing. Sustainability is based on three main pillars, which are environment, society, and economy (Kristensen & Beck, 2004). It means that organic processing should enhance the preservation of the environment, support economic growth and maintain the population health. However, sustainable processing still remains one of the most underexplored concepts in regard to organic processing as literature review does not allow making any confirmed statements.

Overall, organic processing, considering as an important part of the whole production chain, is based on those principles that were listed above: naturalness and freshness; minimal, careful, and sustainable processing. Still, they are not the only and sufficient basis for claiming a product organic. Let us give an example. J. Kahl and A. Beck (2014) have drawn a special attention to apple wax-covering usage. Despite the fact that utilization of particular types of bee-wax in order to prevent apple's decay is not prohibited by organic regulations, it is not commonly used practice among organic apple manufacturers in Europe. However, some alternatives ways could be taken, such as hot water (Ibid.). Nevertheless, this does not give any guarantee of ecological purity of apple, until they are grown according to organic rules. That is why we are now proceeding to other very important part of the organic production process, which is organic agriculture.

Agro-ecological approach to defining organic food

Organic agriculture is the very beginning of a production chain because it is exactly during this stage a raw material for further processing is obtained. Organic agriculture is defined as a “holistic production management system” (Codex Alimentarius) which takes into account soil, plant and animal health by applying natural methods and working in natural cycles (IFOAM). To put it more simply, it is the cultivation of vegetables, fruits, crops, etc., as well as livestock handling. It is a common fact that a range of agricultural practices can put more pressure on the environment and cause such problems as a destruction of biodiversity and natural habitats, air pollution, water shortages, soil degradation, etc. The reason for these risks, which negatively affect both environment and people's health, are basically widespread usage of nitrates of such concentrations and by such methods which could hardly be compatible with biological cycles of environmental units. There are numerous studies, which prove that some pesticides are even more harmful than it was known before (Mercati, 2016). Consequently, “heavy agricultural reliance on synthetic chemical fertilizers and pesticides is having serious impacts on public health and the environment” (Pimentel et al, 2005, 573).

In contrast, sophisticated agricultural systems, which are based on environmentally- and animal-friendly techniques, could be able not only to restrain climate change and hydrogeological degradation but also allow preserving plant and animal biodiversity with the consequent respect for public health. Process measurements, for instance, indicate less impact on environmental issues measured by life-cycle-assessment (Mandelaers et al. 2009; Gomiero et al. 2008; Wood et al. 2006). It is possible to say that organic agriculture can be considered as one of the ways to achieve the sustainable development goal, which is a rather hot topic today and is listed as one of the main world development goals. V. Mercati (2016) highlights that organic agriculture not only maintains ecological processes that foster plant nutrition, save soil and water resources, but rather increase these processes. The positive effect of organic agriculture was proved by the research, conducted by D. Pimentel et al. (2016). It includes such consequences as issues as higher soil organic matter and nitrogen; better conservation of soil and water resources due to the high levels of soil organic matter; up to 30% lower fossil energy inputs; reduction of soil erosion, pest problems and pesticide use by means of crop rotations and cover cropping; reduction of pollution by recycling of livestock wastes (Pimentel at al. 2016). On the whole, organic farming serves to increase sustainability and biodiversity, to maintain good soil and air quality. In practice it could be achieved by means of natural growing practices, the avoidance of harmful chemicals added by the continued practice of crop rotation and other natural farming methods (Ibid.).

In order to understand better, why the organic way of growing is regarded as a special way of production, it might be useful to analyze the difference between organic, conventional, and, not of the least importance, production affected by GMO. One of the many practices of growing conventional crops both for human's consumption and livestock feed goes hand in hand with the mixture of synthetic fertilizers with added chemicals, what helps to accelerate the process of crops growing (Barroilhet, 2012; Pimentel, 2005). Farmers usually use such pesticides as fungicides, herbicides, and insecticides to spray their sowing (Ibid.). In contrast, it is known that organic farming follows the goal of optimizing the health of land, crops, animals and consumers in order to enhance biodiversity, restore and maintain the environment. This goal is incompatible with techniques allowed by conventional farming. Farmers, who claim their production organic, are often controlled and do not use the conventional farming practices of using synthetic chemicals, pesticides, and antibiotics to grow crops or raise livestock. Obviously, they also want to keep up with consumer's demand and for this purpose, they use more sophisticated traditional practices, such as crop rotation, natural fertilizers, manure or hand weeding (Bernacchia, 2016).

It is necessary to highlight the special interest in livestock breeding when speaking about organic agriculture. It is for a long time was considering that ecological way of production takes into consideration solely the rules for plant cultivation, for example, fruits, vegetables or cereals. Nevertheless, meat, poultry, fish, as well as milk and milk products together with eggs are an essential part of a human daily diet. Thus, conventional or non-organic breeding of animals is known as confined animal feeding operations (CAFO) or, to put it more simply, factory farming (Barroilhet, 2012). It is usually accompanied by the practices of overloading livestock and holding them in a closed cage environment with little or no sunlight, depriving animals of fresh air, space and freedom to graze the fields. In order to reduce costs and gain more profit, while satisfy constantly increasing demand, producers get used inject animals with growth hormones. They make livestock to gain their maximal weight as quickly as possible (Ibid.).

What is even more intimidating, animals are kept in the same space where they excrete the feces. In this way, the ground is becoming fertile ground for infections and viruses (Ibid.). These dangerous conditions force farmers to use antibiotics on a daily basis so that prevent contamination and subsequent doom of the stock. Furthermore, the majority of animal waste is untreated and badly regulated, what in turn leads to rivers and other water sources pollution. In contrast, when livestock is raised by an organic regime, it is treated much differently. The organic farm is constructed in a way to provide animals with leaving conditions and feeds close to the idea, namely natural (Barroilhet, 2012). Animals are raised in a space where they are free to roam the land and receive a sufficient amount of fresh air and sunshine. They utilization of any antibiotics is prohibited and if an animal gets sick, the only allowed way to cure them is by means of homeopathy and other treatments that have no side effect (Pimentel, 2005; Bernacchia, 2016). The evidence provided by the results of comparison between the nutritional quality of conventional and organic dairy products, achieved by Palupi et al (2012), demonstrates that such factors as feeding regime, which is regulated in organic animal husbandry, change milk composition towards healthy parameters.

Turning to the question of production connected with GMO, it is important to mention, that pretty often organic food is opposed to GMO food (Organic trade association). Thus, according to “The codex Alimentarius” any product produced from genetically engineered or genetically modified organisms are not compliant with organic way of production (CAC/GL 32-1999, 3). In this case, only these two ways are analyzed, avoiding a comparison between conventional and organic farming. However, GMO production could be named as an extreme case of non-organic farming. What is special about this way of farming is that farmers use genetically modified seeds that are unnaturally resistant to weeds and insects (Barroilhet, 2012). This technology enables farmers to avoid crop rotation, what in turn leads to great savings in time and labor costs, providing cheaper food in a bigger amount in a less amount of time. It is extremely profitable for producers in an economic sense, but, actually, seems to be accompanied by a lack of social responsibility, due to the fact that there is a scientific substantiation of GMO food harmful influence on human's health. To summarize, the way agricultural products, such as fruits, vegetables, grains, and animals are grown and processed determines whether or not a producer has the right to claim a product as organic. If one of these stages breaks the rules of organic production, the product could not be introduced on the market as ecological or organic.

Product quality-oriented approach to defining organic food

It is worth saying that most of the studies evaluating organic food quality are based on the measurement of selected food compounds, comparing food from organic versus non-organic origin (Palupi et al. 2012; Њrednicka-Tober et.al. 2016; Baranski et al. 2014; Griffiths et al. 2011; Bernacchia, 2016; Kahl et al. 2010; Bigot et al. 2014; Van Overbeke et al. 2006). Usually, quality of the product identified by the impact of primary production on the food attributes copes with parameters related to nutrition and health criteria. In parallel to the process-related quality criteria such as animal welfare, environmental issues, special processing methods, product criteria, such as taste, nutrition and health move to the forefront, what might be suggested to make this approach more subjective. It could be difficult to judge the taste of a product or its impact on one's health because criteria could hardly be developed in these terms.

Surely, evaluation of nutritive qualities seems to be possible. Thus, a number of experiments have been done to show that organically produced food contain more bioactive compounds, while there is a lack of steady proofs of positive effects on human health in a result of keeping an organic diet in comparison with a conventional one (Norwegian scientific committee for food safety). Thus, research conducted by a group of scientists (Smith-Spangler et al. 2012) suggests that there is a limited evidence for the superiority of organic food because the evidence doesn't suggest marked health benefits from consumption organic versus conventional foods, even though organic produce may reduce exposure to pesticide residues and organic chicken and pork may reduce exposure to antibiotic-resistant bacteria. German Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture also support this fact and report that up to now no scientific studies to figure out whether the regular consumption of organic food is more health-promoting than the consumption of conventional products have been done. Just one principle is important: this food may not jeopardize health in general (Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture). What is more, it could be assumed that not just consumption of organic food makes people healthier, but their lifestyle in general, accompanied by organic food, has a positive effect on their health. Thus one of the studies reports that there is a connection between the purchase of organic foods and the dietary habits and lifestyle. Buyers of organic food eat healthier food, are frequently non-smokers and are actively engaged in sports (Hoffman & Eisinger-Watzl, 2015).

However, one of the best ways to understand what is organic food from the quality-oriented perspective is to make a distinction between organic and other types of food as we have already done in regards to organic agriculture. It is justified by the fact that only by comparison it is possible to eliminate specific features of organic food which make it unique, and why the notion of organic food is conceptual could figure as one of the basic categories in this work. It is reasonable to mention that conventional could hardly be defined, at least, in the process of literature reviewing rather a few article were dedicated to this question; and those found are based on the opposition between conventional and organic with a strong accent on the latter. It means that authors do not define conventional food, while immediately shift to the definition of organic products (Palupi et al. 2012; Baranski et al. 2014; Bernacchia, 2016; Kahl et al. 2010).

What is more interesting, organic food is sometimes even confused with functional food, which is actually totally different phenomenon (Kahl et al. 2012). Functional food is known to be modified in order to have more health benefits, for example, fortified with calcium orange juice to support bone's health (Cencic & Chingwaru, 2010). It means that some additional components are added to the product to ensure more usefulness for health. Obviously, both organic and functional are foods, but organic food is further regulated by the European standards for organic agriculture and food production, as well as Russian is also on the way of establishing those standards. The main difference between these two types of nutrition is that functional food aimed at human health as a target, while organic food intends to combine consumer's health with the health of animals, environment, and society (Ibid.). Some examples of functional food are oatmeal; bread with additional content of Omega-3 and iodine; juices with more vitamins A, C or E, etc. In this way, we can speak of organic food not as food which contains more useful compounds, but food that contains less harmful substances. Nevertheless, this proves one more time, that organic food is a complex concept which depends on a combination of important issues that influence the final product.

There can be found some results of scientific investigations on the quality of food which is aimed at the comparison between organic and non-organic goods. Comparison based on constituents show the lower level of residues in organic food (Lainon, 2010; Baker, et al. 2002; Kouba, 2003), but nevertheless, have no hard evidence to of better nutrients and health related compounds (Dangour et al. 2010). As it was mentioned earlier, one of the main goals of organic food production is the high quality of the products as well as maintenance of their “true nature” during the production period. A number of studies were conducted in order to find the differences between organic and conventional food on the base of different aspects or features. Thus, a research on composition differences between organic and conventional meat conducted by D. Њrednicka-Tober et al. (2016) reports that organic products typically characterized by the higher concentration of nutritionally desirable compounds, thereby, making them healthier for consumption. Results, obtained by the same group of researchers, indicate that “there are significant and nutritionally meaningful composition differences between organic and non-organic meat” (Њrednicka-Tober et al. 2016, 995).

The idea is also supported by the results of other investigation made on the difference between organic and conventional crops (Baranski et al. 2014). Authors conclude that “a switch to eating organic fruits, vegetables, and cereals would provide additional antioxidants equivalent to eating between 1-2 extra portions of fruits and vegetables a day” (http://www.ncl.ac.uk/press/news/2015/10/organicvsnon-organicfood). Moreover, the study published in British Journal of nutrition also provides evidence for significantly lower levels of heavy metals in organic crops (Baranski et al. 2014). One more comparison between potatoes grown by conventional and organic methods demonstrates that organically produced potatoes contain more useful minerals than the conventional one (Griffiths et al. 2011). What these studies show is that making choice in favor of organic food consumption can lead to increased intake of nutritionally desirable antioxidants and reduce exposure to toxic heavy metals due to the contain of lower amount of pesticides in organic food in comparison to conventional products, as well as higher levels of antioxidants compounds and lower cadmium levels in organic products is demonstrated (Bernacchia et al. 2016).

As we have touched upon the nutritive quality of organic food, it is now the time to investigate the question of taste. Is organic food really perceived as tastier than conventional products? It is claimed that taste serves as one of the most important, if not the decisive, motif for consumer choice process (Hemmerling & Spiller, 2016). Thus, people's perceptions of and preferences for such food properties as texture, smell, appearance, and taste are stated to determine the latter's food preferences and subsequently food choices (Conner, 1993; Rozin, 1996; Shepherd, 1990; Shepherd & Raats, 1996). Moreover, some studies (Hemmerling, 2016; Bratanova et al. 2015) were conducted specifically to analyze if consumers have some taste preferences toward organic food. Consequently, the evidence was shown that organic products attract people foremost with their good taste (Hemmerling, 2016). It allows saying that sensory attributes lead to positioning organic food as a special type of commodities and differentiate it from conventional food.

However, the matter of taste is known to be a rather subjective parameter, as it is influenced not only by internal characteristics of a product but also by a range of external factors. The way product is growing has an inevitable effect on its final taste. Thus, A. Fulton et al. (2014) report, an organically grown plant without any additives has more enhanced taste. A number of studies prove that higher antioxidant levels have positive influence on such food's organoleptic qualities as taste, aroma, and mouth feel and in doing so also enhance human's sensorial detection of food's unique flavor (Ibid.) It could be the truth as long as the way of growing directly influence a number of different substances, such as a level of sugar, salt, and some others, which are found in food.

Nevertheless, a couple of papers confounding these assumptions were published (Bratanova et al. 2015; Poulter, 2015), which show that the perception of taste in influence by the product positioning as organic. A very interesting experiment was conducted by a research group: people were proposed to taste some food samples, such as biscuits, apples, and juice, which were absolutely identical; the only thing is that one of them was labeled as organic; and then judges their taste (Poulter, 2015). What came to light is that the products named organic received higher evaluation of taste (Ibid.). The one reason explaining this phenomenon is the higher expectation that consumers have towards organic food on the basis of information they receive about these items (Bratanova, 2015). Moreover, “labeling food as of ethical origin can result in subjectively enhanced taste experience to the extent that consumers feel a sense of moral satisfaction from buying or consuming the food. The experience of moral satisfaction may further lead consumers to attribute more positive characteristics onto the food, including forming expectations for its superior taste. As outlined above, expecting to consume tastier food is likely to enhance the gustatory experience when the food is actually consumed” (Ibid. 138). Nonetheless, taste is the one particular feature that distinguishes organic food from conventional one either it has real or perceived better taste.

To summarize we can say that the term, describing the non-organic origin is conventional. Conventional is everything that is not organic but covers a whole range of different agricultural practices, as well as processing technologies. That is why J. Kahl et al. in their work (2012) rightly pint out that conventional is non-defined term on the contrast to organic, and from this point of view organic turns out to be even more understandable for consumers. It could be explained by the fact that organic food is characterized by additional value, both money and symbolic, and people want to invest their money properly in order to gain a true benefit. At the same time while individuals do not get used to dwell on conventional food because it is not conventional food that stands out on the market, but organic one, which represents a special type of conventional food.

To conclude, it is necessary to state that the whole understanding of organic food concept, either it is based on process-oriented, agro-ecological or product quality-oriented approach, builds on the opposition between conventional and organic product. Under these circumstances, organic food, in general, could be understood as products produced by environmentally- and animal-friendly techniques, which allow to preserve natural resources and biodiversity; as consequence associated with naturalness and freshness; which are undergone minimal, careful, and sustainable processing what in turn guarantee their higher nutritional value, positive effect on consumer's health and characterized by better sensory attributes.

1.2 Legislative base for organic production

organic food trust consumer

In the previous part, the general understanding of organic food on the base of different approaches was presented. As it is possible to say, organic products could be understood differently as long as consumers pay attention to the diverse range of their characteristics. However, the way one and the same phenomenon is understood in two countries depends on a range of factors (www.fao.org). Thus, legislation could be considered as one of the most important of these factors. In other words, the way consumers perceive organic food, the level of their trust and choices they made on organic food market are inevitably influenced by norms and standards concerning organic food production. If there are controlling bodies, which are responsible for checking and evaluation of organic farms, people seem to be sure about the ecological purity of the product. In order to demonstrate the reasons for different perceptions and thereby various basis and motifs for buying organic products both in among German and Russian adherents of an organic diet, we found and analysed current laws and standards, which control the production of organic food in both countries.

It is a common knowledge that Russia and Germany are very different in terms of organic food production, distribution, and labelling regulations. Russia is known for a lack of articulate laws controlling bodies and checking systems. At the same time, the German market is highly institutionalized, what means that there is a range of approved regulations, both on European Union's and local national level; there are officially established institutions, which are responsible for evaluating organic production; strict rules regarding ecological marking. Moreover, the absence of firmly defined notion of organic food, which would be explicitly prescribed in the statute, makes Russian consumers more confused about organic products in terms of understanding the concept. They tend to perceive them more subjectively, on the base of personal feelings and attitudes, while German consumers are ensured with clearly defined notion and just free to choose which of the mentioned characteristics are more crucial for them.

It is interesting that despite these differences, Russia and Germany actually have the common legislative guidelines for organic production and, specifically, for organic food definition. Even though these standards are not in any way mandatory, they still serve to ensure the same understanding of organic among membership countries. These guidelines could be found in two documents: “The Codex Alimentarius” or “The food code” (http://www.fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentarius/en/) and “The IFOAM norms for organic production and processing” (http://www.ifoam.bio/sites/default/files/ifoam_norms_july_2014_t.pdf). The first was developed by Codex Alimentarius Commission, which is an intergovernmental body consist of 180 members, functioning within the framework of the Joint Food Standards Program founded by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO) with the purpose of protecting the health of consumers and ensuring fair practices in the food trade (GL 32-1999). “The Codex Alimentarius” (Latin, meaning Food Law or Code) is the result of the Commission's work: a collection of internationally adopted food standards, guidelines, codes of practice and other recommendations, introduced for voluntary application by members, but at the same time serve as a basis for national legislation in the sphere of food provision (Ibid.). This document is rather extensive and covers the diverse range of questions connected with alimentation.

However, it includes a special edition about organic food production - “Guidelines for the Production, Processing, Labelling and Marketing of Organically Produced Foods” (CAC/GL 32-1999). The document is intended to facilitate the process of finding common ground for organic products requirements at the international level, and may also contribute to the governmental establishment of national regulations in this field (Ibid.). Notably, the document emphasizes that locally adapted systems are needed to match specific regional conditions (Ibid.). It means that every country is able to modify somehow the rules, even make them stricter, and in order them not to be inconsistent with local conditions. The guidelines consist of sections devoted to the organic production concept description and definitions; rules for production and processing methods; appropriate labelling and claims; certification and inspection bodies and import rules.