Consumer Effects of Harmonizing International Standards for Trade in Organic Foods

  • Luanne Lohr
  • Barry Krissoff


Worldwide markets for organic foods are expanding, with annual growth rates of 5 to 30 percent in the European Union (EU), the United States, and Japan for more than five years. Using 1997 sales data and annual growth rates from the International Trade Centre (ITC 1999), and assuming a linear trend, projected market size in 2010 will be at least $46 billion in the EU, $45 billion in the United States, and $11 billion in Japan. As many as 20 to 30 percent of consumers surveyed in Europe, North America, and Japan claim to purchase organic foods on a regular basis (Lohr 1998a). Yet “organic” does not mean the same thing to all these consumers, because organic food production and processing standards are not harmonized across countries. Certifiers of organic food production, processing, and handling use different rules according to regulatory, philosophical, and technical goals. This research compares the trade and welfare implications of harmonizing international standards for organic food certification with the status quo market response to differential standards.


European Union Equilibrium Price Consumer Surplus Organic Food Domestic Price 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Barnes, J. N., and Shields, D. A., 1998, The growth in U.S. wheat food demand, in: Wheat Yearbook, Economic Research Service, ed., WHS-1998, pp. 21–29, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  2. Foster, C., and Lampkin, N., 1999, European Organic Production Statistics 1993–1996, Organic Farming in Europe: Economics and Policy, vol. 3, University of Hohenheim, Stuttgart.Google Scholar
  3. Greene, C., 2000, Table 6: Certified organic grain crop acreage, by state, 1997, U.S. Organic Agriculture, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Harmony/issues/organic/table6.htm(accessed June 13, 2001 ).
  4. IFOAM accredited certification bodies sign multilateral agreement, 2000, Ecology and Farming Mar.:35. International Trade Centre (ITC) UNCTAD/WTO, 1999, Organic Food and Beverages: World Supply and Major European Markets,Geneva.Google Scholar
  5. Lohr, L., 1998a, Implications of organic certification for market structure and trade, Am J Agric Econ 80 (5): 1125–1129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Lohr, L., 1998b, Welfare Effects of Eco-label Proliferation: Too Much of a Good Thing?, FS 98–22, Agricul-tural and Applied Economics, University of Georgia, Athens.Google Scholar
  7. Michelson, J., Hamm, U., Wynen, E., and Roth, E., 1999, The European Market for Organic Products: Growth and Development, Organic Farming in Europe: Economics and Policy, vol. 7, University of Hohenheim, Stuttgart.Google Scholar
  8. Offerman, F., and Nieberg, H., 2000, Economic Performance of Organic Farms in Europe, Organic Farming in Europe: Economics and Policy, vol. 5, University of Hohenheim, Stuttgart.Google Scholar
  9. Organic Farming Research Foundation (OFRF), 1999, Final Results of the Third Biennial National Organic Farmers’ Survey, Santa Cruz, CA.Google Scholar
  10. Tauer, L. W., 1994, The value of segmenting the milk market into bST-produced and non-bST-produced milk, Agribusiness 10: 3–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Wittenberg, A. E., 2000, Organic Foods in Western Japan 2000, Attaché Report AGR no. JA0712, Foreign Agricultural Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Jul. 27, 2001 ).

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Luanne Lohr
    • 1
  • Barry Krissoff
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Agricultural and Applied EconomicsUniversity of GeorgiaUSA
  2. 2.Department of AgricultureEconomic Research Service, U.S.USA

Personalised recommendations