World Applied Sciences Journal 6 (3): 331-338, 2009 ISSN 1818-4952 © IDOSI Publications, 2009 Corresponding Author: Seyyed Mahmoud Hashemi, Department of Agricultural Extension and Education, College of Agricultural Economics and Development, University of Tehran, Iran 331 Analysis of Factors Affecting Agricultural Organic Products Diffusion Among Consumers: Perception of Extension Workers Ali Asadi, Morteza Akbari, Aboulghasem Sharifzadeh and Seyyed Mahmoud Hashemi 1 1 2 1 Department of Agricultural Extension and Education, 1 College of Agricultural Economics and Development, University of Tehran, Iran Gorgan University of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources, Iran 2 Abstract: Decades ago, agrochemicals were introduced aiming at enhancing crop yields and at protecting crops from pests. Due to adaptation and resistance developed by pests to chemicals, every year higher amounts and new chemical compounds are used to protect crops, causing undesired side effects and raising the costs of food production. The main purpose of this study was to explore factors affecting agricultural organic products (AOP) diffusion among Iranian consumers. A survey of 289 extension workers was conducted in Iran. To collect data, a questionnaire was designed. The study found that TV & radio were the most important AOP information delivery methods. Also results of exploratory factor analysis revealed that four factors determined about 59 percent of variations in diffusion of AOP: institutional (22.36 percent), cultural (16.28 percent), economic (10.24 percent) and production (9.81percent). Key words: Agricultural Organic Products (AOP) % Extension Workers % Perception % Diffusion % Iran INTRODUCTIN Stobbelaar et al., [16] organic products is food produced Agriculture is an important economic sector in containing artificial coloring, flavoring or aromatic developing countries such as Iran [1]. In the past substances, preservatives, or genetically modified two decades, growing environmental awareness in ingredients. combination with concerns about safer foods have led Consumer actions regarding organic products stem people to question modern agricultural practices [2]. In from attitudes that in turn linked to a complex set of ideas, response to concerns about conventional agricultural motivations and experiences [17]. Most of previous practices, food safety, human health concerns, [3-5] studies concluded that consumers purchase organic and environmental safety [6-9] interests in organically products because of a perception that such products are produced foods is increasing throughout the world. safer, healthier and more environmental friendly than These concerns along with observed organic consumer conventionally produced alternatives [18]. behavior has led to emergence of various groups of Those studies designate how consumers perceive the organic consumers, namely environmentalists, food organic concept, examining issues related to the demand phobic's, healthy eaters, humanists, welfare enthusiasts for organic products, consumer attitudes and the factors and hedonists [10]. that facilitate or hinder the acceptance of these The most common definitions of an organically products. The organic purchasing motives should be produced food emphasize product practices and attribute to some environmental, ethical, quality, health principles used and the ‘organic philosophy’ [11-13] consciousness and exploratory products buying Thus, while some definitions highlight dimensions such behavior, as well as to specific products attributes such as ‘bio- fair’ or ‘natural product systems’ [13] and ‘green’ as nutrition, value, taste and price [6, 7, 10, 19-21]. or ‘environmental friendliness’ [14], others emphasize the Other consumer surveys demonstrate that, the major limited use of artificial chemicals in organic products motive for buying organic products seems to be health- [12], or its general philosophy [15]. According to related [5,7,22-36]. Environmental concerns are apparently without artificial fertilizer or chemical pesticides, nor World Appl. Sci. J., 6 (3): 331-338, 2009 332 not as strong a motive as health [5, 7, 32, 33]. German whereas old consumers were more influenced by consumers, for example, were very concerned about considerations for their own health [8]. Previous research health and food safety [37]. Brunsoe [38] and Brunsoe shows that women tend to be more interested in organic and Bredahl [39] compare consumer segments in various products than men [8, 33] and that people with higher European countries and show that German consumers are education seem to be more willing to pay more for organic more interested in organic food than Danish consumers. products [8, 31]. Several studies evaluated consumers' willingness to The result of Zhou and Chen [49] showed that pay, most often based on interviews. For a review, 56 percent of the consumers had heard about organic Thompson [40] or Wier and Calverley [41], Based on products from TV, 47 percent learned about organic consumers' own statements [22, 42-45] and Jolly [31] point products from magazines, 23 percent through internet, to high price premiums to be one of the most important 16 percent obtain the information from supermarket, reasons for not buying organic foods. Jolly [31], found 10 percent had the knowledge from friends and 5 percent that consumers were willingness to pay a 37% price obtain the organic food information from other channels. premium for organic products in the USA. By comparison, Because most of previous researches in organic attitude Goldman and Glancy [46] reported that a third of rely upon consumers not on extension workers [50-52], respondents in a New York survey were willingness to hence this study was aimed to provide some important pay a 100% price premium for a residue free product. information and implication for policy making through Ekelund [47] found that about 55% of respondents in analysis of extension workers' perception of AOP and Sweden were willingness to pay 25% above a regular, some other related topics which are crucial to adopt these conventionally grown product price, with another 26% products by consumers. of organic buyers’ willingness to pay 50% more. Overall, most consumers are not willingness to pay a Purpose and Objectives: The main purpose of this price premium higher than 10-20 percent. Yet, analysis study was to explore factors affecting AOP diffusion of specific organic products markets across countries among consumers. suggests substantially higher actual price mark-ups. Turco [48], for example, reported organic price premiums Of Interest Were To: ranging from 10% to as high as 100% depending on the country. C Describe extension workers' perception of AOP, Demographic variables such as age, marital status, C Identify important methods and places to supply number and age of children and educational attainment AOP might be important variables in explaining and predicting consumer demand for organic products. Estimates of habit MATERIALS AND METHODS persistence linked to age and household composition might also be important for measuring the potential Selection of Sample: The statistical population of the growth of organic foods and income [40]. Income seems study consisted of all the Iranian agricultural extension to be the most influential factor to demand for organic workers (N = 2000). Applying stratified random sampling products, although there were significant exceptions from technique, 289 extension workers from five provinces were households of certain types of individuals that have selected. (This value was derived through computing strong personal ideologies enforcing commitments to Cochran's formula). organic products [40]. All of these studies make it difficult to draw a concrete image of the individuals that demand Instrument: To collect data on extension workers' organic products. While it was obvious that the variables attitudes of AOP, a questionnaire was designed. such as income, age, gender, marital status, education, The questionnaire contained three sections: section 1 household size and store preference play roles in the pertained to general demographic and professional demand for organic products, it is unknown exactly how variables of the respondents like age, experience, gender large of a role they play and how they interact with one and educational level. section 2 was designed to identify another. Wandel and Bugge [8] have demonstrated age the most important AOP information delivery methods to differences with respect to purchase motives. Young diffuse AOP using 7 items and section 3 was designed to consumers appear to base their choice of organic describe extension workers' perceptions of AOP diffusion products more on considerations for the environment, using 18 items which are rated on a five point continuum World Appl. Sci. J., 6 (3): 331-338, 2009 333 ranging ‘‘strongly disagree, disagree, No opinion, agree, strongly agree. and several independent items to collect data on respondents' perceptions and knowledge of AOP, their knowledge of AOP attributes,the most important places and delivery methods for AOP marketing and at the end of the questionnaire space was left for subjects’ extra thoughts. The questionnaire was found to have content and face validity by a panel of experts consisting of faculty members of Tehran University Departments of Agricultural Extension and Education and food science. The initial questionnaire was pilot tested among extension workers out of the study sampling framework (in Tehran by 30 respondents) to analyze the reliability of each item. Questionnaire reliability was tested using Cronbach alpha which is derived from the average correlations of all the items on the scale (Rodeghier, 1996). The results indicated that the reliability coefficient was acceptable (alpha = 0.92). Data Analysis: Data was analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics including frequencies, percentage, mean score, median, factor analysis and T-test and so forth. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Characteristics of Respondents: As shown in Table 1 the sample used in the present study were 185 men (64percent) and 90 women (31.1percent). The mean age was about 27 years. The vast majority of respondents had bachelor degrees (83.7 percent) and about 16 percent hold master or PhD degrees. Extension Workers' Knowledge of Chemical Products and AOP: Table 3 presents the extension workers' knowledge of chemical products. The vast majority of respondents rated their knowledge level as "intermediate or higher levels"(90.6 percent) and only 27 respondents (9.3 percent) rated their knowledge level as below intermediate level. In the term of knowledge of AOP, 42 percent of respondents rated their knowledge level as "intermediate" and knowledge of about 20 and 38 percent of respondents was below and above intermediate level, respectively (Table 4). Extension Workers' Perceptions Towards AOP Types: To describe Extension workers' perceptions towards the importance of different types of organic products in Iran Table 1: Total respondents by province Province Frequency Percentage Tehran 39 13.5 Fars 75 26.0 East Azerbaijan 82 28.4 Esfahan 53 18.3 Mazandaran 40 13.8 Total 289 100.0 Table 2: Demographic Characteristics of Respondents Variables Frequency Percentage Age 21-30 161 55.7 31-40 72 24.9 41-50 22 7.6 51 and above 34 11.8 Total Mean=27 289 100.0 Table 3: Extension workers' knowledge of chemical products Knowledge Frequency Percent Cumulative percentage Very low 9 3.1 3.1 Low 18 6.2 9.3 Intermediate 77 26.6 36.0 High 120 41.5 77.5 Very high 60 22.5 100 Table 4: Extension workers' knowledge of AOP Awareness level Frequency Percent Cumulative percent Very low 16 5.6 5.6 Low 21 14.2 19.8 Intermediate 121 42.00 61.8 High 94 32.6 94.4 Very high 17 5.6 100 (in near future), respondents were requested to assess the importance of these products using a five point Likert-type scale from 1 to 5 ranging from very low(1) to very high(2). As shown in Table 5, the most important AOP types were organic fruits followed by organic animal products, cereal, vegetable and fishery products. Types of AOP Information Delivery Methods: Results showed that 34.16 percent of respondents (who were aware of AOP) used TV and radio for obtaining AOP information and contribution of magazines, web-based information, colleagues and friends, books and other types of information delivery was 17.24, 17.2, 17.92 and 13.48 percent of total used information delivery methods, respectively. World Appl. Sci. J., 6 (3): 331-338, 2009 334 Table 5: Importance of different types of organic products in Iran as Table 7: Ranking AOP attributes perceived by the respondents AOP types F Mean S.D C.V Rank Fruits 279 3.81 1.55 0.357 1 Safety 96.5 3.5 Animal products 2825 3.68 1.26 0.391 2 Availability 85.1 14.9 Cereal 280 3.48 1.43 0.407 3 Appearance 71.8 28.2 vegetable 271 3.46 1.35 0.410 4 Color 71.7 28.2 Fishery products 258 2.50 1.89 0.753 5 Price 65.6 34.4 Table 6: Ranking Preferred information delivery methods for promoting AOP consumption in society Information Delivery methods Frequency Mean S.D C.V Rank Method Frequency Mean S.D C.V TV and radio 275 4.86 0.45 0.093 1 Special labels 259 4.46 0.78 0.17 Internal contact 273 3.86 0.93 0.240 2 Special packages 282 4.17 0.86 0.21 Poster and tracts 278 3.91 0.97 0.248 3 Workshop 275 3.54 1.02 0.289 4 Magazine 274 3.45 1.02 0.297 5 web-based information 275 3.45 1.06 0.308 6 Newspaper 278 3.95 1.87 0.475 7 Preferred AOP Information Delivery Methods: The respondents were asked to express their views on the importance of different information delivery methods to use for making awareness of AOP among potential consumers. Table 7 shows TV and radio was considered as the most important AOP delivery method. Meanwhile, web-based information and newspaper were determined as the least important AOP delivery method Extension Workers' Perception of AOP Attributes: To determine the most important attributes of organic products, respondents asked to indicate important attributes of AOP (Table 9). It was found that flavor was mentioned as the most important factor, followed by safety, availability and appearance and so on (Table 9). AOP Supply: The respondents were asked to express their views on the importance of different AOP delivery methods. Table 8 shows using special labels and packages for AOP were selected as the most important AOP delivery methods. On the other hand, Identified Special markets and Selling AOP at the same place compared to conventional products were determined as the most important AOP delivery places. Factors Affecting the AOP Diffusion: A series of exploratory factor analyses (SPSS ) were conducted 11.5 using the 18 variables with Varimax as a rotation method and Eigen values greater than 1 as a cut-off point for the Attribute Important Unimportant Flavor 97.2 2.8 Package quality 56.3 43.7 Size 48.8 51.2 Table 8: Ranking different AOP delivery methods as reported by respondents Place Identified Special markets 283 4.00 0.98 0.24 Selling AOP at the same place compared to conventional products 279 3.64 1.09 0.30 Farmers markets 275 3.64 1.13 0.31 Roadside stand (local mass supply) 277 2.94 1.20 0.41 Chain supermarkets 280 4.33 3.19 0.74 Table 9: Extracted Factors, Eigen value, variance percentage and Cumulative percentage of Effective Factors in AOP diffusion Factor Eigen value Percentage Cumulative percentage 1 4.70 22.36 22.36 2 3.41 16.26 38.62 3 2.25 10.74 49.35 4 2.06 9.81 59.17 number of factors extracted. The analyses eventually resulted in the selection of a four-factor solution based on 17 out of the 18 initial variables. These factors accounted for a total of 59.17 percent of the total variance explained by the model. Items in this four-factor solution loaded higher than 0.60 on each factor (except three – 0.50, 0.53 and 0.56). Cronbach’s alpha reliability tests also showed increased reliability, with values.0.92. KMO value was 0.91 and Bartlet statistic was significant at 1% level, which implies appropriateness of extracted variables for factor analysis. Extracted factors, Eigen value, variance percentage and Cumulative percentage have shown in Table 11. The Four Factors, Which Extracted, Are as Follows Factor 1: 22.36 percent of the total variance explained, comprising the following 6 variables as important AOP diffusion criteria: legally formulating and approving national food safety standards with special consideration AOP diffusion 59.17 Institutional dimension 22.36 Cultural dimension 16.28 Production dimension 9.81 Economical dimension 10.74 World Appl. Sci. J., 6 (3): 331-338, 2009 335 of AOP production and consumption; establishing national organization of AOP producers and consumers; building national polices for developing AOP chains including production, processing, marketing and consumption; legally limit and control chemical and non- natural inputs in agricultural production chains; establishing appropriate mechanisms for marketing of AOP through an AOP supply supermarkets, networks; and coordinating governmental bodies (different ministries, such as Agriculture, Health and Medical Education, Commerce, etc) and other stakeholders in process of production, marketing, trade. This factor is named "Institutional arrangements/ Institutional dimension ". Loadings ranged from 0.50 to 0.83. Factor 2: 16.28 percent of the total variance explained, comprising the following six variables: to publish and to deliver extension materials on AOP to families; Integrating specific syllabus related to food safety and importance of AOP production and consumption in related curriculum of formal and informal education institutions; Appropriate Public advertisement of AOP through public media such as Seda _va_ Sima (National Iranian TV and Radio Organization) and public newspapers; Organize a national information movement (based on information and communication and information technologies) aimed at increasing public awareness about usefulness of AOP; Training and persuading opinion leaders and social actors (teachers, extension workers, workers, NGOs members, etc.) to promote culture of AOP consumption in society; and Allocating one day or week per year to AOP or safe food based on AOP consumption as a symbolic cultural affair. This factor is named "Pro –APO awareness and cultural building / Cultural dimension". Loadings ranged from 0.56 to 0.75. Factor 3: 10.74 percent of the total variance explained, comprising the following three variables: Allocating subsidies and other incentives to production of AOP, Facilitating private sector entrepreneurial investment in production and market chains of AOP and Appropriate pricing of AOP with coordination of producers, consumers and other stakeholders or their representatives. This factor is named “Economics affairs and financial facilitating / Economics dimension”. Loadings range from 0.61 to 0.74. Factor 4: 9.81 percent of the total variance explained, comprising the following two variables: Developing awareness of agricultural producers about pesticides Fig. 1: AOP extension process as a multidimensional process effect on public health and national food safety and food healthy and Promoting suitable technologies and facilities for AOP production and processing in line with sustainable (low-external input or organic) agriculture. This factor is named “Production enhancement/ Production dimension”. Loadings ranged from 0.55 to 0.75. CONCLUSION It seems developing organic products is an effective mechanism to achieve food safety and public health. In addition, organic products are along with sustainable agricultural development. Organic products are produced without the use of conventional pesticides and artificial fertilizers. Facilitating AOP diffusion is a multidimensional process which consisted of several components, such as production, processing, marketing and so on. Indeed, different stakeholders plays effective role during diffusion of AOP in society. Among involved stakeholders, extension workers as multi-disciplinary professionals can provide important information about effective factors in AOP diffusion in society. Almost all extension workers involved in this research had heard about organic food. Although their Knowledge is about disadvantages of pesticides and fertilizers are high, but their knowledge of AOP was at the intermediate level. There is more information need on the hazard identification and characterization as well as on the intake of food processing and food packaging chemicals with a special attention to recycled materials (paper, cardboard) that used preferentially in the AOP system. In this order, publishing extension materials about AOP and delivering them to families could be effective mechanism for increasing public knowledge of AOP usefulness. Mass media such as radio and particularly TV, with offering these programs, help to presentation of these products to people [49]. Thus, as this research finding World Appl. Sci. J., 6 (3): 331-338, 2009 336 explains, organizing a national information movement, 2. Akbari, M. and A. Asadi, 2008. A comparative based on information and communication and information technologies, seems as an appropriate mechanism to increase public knowledge of AOP usefulness. The results of factor analysis showed that, the first and the major effective factor in AOP diffusion is Institutional factors. Therefore, planners and policy makers must make facilities such as a long term preset. In addition, they must indicate distinct places for selling of these products and correspondingly prepare themselves for citizen’s education in this way. It is important for the consumers, to be well informed on the actual content in residues for these various products methods. This holds not only for nitrates and pesticides (being synthetic or natural) but also for other relevant toxicants such as bio toxins and environmental contaminants. It also recommends collecting more information on the occurrence and toxicity of pesticides, herbicides and other natural toxicants that could be relevant to the consumer’s health and adapt the monitoring programs. Finally, these research findings indicate diffusion of AOP is being as an important mechanism to enhance food safety in society. The extension of AOP is a multi-dimensional process that includes different components, such as production, marketing, social awareness building, monitoring, institutional supporting, etc. Definitely, any planning aimed at promoting AOP production and consumption require considering different mentioned dimensions of AOP extension based on collaboration and coordination of stakeholders. ACKNOWLEDGEMNT The authors gratefully acknowledge the scientific board members of the Department of Agricultural Extension and Education, Tehran University for their valuable insights and guidance for carrying out this study and compiling the questionnaire of the study. REFERENCES 1. Nooripoor, M. M. Shahvali and K. Zarafshani, 2008. Integration of Communication Media For Horticultural Sustainability:The Application of Multiple Criteria Decision Making (MCDM), American-Eurasian J. Agric. Environ. Sci., 3(1): 137-147. study of Iranian consumers’ versus Extension Experts’ attitudes towards Agricultural organic products (AOP). American J. Agricul. Biological Sci., 3(3): 551-558. 3. Gregory, N.G., 2000. Consumer concerns about food. Outlook on Agriculture, 29(4): 251-257. 4. Grossman, M., 1972. On the concept of health capital and the demand for health. Journal of Political Economy, 80(2): 223-255. 5. Schifferstein, H.N.J. and P.A.M. Oude Ophuis, 1998. Health-related determinants of organic food consumption in the Netherlands. Food Quality and Preference, 9(3): 119-133. 6. Grunert, S.C. and H.J. Juhl, 1995. Values, environmental attitudes and buying of organic foods. J. Economic Psychology, 16(1): 63-72. 7. Tregear, A., J.B. Dent and M.J. McGregor, 1994. The demand for organically grown produce. British Food J., 96(4): 21-25. 8. Wandel, M. and A. Bugge, 1997. Environmental concerns in consumer evaluation of food quality. Food Quality and Preferences, 8(1): 19-26. 9. Wilkins, J.L. and V.N. Hillers, 1994. Influences of pesticide residue and environmental concerns on organic food preference among food cooperative members and non-members in Washington State. Journal of Nutrition Education, 26(1): 26-33. 10. Davies, A., A.J. Tittering ton and C. Cochrane, 1995. Who buys organic food? A profile of the purchasers of organic in Northern Ireland. British Food Journal. 97(10): 7-23. 11. Bourn, D. and J. Prescott, 2002. A comparison of the nutritional value, sensory qualities and food safety of organically and conventionally produced foods. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 42(1): 1-34. 12. Food and Agricultural Organization, 1999. Organic Agriculture. http://www.fao.org/ unfao/bodies/ COAG/ COAG15/X0075E.htm. 13. Klonsky, K. and L. Tourte, 1998. Organic agricultural production in the United States: Debates and directions. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 80(5): 1119-1124. 14. Goldman, M.C. and W. Hylton, 1972. The Basic Book of Organically Grown Foods. Erasmus, Pennsylvania, Rodale Press. World Appl. Sci. J., 6 (3): 331-338, 2009 337 15. Torjusen, Nyberg and Wandel, 1999. Organic 27. Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte, 1992. Going organic - Food; Consumers’ Perceptions and Dietary Choices. SIFO-Report No. 5-1999. www.sifo. No/ English / publications /environment. 16. Stobbelaar, D.J., G. Casimir, J. Orghuis, I. Marks, L. Meijer and S. Zebeda, 2006. Adolescents’ attitudes towards organic food: a survey of 15- to 16-year old school children. International Journal of Consumer Studies ISSN 1470-6431. Journal compilation © 2006 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, International Journal of Consumer Studies. 17. Fishbein, M. and I. Ajzen, 1975. Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. J. Wiley and Sons: New York, USA. 18. Krissoff, B., 1998. Emergence of U.S. organic agriculture - can we compete? American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 80(5): 1130-1133. 19. Roddy, G., C. Cowan and G. Hutchinson, 1996. Consumer attitudes and behavior to Organic foods in Ireland. Journal of International Consumer Marketing. 9(2): 1-19. 20. Zotos, Y., P. Ziamou and E. Tsakiridou, 1999. "Marketing organically produced food products in Greece", Greener Management International, 25: 91-104. 21. Browne, A.W., P.J.C. Harris, A.H. Hofny-Collins, N. Pasiecznic and R.R. Wallace, 2000. "Organic production and ethical trade: definition, practice and links", Food Policy, 25: 69-89. 22. CMA. 1996. Einstellungen und Marktschatzungen aus Verbrauchersicht zu “alternativen Nahrungsmitteln/ Biokost/ Ökoprodukten” insbesondere zu Obst und Gemüse. MAFO-Briefe. Bestell-Nr. K 621, Centrale Marketing-Gesellschaft der deutschen Agrarwirtschaft, Bonn. 23. Meier-Ploeger, A., W. Merkle, I. Mey and F. Wörner, 1996. Stärkung des Verbrauchs ökologischer Lebensmittel. Hessisches Ministerium des Innern und für Landwirtschaft, Forsten und Naturschutz, Wiesbaden. 24. Sylvander, B., 1995. Conventions on Quality in the Fruit and Vegetables Sector: Results on the Organic Sector, Acta Horticulture, 340: 241-246. 25. Infood, 1998. Kvalitativ analyse af forbrugernes holdninger til økologiske fødevarer, http://www.ecoweb/infood/. 26. Land, B., 1998. Consumers´ Dietary Patterns and Desires for Change, MAPP Working paper, No.31, Roskilde University, Roskilde. The Future for Organic Food and Drink Products in the UK, Birmingham, UK. 28. Byrne, P.J., J.R. Bacon and U.C. Toensmeyer, 1994. “Pesticide Residue Concerns and Shopping Location Likelihood”, Agribusiness, 10: 491-501. 29. Huang, C.L., 1996. Consumer preferences and attitudes towards organically grown produce. European Rev. Agricul. Econom., 23(3-4): 331-342. 30. Huang, C.L., S. Misra and S.L. Ott, 1990. Modeling Consumer Risk Perception and Choice Behavior: The Case of Chemical Residues in Fresh Produce”, in Mayer, R.N (ed.), Enhancing Consumer Choice, Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Research in the Consumer Interest, Snowbird, Utah, USA, August, 1990, American Council on Consumer Interests, Columbia, Missouri, USA. 31. Jolly, D., 1991. `Differences between buyers and no buyers of organic produce and willingness to pay organic price premiums, J. Agribusiness, 9(1): 97-111. 32. Von Alvensleben, R., 1998. ``Eco fair aspects of food demand: the case of organic food in Germany, AIR- CAT 4th Plenary Meeting: Health, Ecofair and Safety Aspects in Food Choice, 4(1): 68-79. 33. Mathisson, K. and A. Schollin, 1994. Konsumentaspekter pae ekologiskt odlade groe nsaker ± enjaÈ mfoÈrande studied (Consumer aspects on organic vegetables ± a comparative study), Report No. 18, Department of Crop Production Sciences, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. 34. Carboni, R., M. Vassallo, P. Conforti and A. D’Amicis, 2000. Indagine sulle attitudinal di consume, la disponibilita` a pagare e la certificazione dei prodotti biologici: spunti di riflessione e commento dei risultati scaturiti. La Rivista Italiana di Scienza dell’Alimentazione, 29(3): 12-21. 35. Rodríguez, E., 2005. The domestic and foreing markets of organic products in Argentina. Executive Summary presented to the International Workshop “How can the poor benefit from the growing markets for high value agricultural products?” CIAT, Cali, Colombia, October 2005. 36. Rodríguez, E., 2006. El Mercado de alimentos orgánicos. Producción y consumo de los principales productos argentinos. Elsa M. Rodríguez (Comp.). Prólogo. En: Editorial Universitaria de Mar del Plata (EUDEM). Serie Tramas. ISBN-10: 987-544-195-3 ISBN-13: 978-987-544-195-3. World Appl. Sci. J., 6 (3): 331-338, 2009 338 37. Kafka, C. and R. Von Alvensleben, 1998. 46. Goldman, B.J. and K.L. Clancy, 1991. A survey of Consumer Perceptions of Food-Related Hazards organic produce purchases and related attitudes of and the Problem of Risk Communication, food cooperative shoppers. American Journal of http:// www. Unkiel. De:8080/ Agraroekonomie/ Alternative Agriculture, 6(2): 89-96. Abteilungen/ agrarmarketing. 47. Ekelund, L., 1990. Vegetable consumption and 38. Brunsoe, K., 1996. Fodevarerelaterede livsstil - consumer attitudes towards organically grown udvikling af et male instrument til marked vegetables – the case of Sweden. Acta Horticulture. sovervagning af forbruger for fodevareindustrien. 259: 163-172. PhD dissertation, MAPP center, Aarhus School of 48. Turco, G., 2002. Organic Food-An Opportunity, at Business, Aarhus. Who’s Expense? Industry Note. Food and 39. Brunsoe, K. and L. Bredahl, 1997. Agribusiness Research, Rabobank International, ”Fødevarerelaterede livsstil i forskellige europæiske Sydney. www.rabobank.com/ attachments/ in 043 kulturer”, Dansk Sociologi, 8: 23-35. 2002. 40. Thompson, G.D., 1998. Consumer demand for organic 49. Zhou, L. and T. Chen, 2007. Consumer Perception of foods: What we know and what we need to know. Organic Food in Urumqi. Contributed Paper prepared American J. Agricul. Econom., 80(5): 1113-1118. for presentation at the 5th Seminar ‘International 41. Wier, M. and C. Calverley, 2002. Market potential for Marketing and International Trade of Quality Food organic foods in Europe, British Food Journal, Products’ Bologna, Italy, March 8-10, 2007. 104(1): 45-62. 50. Hutchins, R.K. and L.A. Greenhalgh, 1997. Organic 42. Fricke, A. and R. Von Alvensleben, 1997. “Consumer Confusion: Sustaining Competitive Advantage, Attitudes towards Organic Food and an Application British Food Journal, 99(9): 336-338. of Cohort Analysis - 1984 - 1989 – 1994”. Working 51. Fotopoulos, C. and A. Krystallis, 2001. Defining the Paper No. 1, Lehrstuhl für Agrarmarketing, Christian- organic consumer and his willingness to pay for Albrechts University, Kiel. selected food products in Greece, paper presented at 43. Kramer, A., B. Harting and S. Stadtfeld, 1998. the 51st International Atlantic Economic Society Siegeszug der “Bio-Lebensmittel” im Handel? Conference, Athens and March, pp: 13-20. http://www.agp.uni-bonn.de/mafo/staff/oeko3a.htm 52. Fotopoulos, C., A. Krystallis and M. Ness, 2003. 44. Haest, C., 1990. “From Farmer to Shelf: Trade of "Wine produced by organic grapes in Greece: using Organically Grown Products”, Ecology and Farming, means-end chains analysis to reveal organic buyers' 1: 9-11. purchasing motives in comparison with the non- 45. Hack, M.D., 1995. “Organically Grown Products: buyers", Food Quality and Preference, 14(7): 549-66. Perception, Preferences and Motives of Dutch Consumers”, Acta Horticulture, 340: 247-253. . Department of Agricultural Extension and Education, College of Agricultural Economics and Development, University of Tehran, Iran 331 Analysis of Factors Affecting. Iran 331 Analysis of Factors Affecting Agricultural Organic Products Diffusion Among Consumers: Perception of Extension Workers Ali Asadi, Morteza Akbari,