Content uploaded by Violeta Popovici
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Violeta Popovici on Jan 17, 2025
Content may be subject to copyright.
Academic Editors: Julia Low and
Qian Yang
Received: 13 December 2024
Revised: 13 January 2025
Accepted: 13 January 2025
Published: 17 January 2025
Citation: Moros
,an, E.; Popovici, V.;
Popescu, I.A.; Daraban, A.;
Karampelas, O.; Matac, L.M.; Licu, M.;
Rusu, A.; Chirigiu, L.-M.-E.;
Opri¸tescu, S.; et al. Perception, Trust,
and Motivation in Consumer Behavior
for Organic Food Acquisition: An
Exploratory Study. Foods 2025,14, 293.
https://doi.org/10.3390/foods14020293
Copyright: © 2025 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license
(https://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by/4.0/).
Article
Perception, Trust, and Motivation in Consumer Behavior for
Organic Food Acquisition: An Exploratory Study
Elena Moros
,an 1, †, Violeta Popovici 2, 3, * , Ioana Andreea Popescu 4, †, Adriana Daraban 5 ,*, Oana Karampelas 4,
Liviu Marian Matac 6, Monica Licu 7, Andreea Rusu 5, Larisa-Marina-Elisabeth Chirigiu 8, Sinziana Opri¸tescu 1,
Elena Iuliana Ionita 9, Alina Saulean 9and Maria Nitescu 10, 11
1
Department of Clinical Laboratory—Hygiene of Nutrition, Faculty of Pharmacy, “Carol Davila” University of
Medicine and Pharmacy, 020956 Bucharest, Romania; elena.morosan@umfcd.ro (E.M.);
sinziana.opritescu@drd.umfcd.ro (S.O.)
2Center for Mountain Economics, “Costin C. Kiri¸tescu” National Institute of Economic
Research (INCE-CEMONT), Romanian Academy, 725700 Vatra-Dornei, Romania
3Rural Development Research Platform, “Gh. Zane” Institute of Economic and Social Research, Romanian
Academy, Ias
,i Branch, 700481 Ias
,i, Romania
4
Department of Pharmaceutical Technology and Biopharmacy, Faculty of Pharmacy, “Carol Davila” University
of Medicine and Pharmacy, 020956 Bucharest, Romania; andreea-ioana.popescu@umfcd.ro (I.A.P.);
oana.karampelas@umfcd.ro (O.K.)
5Faculty of Pharmacy, “Vasile Goldis
,” Western University of Arad, 310045 Arad, Romania;
rusu.andreea@uvvg.ro
6Faculty of Accounting And Management Information Systems, University of Economic Studies,
020956 Bucharest, Romania; liviu.matac@cig.ase.ro
7Department of Medical Psychology, Faculty of Medicine, “Carol Davila” University of Medicine and
Pharmacy, 050474 Bucharest, Romania; monica.licu@umfcd.ro
8
Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Medicine and Pharmacy Craiova, Petru Rare
s
,
2, 200349 Craiova, Romania;
larisa.chirigiu@umfcv.ro
9Faculty of Pharmacy, “Carol Davila” University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 020956 Bucharest, Romania;
elena.ionita@drd.umfcd.ro (E.I.I.); alina.stirbu@mst.umfcd.ro (A.S.)
10 Department of Hygiene and Medical Ecology, Faculty of Medicine, “Carol Davila” University of Medicine
and Pharmacy, 050474 Bucharest, Romania; maria.nitescu@umfcd.ro
11 “Prof. Dr. Matei Bals” National Institute of Infectious Disease, “Carol Davila” University of Medicine and
Pharmacy, 020956 Bucharest, Romania
*Correspondence: violeta.popovici@ce-mont.ro (V.P.); daraban.adriana@uvvg.ro (A.D.)
†These authors contributed equally to this work.
Abstract: (1) Background: A sustainable healthy diet assures human well-being in all life
stages, protects environmental resources, and preserves biodiversity. This work investi-
gates the sociodemographic factors, knowledge, trust, and motivations involved in organic
food acquisition behavior. (2) Methods: An online survey via Google Forms platform, with
316 respondents
, was conducted from 1 March to 31 May 2024. (3) Results: Our findings show
that suitably informed people with high educational levels (academic and post-college) report
significant satisfaction with organic food consumption (p< 0.05). There is also a considerable
correlation between ages 25–65, moderate to high satisfaction, and “yes” for eco-food recom-
mendations (p< 0.05). The same satisfaction levels are associated with medium confidence
in eco-food labels and a moderate to high monthly income (p< 0.05). Our results show that
monthly income and residence are not essential factors in higher price perception. Insignificant
price variation perception correlated with high confidence and weekly acquisition (p< 0.05).
Similar price perception correlates with the highest confidence level and daily acquisition
(p< 0.05). Obese respondents exhibited minimal satisfaction and opted for “abstention”
from eco-food recommendations
(p< 0.05)
. (4) Conclusions: The present study extensively
analyzed Romanian people’s knowledge, perception, and trust regarding organic foods. It
demonstrates that sociodemographic factors differentiate consumers and influence attitudes
and motivation for organic food acquisition.
Foods 2025,14, 293 https://doi.org/10.3390/foods14020293
Foods 2025,14, 293 2 of 27
Keywords: organic food; eco-food certification; eco-food label; health and environmental
benefits; perception; trust; motivation; acquisition behavior
1. Introduction
Lifestyle substantially influences human physical and mental health [
1
]. The modern
lifestyle—defined by unhealthy diets; sedentarism; smoking; alcohol, medications, and
other substance abuse [
2
]; misuse and addiction to various technologies; and neglecting
the balance between professional activities, sleep, and recreation—highly correlates with
chronic disease burden and mortality worldwide [
3
,
4
]. Fortunately, lifestyle is controllable,
and rigorously performing healthy measures over time could reverse the harmful effects
of risk factors and increase the quality of life. One of the main measures is changing the
modern diet—which consists of high-calorie junk foods that are overprocessed, pumped
with chemical additives, sugar-loaded, or based on genetically modified organisms (GMOs,
plants or animals)—with a healthy one, rich in legumes [
5
], fruits [
6
,
7
], vegetables [
8
,
9
],
whole grains [10], and unsaturated fats [11,12].
A sustainable healthy diet maintains human well-being in all life stages at the physical,
mental, and social levels; it protects environmental resources and preserves biodiversity [
13
].
In this context, an organic diet based on eco-food consumption is generally considered
a healthy option due to the nutritional benefits (higher antioxidants, optimal fat profile,
lower pesticide residues, and limited use of artificial sweeteners and genetically modified
organisms [GMOs]) [14–17].
1.1. Literature Review
Eco-food has recently gained significant interest, driven by the growing consumer
awareness of health, environmental, and ethical concerns. Understanding consumer be-
havior toward organic food acquisition is essential for businesses, policymakers, and
researchers [
18
–
20
]. Organic food consumption varies significantly between Romania and
the Western and Northern countries belonging to the European Union (EU), reflecting eco-
nomic factors (market size and penetration, accessibility, and distribution), policy support,
cultural norms, consumer awareness and motivation, and key barriers (Table 1).
Table 1. Essential differences between organic food consumption between the Western and Northern
EU countries and Romania [21,22].
Aspect Western and Northern European
Countries Romania
Market Size Mature and extensive Emerging and niche
Distribution Well-developed retail networks Limited, especially in rural areas
Policy Support Robust and comprehensive Developing
Awareness High Growing but limited
Motivation Health, sustainability, ethics Primarily health-driven
Barriers Price and occasional skepticism Price, availability, trust
1.1.1. Organic Food Market Size, Distribution, and Policy Support
The organic food market is well-developed in Western and Northern European coun-
tries (Denmark, Germany, France, and Austria), which are leaders in organic food consump-
tion. Organic farming accounts for about 9.6% of the European Union’s agricultural land,
and the ‘Farm to Fork’ strategy (F2F) aims to achieve 25% organic agriculture by 2030 [
23
,
24
].
The EU Green Deal emphasizes expanding organic farming and consumption as part of
its sustainability goals [
25
]. Officially established in 2021 by the European Parliament,
23 September is the EU Organic Day [
26
]. On this day of celebration, trends in consumer
Foods 2025,14, 293 3 of 27
demands are assessed, awareness of organic products in the supply chain is increased, and
new targets for the future of organic production in Europe are finally defined. The annual
European Organic Awards Winners significantly contributed to the organic value chain [
27
].
The EU Organic Awards scheme comprises seven categories and eight awards: the best
organic farmer (female and male), the best organic city, the best organic region, the best
organic bio-district, the best organic small or medium enterprise (SME), the best organic
food retailer, and the best organic restaurant [
28
,
29
]
(Supplementary Materials, Figure S1).
Organic products are widely available, supported by strong retail networks and gov-
ernment subsidies. Most EU countries benefit from robust policies, including subsidies
for organic farming, educational campaigns, and incentives for retailers to stock organic
products [30–32].
Countries such as Germany, Austria, France, and Denmark are leaders
in the organic market share, with urban consumers driving demand. Policies supporting
organic farming, subsidies, and strong retail distribution channels ensure access across
urban and rural areas. Rural populations benefit from subsidies for converting to organic
agriculture, which can indirectly increase local availability [
33
–
41
]. Organic products are
widely accessible through supermarkets, specialty stores, and online platforms. Many
countries integrate organic products into public institutions, such as schools and hospitals,
increasing visibility and accessibility [41,42].
Eastern and Southern European countries (Romania, Bulgaria, and Greece) have
emerging organic markets with limited penetration in rural areas. Romania’s organic
farming covered about 5.1 acres of agricultural land in 2024 [
43
–
45
]. Rural consumers often
equate “traditional” or “natural” products with organic, reducing demand for certified
goods. Due to better distribution networks and higher disposable incomes, organic con-
sumption is concentrated in urban centers. Supermarkets dominate the distribution of
organic products, but most are imported. Professional stores and farmer’s markets play a
minor role, and online sales of organic products are still underdeveloped [
46
]. Traditional
agricultural practices in rural areas often align with organic principles but lack certification,
limiting market growth [
47
]. The “ae” logo, property of the Ministry of Agriculture and
Rural Development (MADR) [
48
], can be used by the operators/groups of operators of
ecologically certified, prepackaged products to identify and promote ecologically certified,
prepackaged products and guarantee that the products bearing these logos meet the fol-
lowing conditions: (i) they are produced through organic farming in Romania or contain
ingredients that come from organic farming in Romania; and (ii) they are certified by a con-
trol commission accredited and approved by the MADR [
49
]. Strong and consistent organic
production and labeling regulations can help ensure consumer trust. Many products are
recognized under national quality schemes: 732 traditional products, 171 products obtained
from consecrated Romanian recipes, and 1319 mountain products [
50
,
51
]. In 2023, over
13,000 organic certificates of all ecologically certified producers in Romania were included
in the “Register of Agricultural Products and Producers registered in Organic Agriculture”,
an independent initiative to promote organic farmers and their products [
50
]. However, due
to budgetary constraints, the funding of organic farming in the CAP 2023–2027 remained
at the same level as in 2014 [52].
1.1.2. Organic Food Awareness, Motivation, and Barriers to Organic Food Consumption
Efforts to make organic foods more affordable and accessible to a broader range of
consumers and to substantially increase awareness about the benefits of organic food are
centered particularly in Western and Northern European countries [
22
]. Consumers’ trust in
eco-food health benefits, environmental sustainability, and ethical considerations increases
organic food consumption. Consumers trust eco-food certifications and the EU Organic
Logo and often associate organic products with higher quality [
53
]. Barriers include higher
Foods 2025,14, 293 4 of 27
prices and occasional skepticism about certification authenticity. However, subsidies and
consumer education have mitigated these issues in many EU countries. Due to increasing
consumer awareness and care for environmental safety, organic food consumption is
steadily growing. It has already achieved high levels of organic food consumption, with
opportunities for growth in Eastern Europe [32].
Limited market penetration and a focus on exports rather than domestic consumption
are the main reasons for Romanians’ significantly lower eco-food consumption than the EU
average [
46
]. Motivation is primarily health-driven, with less emphasis on sustainability
and ethical aspects [
54
]. Skepticism toward certifications and labeling is more pronounced,
limiting trust in organic products [
55
]. Key barriers also include the limited availability
and high prices of eco-foods [56,57].
1.2. Hypotheses
The literature reviewed led to three hypotheses in the present study:
◦
The concept of organic food is still not correctly perceived due to the lack of suitable
information and transparency; it is a reason for diminished trust in eco-food safety
and benefits and a key barrier to acquiring eco-food [58–60].
◦
Romanian organic food consumers are highly educated, mostly young or middle-aged,
and predominantly women who are highly self-care conscious and adhere to a healthy
lifestyle [60,61].
◦
The trust in organic food certification and official labeling leads consumers to purchase
foods with higher environmental sustainability, quality, health benefits, and price due
to the credibility attributed to the certifying entity [62–70].
1.3. Behavioral Theories of Eco-Food Acquisition Applied
Three theories could explain organic food acquisition behavior:
◦
The Health Belief Model (HBM) focuses on personal perceptions of health-affecting
factors and the benefits of preventive actions [71];
◦
Value–Belief–Norm (VBN) posits that environmental behaviors, such as purchasing
sustainable or organic food, are driven by personal values, beliefs about the conse-
quences of environmental problems, and a sense of moral obligation to act. Individuals
who value environmental protection and believe their actions can make a difference
are more likely to choose eco-friendly food options [72,73];
◦
The Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) means that people’s availability to purchase
healthy foods is higher when they believe it is the right thing to do, if they think their
social circle approves, and if they have the resources and knowledge to make healthy
choices [59,74,75].
1.4. The Aim of the Present Study
The present study explores the impact of Romanian people’s perceptions, trust, and
motivation on organic food acquisition. It investigates how consumer behavior regarding
organic foods is influenced by age, education, income level, and each person’s interest in
maintaining health. Moreover, an extensive statistical analysis correlates the knowledge,
perception, attitude, trust, and motivation with sociodemographic data on Romanian
consumer behavior regarding eco-food acquisition.
2. Methods
2.1. Online Questionnaire Presentation
The survey involved voluntary participants
≥
18 years old residing in Romania. It
was approved by the Ethics Committee of the “Carol Davila” University of Medicine and
Foods 2025,14, 293 5 of 27
Pharmacy (Document No. 14357, approved on 30 May 2024). The 30 multiple-choice
queries in the questionnaire were formulated based on models from previously published
studies [
16
,
74
,
76
–
78
]. It was distributed through online platforms between 1 March and
31 May 2024, and the data were collected electronically in a Microsoft 365 Excel v.2024
workbook. Thirty questions were generated electronically on the Google Form platform
(Supplementary Materials, Online Questionnaire). The research team members distributed
the URL link via email, SMS, or social and professional networks to colleagues, relatives,
and personal contacts. Participants were informed about the survey’s aim, the research
team involved, and the time required to complete the questionnaire; moreover, they were
assured that no email addresses were collected and that the General Data Protection
Regulation (GDPR) guarantees the confidentiality of sensitive personal information. Then,
they completed and signed the participation agreement and the individual consent form to
enable the publication of research results. Over the course of three months, 316 Romanian
residents responded to all 30 questions.
The Romanian consumer perceptions and trust in organic food substantially impact
the motivation for eco-food consumption and purchasing behavior [
34
,
79
,
80
]. Therefore,
the questionnaire was structured into three distinct parts.
The first questions aim to collect the participants’ sociodemographic data (age, educa-
tion, residence, sex, and body mass index).
The second group of questions analyzes the respondents’ perception and under-
standing of the eco-food concept and their beliefs and trust in organic foods’ quality and
certification, sustainability, environmental impact, and health benefits.
The third part investigates eco-food preferences, the main criteria for acquiring and
consuming eco-food products, the acquisition frequency, the verification of organic food
shelf-life and ingredients by reading the eco-food label, the satisfaction rate by consuming
eco-food, and potential recommendations.
The above groups were analyzed independently and correlated using the tools men-
tioned in Section 2.3.
2.2. Reliability Analysis
The questionnaire was investigated using the Reliability Analysis Internal Model from
XLSTAT Life Sciences v.2024.3.0.1423 by Lumivero (Denver, CO, USA) [
81
]. The Cronbach’s
alpha index and Guttman L1–L6 coefficients were calculated.
2.3. Data Analysis
Extensive data analysis used different tools in XLSTAT Life Sciences v.2024.3.0.1423 by
Lumivero (Denver, CO, USA): descriptive analysis, ANOVA single factor, correlations be-
tween variable parameters from each group, and heat maps [
82
]. Following the descriptive
statistics, the variable parameters are displayed as the absolute frequency (number, n) and
relative frequency (percentage) [
83
]. Statistical significance was established at p< 0.05 [
11
].
3. Results
3.1. Reliability Analysis
This analysis is detailed in the Supplementary Materials. The Cronbach’s alpha index
value was 0.926, and the Guttman L1–L6 coefficients were 0.895–1.000. The correlation
matrix, covariance matrix (Supplementary Materials), and high coefficients reveal the
online questionnaire’s substantial reliability and appreciable internal consistency, thus
confirming its high quality. The correlation map in Figure 1shows that all questions are
significantly intercorrelated.
Foods 2025,14, 293 6 of 27
Foods 2025, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 30
matrix, covariance matrix (Supplementary Material), and high coefficients reveal the
online questionnaire’s substantial reliability and appreciable internal consistency, thus
confirming its high quality. The correlation map in Figure 1 shows that all questions are
significantly intercorrelated.
Figure 1. Reliability analysis of the questionnaire—the correlation map of all 30 multiple-choice
queries (Q1–Q30) with 316 respondents.
3.2. Sociodemographic Data of Participants
Sociodemographic data are registered in Table 2.
Table 2. Sociodemographic data of all 316 respondents.
Parameter Total F M
p-Value
n % n % n %
Sex 316.00 100.00 199.00 62.97 117.00 37.03
<0.05
Residence Rural 61.00 19.39 41.00 20.60 20.00 17.09
Urban 255.00 80.70 158.00 79.40 97.00 82.91
Age
age 19–24 32.00 10.13 24.00 12.06 8.00 6.84
<0.05
age 25–34 110.00 34.81 77.00 38.69 33.00 28.21
age 35–49 134.00 42.41 79.00 39.70 55.00 47.01
age 50–65 32.00 10.13 13.00 6.53 19.00 16.24
age = 18 1.00 0.32 1.00 0.50 0.00 0.00
age > 65 7.00 2.22 5.00 2.51 2.00 1.71
Study level
Bachelor’s degree 152.00 48.10 90.00 45.23 62.00 52.99
<0.05
college 40.00 12.66 26.00 13.07 14.00 11.97
high school 2.00 0.63 2.00 1.01 0.00 0.00
middle school 1.00 0.32 1.00 0.50 0.00 0.00
post-college/technical 17.00 5.38 12.00 6.03 5.00 4.27
postgraduate 104.00 32.91 68.00 34.17 36.00 30.77
Occupation
employee 195.00 61.71 123.00 61.81 72.00 61.54
<0.05
entrepreneur/owner 47.00 14.87 31.00 15.58 16.00 13.68
homeworker 26.00 8.23 14.00 7.04 12.00 10.26
Figure 1. Reliability analysis of the questionnaire—the correlation map of all 30 multiple-choice
queries (Q1–Q30) with 316 respondents.
3.2. Sociodemographic Data of Participants
Sociodemographic data are registered in Table 2.
Table 2. Sociodemographic data of all 316 respondents.
Parameter Total F M p-Value
n%n%n%
Sex 316.00 100.00 199.00 62.97 117.00 37.03
<0.05
Residence
Rural 61.00 19.39 41.00 20.60 20.00 17.09
Urban 255.00 80.70 158.00 79.40 97.00 82.91
Age
age 19–24 32.00 10.13 24.00 12.06 8.00 6.84
<0.05
age 25–34 110.00 34.81 77.00 38.69 33.00 28.21
age 35–49 134.00 42.41 79.00 39.70 55.00 47.01
age 50–65 32.00 10.13 13.00 6.53 19.00 16.24
age = 18 1.00 0.32 1.00 0.50 0.00 0.00
age > 65 7.00 2.22 5.00 2.51 2.00 1.71
Study
level
Bachelor’s degree 152.00 48.10 90.00 45.23 62.00 52.99
<0.05
college 40.00 12.66 26.00 13.07 14.00 11.97
high school 2.00 0.63 2.00 1.01 0.00 0.00
middle school 1.00 0.32 1.00 0.50 0.00 0.00
post-college/technical 17.00 5.38 12.00 6.03 5.00 4.27
postgraduate 104.00 32.91 68.00 34.17 36.00 30.77
Occupation
employee 195.00 61.71 123.00 61.81 72.00 61.54
<0.05
entrepreneur/owner 47.00 14.87 31.00 15.58 16.00 13.68
homeworker 26.00 8.23 14.00 7.04 12.00 10.26
pensioner 8.00 2.53 6.00 3.02 2.00 1.71
self-employed 16.00 5.06 10.00 5.03 6.00 5.13
student 20.00 6.33 13.00 6.53 7.00 5.98
unemployed 4.00 1.27 2.00 1.01 2.00 1.71
Income
RON 2001–3000 47.00 14.87 27.00 13.57 20.00 17.09
<0.05
RON 3001–4000 41.00 12.97 21.00 10.55 20.00 17.09
RON 4001–7000 86.00 27.22 61.00 30.65 25.00 21.37
RON 7001–10,000 41.00 12.97 27.00 13.57 14.00 11.97
<RON 2000 24.00 7.59 15.00 7.54 9.00 7.69
>RON 10,000 77.00 24.37 48.00 24.12 29.00 24.79
BMI
Normal weight 134.00 42.41 92.00 46.23 42.00 35.90
<0.05
Obese 45.00 14.24 16.00 8.04 29.00 24.79
Overweight 92.00 29.11 60.00 30.15 32.00 27.35
Underweight 45.00 14.24 31.00 15.58 14.00 11.97
F—female, M—male, p-value < 0.05 indicates significant statistical differences, BMI—body mass index value and
its significance expressed as normal weight, obese, underweight, and overweight.
Of the total participants, 62.97% are female, 37.03% are male, 80.70% of the respondents
have urban residences, 19.39% are from rural zones, 42% of respondents are 35–39 years
old, and 34.81% are 25–34 years old (p< 0.05). The age groups 19–24 and 55–60 have similar
Foods 2025,14, 293 7 of 27
percentages (10.13%), while 2.22% are over 65. Over 80% of participants have academic
studies (university—48.10% and post-university—32.91%), while 61.71% are employees,
14.87% are entrepreneurs/owners, 8.23% are homeworkers, 6.33% are students, 5.06% are
self-employed, 2.53% are pensioners, and 1.27% are unemployed. Around 27.22% have
a monthly income in the range of RON 4001–7000, while 24.37% have over RON 10,000;
14.87% have RON 2001–3000, a similar percentage (12.96%) have RON 3001–4000 and RON
7001–10,000 (p> 0.05), and 7.59% have under RON 2000 (p< 0.05). BMI values show that
42.41% of participants have normal weight, 29.11% are overweight, and similar percentages
(14.24%) are obese and underweight (p< 0.05).
3.3. Eco-Food Perception
This objective was assessed by investigating the participants’ familiarity with eco-
food, their perception of quality, their general attitude towards their consumption, trust
in the certifications and controls displaying the organic food logo, and the main factors
influencing their purchase decision.
3.3.1. Eco-Food Concept Perception and Understanding
Two questions with four choices available, alone or associated, highlighted the most im-
portant aspects regarding the respondents’ perception of the eco-food concept (Figure 2A,B).
Foods 2025, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 30
(A)
(B)
Figure 2. (A) Eco-food differentiation. (B) Essential aspects linked with eco-food production. The
responses are illustrated in red, and the items’ numbers are in blue.
Most respondents (183, 57.9%) recognize the specific terms BIO, ECO, and Organic
as indicators of organic food products, which suggests a high awareness of the official
terminology and trust in the regulations associated with these terms (Figure 2A). One
hundred fifty-three respondents (48.4%) consider that food from rural households is or-
ganic (p < 0.05). The EU logo for organic products is less prevalent than the terms BIO,
ECO, and Organic (90 vs. 183 respondents, p < 0.05). Several respondents (n= 51, 16.1%)
confuse the terms “Natural” or “100% Natural” with organic food products. Moreover,
4.11% of respondents (n= 13) define eco-food using all four items, 6.64% n = 21) through
three items, and 25.31% (n= 80) through two items (p < 0.05). Most respondents (63.92%, n
= 202) selected only one item representing the eco-food concept (p < 0.05, Figure 2A).
Limiting pesticide and additive use is perceived as essential, indicating a significant
concern for food health and safety (n= 251, 79.4%, Figure 2B). Food safety and higher nu-
tritional value (140 vs. 131 respondents, p > 0.05) are also essential. Although sustainability
and environmental impact are significant for 97 respondents (30.7%), they are less of a
priority than the direct impact on consumers’ health. All aspects are essential for 36 re-
spondents (11.39%), while another 55 (17.40%) and 85 (26.89%) opted for three and two
Figure 2. (A) Eco-food differentiation. (B) Essential aspects linked with eco-food production. The
responses are illustrated in red, and the items’ numbers are in blue.
Most respondents (183, 57.9%) recognize the specific terms BIO, ECO, and Organic
as indicators of organic food products, which suggests a high awareness of the official
terminology and trust in the regulations associated with these terms (Figure 2A). One
Foods 2025,14, 293 8 of 27
hundred fifty-three respondents (48.4%) consider that food from rural households is organic
(p< 0.05). The EU logo for organic products is less prevalent than the terms BIO, ECO,
and Organic (90 vs. 183 respondents, p< 0.05). Several respondents (n= 51, 16.1%) confuse
the terms “Natural” or “100% Natural” with organic food products. Moreover, 4.11% of
respondents (n= 13) define eco-food using all four items, 6.64% n= 21) through three items,
and 25.31% (n= 80) through two items (p< 0.05). Most respondents (63.92%, n= 202)
selected only one item representing the eco-food concept (p< 0.05, Figure 2A).
Limiting pesticide and additive use is perceived as essential, indicating a significant
concern for food health and safety (n= 251, 79.4%, Figure 2B). Food safety and higher
nutritional value (140 vs. 131 respondents, p> 0.05) are also essential. Although sustain-
ability and environmental impact are significant for 97 respondents (30.7%), they are less
of a priority than the direct impact on consumers’ health. All aspects are essential for
36 respondents (11.39%), while another 55 (17.40%) and 85 (26.89%) opted for three and two
significant ones, respectively (p< 0.05). The highest number of participants (140, 44.30%)
selected only one main item (p< 0.05, Figure 2B).
Numerous other aspects were analyzed to investigate the respondents’ knowledge
and understanding of eco-food and to assess their opinions about its benefits for human
health and the environment.
3.3.2. Perception of Eco-Food Information—Source and Availability
Supermarkets were the primary data source for most respondents (40.19%) about
eco-food. Very few participants mentioned organized eco-food expositions and schools as
significant places where interested people could find the requested information (1.90% and
0.95%, respectively, p< 0.05). Over 45% of participants believe that the current information
on eco-food is insufficient (45.57%), while 54.43% consider its availability to be moderate
(42.72%) or enough (11.71%). Moreover, only 24.68% of respondents frequently/regularly
update their eco-food production and provenance data, vs. 67.41% occasionally/rarely and
7.91% never (p< 0.05).
3.3.3. Perception of Eco-Food’s Impact on Environment and Human Health
Most of the respondents confirm the positive influence of eco-food on the environment
(91.77%) through Yes/Maybe yes vs. No/Maybe no/I don’t know/Not significantly (8.23%),
p< 0.05. Similarly, they confirmed that organic foods are healthier than conventional
ones (91.14% vs. 8.86%, p< 0.05). Numerous participants believe that eco-food has
significant/moderate benefits for human health (88.61% vs. 11.39%, p< 0.05) compared to
conventional ones.
3.3.4. Eco-Food Price Perception vs. Conventional Ones
Over 90% of respondents believe that eco-food prices are higher than conventional
ones (93.99%) vs. similar (5.38%) and lower (0.63%), p< 0.05.
3.3.5. Trust in Eco-Food Labels and Romanian-Certified Organic Foods
Over 45% of respondents expressed their confidence (C1–C5, C1—minimal, C5—maximal)
in an eco-food label as a medium level (C3, 46.84%), while 41.77% have trust in Romanian-
certified organic food (p> 0.05, Figure 3).
Foods 2025,14, 293 9 of 27
Foods 2025, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 30
significant ones, respectively (p < 0.05). The highest number of participants (140, 44.30%)
selected only one main item (p < 0.05, Figure 2B).
Numerous other aspects were analyzed to investigate the respondents’ knowledge
and understanding of eco-food and to assess their opinions about its benefits for human
health and the environment.
3.3.2. Perception of Eco-Food Information—Source and Availability
Supermarkets were the primary data source for most respondents (40.19%) about
eco-food. Very few participants mentioned organized eco-food expositions and schools as
significant places where interested people could find the requested information (1.90%
and 0.95%, respectively, p < 0.05). Over 45% of participants believe that the current infor-
mation on eco-food is insufficient (45.57%), while 54.43% consider its availability to be
moderate (42.72%) or enough (11.71%). Moreover, only 24.68% of respondents fre-
quently/regularly update their eco-food production and provenance data, vs. 67.41% oc-
casionally/rarely and 7.91% never (p < 0.05).
3.3.3. Perception of Eco-Food’s Impact on Environment and Human Health
Most of the respondents confirm the positive influence of eco-food on the environ-
ment (91.77%) through Yes/Maybe yes vs. No/Maybe no/I don’t know/Not significantly
(8.23%), p < 0.05. Similarly, they confirmed that organic foods are healthier than conven-
tional ones (91.14% vs. 8.86%, p < 0.05). Numerous participants believe that eco-food has
significant/moderate benefits for human health (88.61% vs. 11.39%, p < 0.05) compared to
conventional ones.
3.3.4. Eco-Food Price Perception vs. Conventional Ones
Over 90% of respondents believe that eco-food prices are higher than conventional
ones (93.99%) vs. similar (5.38%) and lower (0.63%), p < 0.05.
3.3.5. Trust in Eco-Food Labels and Romanian-Certified Organic Foods
Over 45% of respondents expressed their confidence (C1–C5, C1—minimal, C5—
maximal) in an eco-food label as a medium level (C3, 46.84%), while 41.77% have trust in
Romanian-certified organic food (p > 0.05, Figure 3).
(A) (B)
Figure 3. (A) Trust in eco-food labels; (B) trust in Romanian-certified eco-food; C = confidence; C1–
C5, C1 = minimal level of confidence, C5 = maximal level of confidence.
Figure 3. (A) Trust in eco-food labels; (B) trust in Romanian-certified eco-food; C = confidence; C1–C5,
C1 = minimal level of confidence, C5 = maximal level of confidence.
3.4. Eco-Food Acquisition Behavior
Most participants revealed organic food acquisition (95.89%), while only 4.11% reported
that they “never” purchased eco-foods (p< 0.05, Figure 4A). They opt for frequent acquisition
(daily and weekly, 48.73%) or rarely (monthly or occasionally, 47.15%, p> 0.05, Figure 4A).
Our results also report that only 33.54% of respondents always verify the eco-food ingredients,
and 23.73% check their shelf-life by reading the label from the package.
Three queries with multiple choices available, alone or associated, investigated the
respondents’ preferences, motivations, and eco-food purchasing behavior (Figure 4B–D).
Fruits and vegetables (n= 247, 78.16%) and dairy products and eggs (n= 208, 65.82%)
are the most frequently purchased organic food categories (p< 0.05, Figure 4B).
Honey and other healthy foods (n= 169, 53.48%), fish and meat (n= 109, 34.49%), and
novel foods (chia seeds, protein powders, microalgae, noni, acai, etc., n= 80, 25.31%) are
also important to consumers (p< 0.05, Figure 4B). Basic foods (oil, vinegar, flour, sugar,
bread) and sweets are purchased less often in the eco version (n= 53 (14.48%) and n= 27,
(7.37%), p< 0.05). Figure 4B also indicates that most respondents selected multiple (2–7)
items (n= 258, 81.64%); only 18.35% (n= 58, p< 0.05) opted for only one item.
Most respondents prefer eco-food from supermarkets, hypermarkets (n= 235, 74.36%),
and local markets (n= 156 (49.36%), p< 0.05). Pharmacies and health food stores are
selected by 26.58% of respondents (n= 84), neighborhood stores are commonly frequented
by 7.91% (n= 25), 53 participants (16.77%) opted for online acquisitions, and only 11 (3.48%)
indicated other sources (p< 0.05, Figure 4C). A total of 178 (56.32%) respondents selected
2-5 items, and 138 (43.67%) marked only one choice (p< 0.05).
Price, taste, and odor are the most common criteria for eco-food acquisition (n> 200,
Figure 4D). They are followed in decreasing order by provider and country (n= 176), aspect
(n= 144), and friend/family recommendations (n= 120), while 40 respondents mention
eco-friendly packages (p< 0.05). The data from Figure 4D also reveal that most participants
(n= 303) selected multiple choices (2–6), while only 13 opted for one item (p< 0.05).
Foods 2025,14, 293 10 of 27
Foods 2025, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 30
3.4. Eco-Food Acquisition Behavior
Most participants revealed organic food acquisition (95.89%), while only 4.11% re-
ported that they “never” purchased eco-foods (p < 0.05, Figure 4A). They opt for frequent
acquisition (daily and weekly, 48.73%) or rarely (monthly or occasionally, 47.15%, p > 0.05,
Figure 4A). Our results also report that only 33.54% of respondents always verify the eco-
food ingredients, and 23.73% check their shelf-life by reading the label from the package.
(A)
(B)
(C)
Foods 2025, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 30
(D)
Figure 4. (A) The eco-food acquisition frequency; (B) the eco-food type preferences; (C) the source
of eco-food acquisition; (D) the main criteria involved in eco-food acquisition. The responses are
illustrated in blue, and the items’ numbers are in red.
Three queries with multiple choices available, alone or associated, investigated the
respondents’ preferences, motivations, and eco-food purchasing behavior (Figure 4B–D).
Fruits and vegetables (n = 247, 78.16%) and dairy products and eggs (n = 208, 65.82%)
are the most frequently purchased organic food categories (p < 0.05, Figure 4B).
Honey and other healthy foods (n = 169, 53.48%), fish and meat (n = 109, 34.49%), and
novel foods (chia seeds, protein powders, microalgae, noni, acai, etc., n = 80, 25.31%) are
also important to consumers (p < 0.05, Figure 4B). Basic foods (oil, vinegar, flour, sugar,
bread) and sweets are purchased less often in the eco version (n = 53 (14.48%) and n = 27,
(7.37%), p < 0.05). Figure 4B also indicates that most respondents selected multiple (2–7)
items (n = 258, 81.64%); only 18.35% (n = 58, p < 0.05) opted for only one item.
Most respondents prefer eco-food from supermarkets, hypermarkets (n = 235,
74.36%), and local markets (n = 156 (49.36%), p < 0.05). Pharmacies and health food stores
are selected by 26.58% of respondents (n = 84), neighborhood stores are commonly fre-
quented by 7.91% (n = 25), 53 participants (16.77%) opted for online acquisitions, and only
11 (3.48%) indicated other sources (p < 0.05, Figure 4C). A total of 178 (56.32%) respondents
selected 2-5 items, and 138 (43.67%) marked only one choice (p < 0.05).
Price, taste, and odor are the most common criteria for eco-food acquisition (n > 200,
Figure 4D). They are followed in decreasing order by provider and country (n = 176), as-
pect (n = 144), and friend/family recommendations (n = 120), while 40 respondents men-
tion eco-friendly packages (p < 0.05). The data from Figure 4D also reveal that most par-
ticipants (n = 303) selected multiple choices (2–6), while only 13 opted for one item (p <
0.05).
3.5. Eco-Food Perception, Trust, and Motivation Influence Eco-Food Acquisition Behavior
Two questions with multiple choices available, alone or associated, investigated the
respondents’ motivations for purchasing or avoiding eco-food (Figure 5A,B).
Figure 4. (A) The eco-food acquisition frequency; (B) the eco-food type preferences; (C) the source
of eco-food acquisition; (D) the main criteria involved in eco-food acquisition. The responses are
illustrated in blue, and the items’ numbers are in red.
3.5. Eco-Food Perception, Trust, and Motivation Influence Eco-Food Acquisition Behavior
Two questions with multiple choices available, alone or associated, investigated the
respondents’ motivations for purchasing or avoiding eco-food (Figure 5A,B).
Foods 2025,14, 293 11 of 27
Foods 2025, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 30
(A)
(B)
Figure 5. (A) The main reasons for eco-food acquisition; (B) The main reasons to avoid eco-food.
The responses are illustrated in blue, and the items’ numbers are in red.
The main reasons for acquiring eco-food are illustrated in Figure 5A. Concern for
their health is the main priority for most aendants. With 253 respondents (80.06%), this
aspect significantly outperforms other reasons, indicating that consumers strongly em-
phasize eco-food benefits on health. The following two essential motivations were (i) eco-
food being of high quality and (ii) limiting pesticide and additive use in organic food pro-
duction (n = 131 and 128, p > 0.05, Figure 5A). It denotes that many consumers perceive
eco-food as beer quality than conventional food, reducing exposure to harmful chemi-
cals and artificial additives in their daily diet.
The responses of numerous survey participants suggest that there is a tendency to
support local farmers by preferring their eco products (n = 83), as well as an awareness
and desire to reduce the negative impact on the environment n = 48) through sustainable
food choices (p < 0.05, Figure 5A). Multiple choices (2–5) were recorded for 182 respond-
ents (57.59%), while 134 (42.41%), p < 0.05, selected only one item.
Substantial motivations to avoid eco-food are displayed in Figure 5B. More than 65%
of r espo ndent s cit e the h igh pr ices of org anic food products as the main reason. Low avail-
ability and lack of trust in eco-food quality are considerable obstacles to purchasing or-
ganic food products, according to 119 and 117 respondents, respectively. Thus, limited
access to organic food products is an important barrier because of geographical location
Figure 5. (A) The main reasons for eco-food acquisition; (B) The main reasons to avoid eco-food. The
responses are illustrated in blue, and the items’ numbers are in red.
The main reasons for acquiring eco-food are illustrated in Figure 5A. Concern for their
health is the main priority for most attendants. With 253 respondents (80.06%), this aspect
significantly outperforms other reasons, indicating that consumers strongly emphasize
eco-food benefits on health. The following two essential motivations were (i) eco-food
being of high quality and (ii) limiting pesticide and additive use in organic food production
(n= 131 and 128, p> 0.05, Figure 5A). It denotes that many consumers perceive eco-food
as better quality than conventional food, reducing exposure to harmful chemicals and
artificial additives in their daily diet.
The responses of numerous survey participants suggest that there is a tendency to
support local farmers by preferring their eco products (n= 83), as well as an awareness
and desire to reduce the negative impact on the environment n= 48) through sustainable
food choices (p< 0.05, Figure 5A). Multiple choices (2–5) were recorded for 182 respondents
(57.59%), while 134 (42.41%), p< 0.05, selected only one item.
Substantial motivations to avoid eco-food are displayed in Figure 5B. More than 65%
of respondents cite the high prices of organic food products as the main reason. Low
availability and lack of trust in eco-food quality are considerable obstacles to purchasing
organic food products, according to 119 and 117 respondents, respectively. Thus, limited
access to organic food products is an important barrier because of geographical location or
reduced store offerings. Additionally, significant suspicion among consumers regarding the
authenticity and incontestable quality of the organic products on the market is a consider-
able obstacle. Another remarkable cause is a lack of information about the benefits (n= 37).
These highlighted the multiple barriers that prevent consumers from purchasing organic
food products, especially the importance of economic and reliability aspects. Around
181 participants marked one item, while 145 opted for 2–4 choices (p< 0.05).
Foods 2025,14, 293 12 of 27
3.6. Sociodemographic Factors Differentiate the Consumers and Influence Their Trust and
Motivation for Eco-Food Acquisition
Many factors influence eco-food consumption behavior, leading to various acquisition
frequencies, satisfaction levels (S1–S5; S1—minimal, S5—maximal), and potential eco-food
recommendations (Figure 6A,B).
Foods 2025, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 30
or reduced store offerings. Additionally, significant suspicion among consumers regard-
ing the authenticity and incontestable quality of the organic products on the market is a
considerable obstacle. Another remarkable cause is a lack of information about the bene-
fits (n = 37). These highlighted the multiple barriers that prevent consumers from purchas-
ing organic food products, especially the importance of economic and reliability aspects.
Around 181 participants marked one item, while 145 opted for 2–4 choices (p < 0.05).
3.6. Sociodemographic Factors Differentiate the Consumers and Influence Their Trust and Moti-
vation for Eco-Food Acquisition
Many factors influence eco-food consumption behavior, leading to various acquisi-
tion frequencies, satisfaction levels (S1–S5; S1—minimal, S5—maximal), and potential
eco-food recommendations (Figure 6A,B).
(A) (B)
(C)
Foods 2025, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 30
(D)
Figure 6. (A) Organic food satisfaction level (S1—minimal, S5—maximal); (B) organic food potential
recommendation; (C) the correlations between eco-food acquisition frequency and monthly income,
education level, and satisfaction level. (D) the correlations between eco-food acquisition frequency
and BMI, age group, sex, satisfaction level, and potential recommendation.
Over 50% of respondents (54.75%) reveal high satisfaction levels (S4, 38.24% and S5,
15.51%) regarding eco-food consumption, 39.24% are moderately satisfied (S3 level),
while only 6.01% reported minimal satisfaction rates (S2 and S1 levels, Figure 6A).
The correlation matrix in the Supplementary Materials (PCA1) shows that the higher
price perception of eco-food is significantly associated with all incomes (except for RON
2001–3000), rural and urban residence, C2, and S1, S3–S5 (r = 0.898–0.995, p < 0.05). No
significant (NS) price is correlated with C4, S1, S2, weekly acquisition, and RON 2001–
3000 (r = 0.884–0.999, p < 0.05). Lower price perception strongly correlates with monthly
acquisition and C1 (r = 0.999, p < 0.05). Similar price perception substantially correlates
with daily acquisition and C5 (r = 0.980–0.999, p < 0.05). No significant price perception is
remarkably linked with RON 2001–3000/month income, eco-food acquisition weekly, C4,
S1, and S2 (r = 0.884–0.999, p < 0.05). S3–S5 are considerably associated with C3, rural and
urban residence, and income of RON 3001–4000, RON 4001–7000, and > RON 10,000 (r =
0.914–0.995, p < 0.05).
Around 82.28% of participants confirmed their availability for eco-food recommen-
dations, while only 1.90% disclaimed it (Figure 6B).
The places of eco-food acquisition frequencies compared to all variable parameters
are displayed in Figure 6C,D. A bachelor’s degree highly correlates with an income of
RON 2001–3000 and RON 3001–4000/month, and S1, S3, and S5 (r = 0.887–0.989, p < 0.05),
while a post-college degree is strongly associated with S4 (r = 0.888, p < 0.05, Figure 6C
and Supplementary Materials—PCA2). A high correlation exists between ages 25–65 and
both sexes, S1, S3–S5, and “yes” for eco-food recommendation (r = 0.892–0.991, p < 0.05,
Figure 6D and Supplementary Materials—PCA3). Obesity and normal weight are
Figure 6. (A) Organic food satisfaction level (S1—minimal, S5—maximal); (B) organic food potential
recommendation; (C) the correlations between eco-food acquisition frequency and monthly income,
education level, and satisfaction level. (D) the correlations between eco-food acquisition frequency
and BMI, age group, sex, satisfaction level, and potential recommendation.
Foods 2025,14, 293 13 of 27
Over 50% of respondents (54.75%) reveal high satisfaction levels (S4, 38.24% and S5,
15.51%) regarding eco-food consumption, 39.24% are moderately satisfied (S3 level), while
only 6.01% reported minimal satisfaction rates (S2 and S1 levels, Figure 6A).
The correlation matrix in the Supplementary Materials (PCA1) shows that the higher
price perception of eco-food is significantly associated with all incomes (except for RON
2001–3000), rural and urban residence, C2, and S1, S3–S5 (r = 0.898–0.995, p< 0.05). No
significant (NS) price is correlated with C4, S1, S2, weekly acquisition, and
RON 2001–3000
(r = 0.884–0.999, p< 0.05). Lower price perception strongly correlates with monthly ac-
quisition and C1 (r = 0.999, p< 0.05). Similar price perception substantially correlates
with daily acquisition and C5 (r = 0.980–0.999, p< 0.05). No significant price perception
is remarkably linked with RON 2001–3000/month income, eco-food acquisition weekly,
C4, S1, and S2 (r = 0.884–0.999,
p< 0.05
). S3–S5 are considerably associated with C3, rural
and urban residence, and income of RON 3001–4000, RON 4001–7000, and > RON 10,000
(r = 0.914–0.995, p< 0.05).
Around 82.28% of participants confirmed their availability for eco-food recommenda-
tions, while only 1.90% disclaimed it (Figure 6B).
The places of eco-food acquisition frequencies compared to all variable parameters
are displayed in Figure 6C,D. A bachelor’s degree highly correlates with an income of
RON 2001–3000 and RON 3001–4000/month, and S1, S3, and S5 (r = 0.887–0.989,
p< 0.05)
,
while a post-college degree is strongly associated with S4 (r = 0.888,
p< 0.05,
Figure 6C
and Supplementary Materials—PCA2). A high correlation exists between ages 25–65 and
both sexes, S1, S3–S5, and “yes” for eco-food recommendation (r = 0.892–0.991,
p< 0.05,
Figure 6D and Supplementary Materials—PCA3). Obesity and normal weight are strongly
associated with males, age = 18, S1, and “abstention” for eco-food recommendation
(r = 0.909–0.999, p< 0.05).
All statistically significant differences between variable parameters correlated with these
essential aspects are illustrated in the heatmaps in Figure S1A–C (Supplementary Materials).
3.6.1. Education Level
The relative frequencies (%) of the following parameters increase inversely propor-
tionally to the educational level, in the order academic, college/post-college, and high
school/middle school education: perception of eco-food as healthier than conventional ones
(90.23% vs. 94.74% vs. 100%, p> 0.05), significant/mild eco-food contribution to human
health (85.94% vs. 100%, p< 0.05), frequently/regularly update rate of eco-food production
and provenance (17.58% vs. 54.39% vs. 66.67%, p< 0.05), trust in Romanian certified organic
foods (32.42% vs. 80.70% vs. 100.00%, p< 0.05), constantly verifying the eco-food during
acquisition regarding shelf-life (16.41% vs. 54.39% vs. 66.67%, p< 0.05) and ingredients
(22.66% vs. 78.95% vs. 100.00%, p< 0.05), eco-food acquisition monthly/occasionally
(39.06% vs. 80.70% vs. 100.00%, p< 0.05), eco-food recommendation—yes/abstention
(98.05% vs. 98.25% vs. 100%, p< 0.05), overweight/obese (53.52% vs. 0.00% p< 0.05), and
age 25–49 ( 83.59% vs. 52.63% vs. 0.00%, p< 0.05).
On the other hand, the relative frequencies of other perceptions decrease directly pro-
portionally to the study level: eco-food quality perception (88.28% vs. 35.09% and 33.33%,
p< 0.05),
daily/weekly eco-food acquisition (55.86% vs. 19.30% vs. 0.00%, p< 0.05), and
strong confidence rate (C4/C5) in the eco-food label (26.56% vs. 14.04% vs. 0.00%, p< 0.05).
3.6.2. Monthly Incomes
The monthly income varies widely (<RON 2000 and >RON 10,000); most participants
have RON 4001–7000 (86/316, 27.22%) and >RON 10,000 (77/316, 24.37%). Even if there is
no direct proportionality between monthly income and various parameters, the following
Foods 2025,14, 293 14 of 27
aspects are significant: the higher price of organic foods is claimed despite the monthly
income value (68.09–100.00%). The highest monthly incomes are received by respondents
of 25–34 years (RON 7001–>10,000, 48.78–50.65%), while participants in the 35–49 years
age group receive the lowest income (<RON 2000–7000, 37.50–60.98%). All monthly in-
come values substantially belong to academic studies (70.83–85.37%). Employees receive
RON 2001–>10,000 monthly income (55.52–73.26%), and 54.17% of students have <RON
2000. All incomes are mainly in women from urban zones (51.22–82.98%). The same is
available for eco-food higher quality perception (63.83–90.84%), the environmental positive
impact of eco-foods (83.11–98.84%), significant eco-food contribution to human health
(74.03–100.00%)
, and eco-foods recommendation (91.49–100.00%). Respondents with RON
2001–3000 purchased eco-foods daily/weekly (43.90–66.67%), while all others (<RON
2000, RON 3001–>10,000) opted for monthly/occasional acquisition (43.90–66.67%). The
most substantial eco-food satisfaction level (S4/S5) is available for RON 7001–10,000 and
RON 3001–4000
(63.41% and 73.17%). Despite the various monthly incomes and high-price
perceptions, the rate of non-consumers of eco-food is very low (13/316, 4.11%), and only
6/316 (1.90%) negatively reacted to the potential organic food recommendation.
3.6.3. Age
Participants of all age groups are mainly employees (54.55–62.73%) from urban zones
(61.54–85.75%). A total of 65.45% of 25–34-year-olds and 33.33–37.31% of 35–>50-year-olds
are overweight/obese.
The age groups 18–24 and 35–>50 considerably believe in the health benefits of organic
food (95.52–100.00%), despite their perception of higher prices (89.74–92.54%). The age
group 35–>50 reveals considerable trust (C4/C5) in eco-food labels (33.58–48.72%), while
25–34-year-olds evidence a moderate one (C3, 73.64%). Strong confidence in Romanian-
certified organic food and a daily/weekly organic food acquisition are reported for
24–>50-year-olds
(48.51–58.18%), while the 18–24 age group opted for monthly/occasional
organic food purchases (75.76%). All age groups reported high satisfaction levels with
organic food consumption (S4/S5, 51.28–55.97%) and potential organic food recommenda-
tions (95.52–100.00%).
3.6.4. BMI Value
Two groups of respondents—underweight/normal weight (179/316, 56.65%) and
overweight/obese (137/316, 43.35%)—were differentiated according to BMI values.
The incomes are RON 4001–7000 (29.61%) vs. > RON 10,000 (29.20%). Most are
women (68.72% > 55.47%, p< 0.05) from urban zones (79.33% < 82.48%, p> 0.05).
Significant differences were recorded between them regarding whether eco-food is
healthier than conventional food (98.32% > 81.75%. p< 0.05), the perception of higher qual-
ity of eco-food vs. conventional food (69.27% < 89.78%, p< 0.05), increased environmental
positive impact (96.09% > 86.13%, p< 0.05), higher price perception (90.50% < 98.54%,
p< 0.05),
enough/moderate data availability regarding eco-food (34.64% < 80.29%, p< 0.05),
organic food contribution to human health vs. conventional ones (100.00% > 73.72%, p< 0.05),
confidence in Romanian-certified eco-food (72.63% > 1.46%, p< 0.05), organic food acquisition
daily/weekly (16.76% < 90.51%. p< 0.05), verification rate during organic food acquisition—
shelf-life (occasionally/rarely 46.37% < 98.34%, p< 0.05) and ingredients (occasionally/rarely
29.61% < 98.54%, p< 0.05), and eco-food recommendation—yes/abstention (97.77% < 98.54%,
p> 0.05).
3.6.5. Residence
Descriptive analysis reveals several differences between participants from rural
(61/316, 19.30%) and urban (255/316, 80.70%) residences: eco-food has a higher
Foods 2025,14, 293 15 of 27
quality (70.49% < 80.00%, p< 0.05), a positive environmental impact (88.52% vs.
92.55%,
p> 0.05),
and higher prices (91.80% < 94.51%, p> 0.05), and eco-food informa-
tion is not enough (40.98% < 46.67%, p> 0.05), there is high confidence in eco-food labels
(C4/C5,
19.67% < 25.10%)
, and eco-food contributes to health (85.25% < 89.41%, p> 0.05).
On the other hand, the rural respondents believe that eco-food is healthier than conven-
tional food (93.44% > 90.59%, p> 0.05), and only one respondent (1/61, 1.64%) avoids
eco-food consumption, compared to 12/255 (4.71%) from urban zones. The satisfaction
level S4/S5 is higher (59.02% > 53.73%, p> 0.05), and the availability (yes/abstention) to
recommend eco-food is similar (98.36% vs. 98.04%).
4. Discussion
The perceived benefits of organic foods, trust in scientists, communicator credibility,
preexisting beliefs, and science-related events (e.g., COVID-19) were significant predictors
of the public perception of scientific information about organic foods.
Human living standards have improved significantly in recent decades, and the con-
tinuous demand for a better lifestyle and healthier food has also increased. Organic product
consumption is an emerging trend, and consumers want to know the benefits of these foods
before making purchasing decisions. The present study had the following
main objectives:
Investigate the level of knowledge and familiarity regarding eco-food;
Understand the respondents’ general attitudes towards organic foods and the factors
influencing these attitudes;
Explore the trust and motivation behind the decision to buy eco-food;
Analyze the most important factors that determine whether consumers purchase
organic food or not;
Examine the level of satisfaction of the respondents towards the ecological products;
Correlate these data with sociodemographic data.
4.1. Trust in Eco-Foods
Literature data regarding the quality of foods obtained using organic and conventional
agriculture confirm the following essential aspects:
Organic foods have a lower risk of synthetic pesticide contamination;
Organic foods positively act on the environment and human health;
No differences were reported regarding heavy metals, mycotoxins, and susceptibility
to microbial contamination;
Comparable safety and nutritional value.
Most participants stated that the current information about organic food was not
enough. Their current information sources are supermarkets, advertising, the internet,
and family/friends. Numerous studies have analyzed the important role of consumers’
awareness of organic food products in various settings and conditions [
84
]. Social media is
essential to people’s daily lives and can spread awareness of significant information [
85
].
Therefore, social media influencers may substantially orient consumer behavior to organic
food acquisition, increasing its credibility in eco-food value [
86
]. Moreover, consumers can
communicate with professionals in various domains on social media to clarify their concerns
about organic foods, gain trust in their benefits, and express personal preferences [87,88].
Trust in organic foods is complex, and various factors influence consumer beliefs.
The key aspect of trust in eco-foods is perception regarding environmental concerns and
health benefits.
Organic farming practices are considered more sustainable. They reduce the envi-
ronmental impact through crop rotation, diminish soil erosion, and lower greenhouse gas
Foods 2025,14, 293 16 of 27
emissions. Most people believe organic foods are healthier due to their lower pesticide expo-
sure, potentially higher nutrient content, and reduced risk of antibiotic-resistant bacteria.
Most respondents know the beneficial impact of eco-food products on the environment
(54.75%) due to organic farming [
89
] and consider that they are healthier (61.39%) than
conventional ones [
90
]. This last statement shows a strong foundation of trust in organic
food due to significantly higher levels of pharmacologically active metabolites, vitamins,
and minerals [91–95]. Most respondents perceive organic products to be of higher quality,
as numerous studies demonstrated by quantifying the bioactive constituents [
96
]. The
considerably higher price is justified by the rigorous processes involved in organic farm-
ing, low yields, and considerable taxes for eco-food certification [
97
–
100
]. In the present
study, eco-foods are considered to have an inaccessible price, even by participants with
substantial incomes.
The reasons for the skepticism are price, nutritional equivalence, labeling, and certi-
fication. Organic foods are more expensive than conventional ones, leading to concerns
about affordability and accessibility. More than 65% of respondents cite the high prices of
organic food products as the main reason. Some studies have shown minimal differences
in nutrient content between organic and conventional products, raising questions about
the health benefits. Our respondents are not convinced that organic foods significantly
contribute to health compared to conventional ones due to a lack of information about
the benefits. This result confirms the previous studies in which the correlation between
organic food consumption and health benefits remains insufficiently demonstrated in
epidemiological studies [
101
,
102
]. While organic standards prohibit synthetic pesticides,
some naturally occurring substances used in organic farming can also be harmful. Many
concerns exist about the accuracy of organic labeling and the effectiveness of certification
processes. A lack of trust in eco-food quality is a considerable obstacle to purchasing
organic food products. Furthermore, significant suspicion among consumers regarding
the authenticity and incontestable quality of the organic products on the market is a sub-
stantial reason. Although the present study evidences a considerable trust in organic
food labels (40.25%), almost two-thirds of respondents have no trust or are unsure about
organic certifications in Romania.
Almost half of the respondents consider the information available only moderate, and
a large percentage consider it insufficient, suggesting that current information efforts are not
sufficiently effective or pervasive. Increasing awareness about the benefits and limitations
of organic food can empower consumers to make informed choices. This aspect could
be improved if people could easily access detailed educational materials such as guides,
brochures, interactive websites, informative videos, and collaboration with nutritionists,
doctors, and influencers to explain the benefits of organic food in a clear and
accessible way.
4.2. Motivation for Eco-Food Acquisition and Consumption
Trust in organic foods is multifaceted and influenced by individual values, perceptions,
and available information. While organic foods offer potential benefits, it is essential to
consider both the positive aspects and possible limitations in motivating their consump-
tion. With economic and social factors, trust in organic foods could influence acquisition,
consumption, and preferences.
First, carbohydrates, fats, and other nutrients (vitamins, proteins, minerals, enzymes,
energy, etc.) must function optimally. Second, various diseases (obesity, diabetes, heart
disease, cancer, osteoporosis, dental diseases, etc.) need a healthier diet. Other factors
involve a higher degree of consciousness regarding food’s nutritional and energetic value
or the need for spiritual satisfaction after consuming food and dishes, in addition to the
basic vital needs.
Foods 2025,14, 293 17 of 27
Price, taste, and flavor are the most common criteria for eco-food acquisition. They are
followed in decreasing order by provider and country, product appearance, friend/family
recommendations, and eco-friendly packages.
Concern for their health is the main priority for most attendants for acquiring eco-food.
With numerous respondents (80.06%), this aspect significantly outperforms other reasons,
indicating that consumers strongly emphasize eco-food’s benefits on health. Previously
published studies revealed that organic crops have substantial amounts of antioxidant
metabolites, reducing the risk of neurodegenerative [
91
], cardiovascular [
103
], and other
chronic diseases [
104
,
105
]. The following essential motivations are the high quality of
eco-food and limiting pesticide and additive use in organic food production. This denotes
that many consumers perceive eco-food to be of better quality than conventional ones,
namely, their concern about reducing exposure to harmful chemicals and artificial additives
in their daily diet.
The responses of numerous survey participants suggest a tendency to support local
farmers by preferring their eco products and awareness and desire to diminish the negative
impact on the environment through sustainable food choices. With 80.06% of respondents,
this aspect significantly outperforms other reasons, indicating that consumers strongly
emphasize eco-food’s benefits for health.
Numerous studies have analyzed different aspects of organic food packaging (materi-
als, design, size); however, the impact of packaging transparency was less investigated [
106
].
A recent study explored how transparency in organic food packaging affects consumers’
purchasing intentions and suggested practical solutions for companies [57].
The main reasons to avoid organic food acquisition and consumption are, in decreasing
order, high prices, low availability, lack of trust in organic food certification and labeling,
and missing data about eco-food benefits for human health.
Mistrust in the control system and doubt about the authenticity of food sold as organic
have a substantial negative impact on self-reported buying behavior [
60
]. Furthermore,
numerous studies investigated the effect of organic labels on consumers’ perception of
food products [
107
]. One of the major concerns of consumers is labeling effectiveness [
108
],
which influences the perception of organic food [
109
]. Moreover, increasing the percentage
of consumers with positive attitudes must supplement the available data associating organic
labels with the Nutri-Score.
4.3. Eco-Food Acquisition Behavior
Our results reveal a significant interest in eco-food among participants, as about 65%
of respondents purchase it frequently (daily, weekly, and monthly).
Fruits, vegetables (78.16%), dairy products, and eggs (65.82%) are the most frequently
purchased organic food categories (p< 0.05). Morna et al. reported similar data [
110
].
Honey and other healthy foods (53.48%), fish and meat (34.49%), and novel foods (chia
seeds, protein powders, microalgae, noni, acai, etc., 25.31%) are also important to consumers
(p< 0.05). In contrast, basic foods (oil, vinegar, flour, sugar, bread) and sweets are purchased
less often in the eco version (14.48% and 7.37%, p< 0.05) [27].
The primary sources of purchase of organic food products for most respondents
(74.36%) are leading retailers (supermarkets and hypermarkets); however, autochthonous
producers cannot access the big retail chains to sell their organic products to customers [
44
].
The leading supermarkets commonly import vast amounts of food and commercially
available organic products [
111
]. Then, to support local farmers, other participants opt
for local markets (49.36%). Pharmacies and health food stores are selected by 26.58%
of respondents, neighborhood stores are commonly frequented by 7.91%, 53.77% opted
Foods 2025,14, 293 18 of 27
for online acquisitions, and 48% indicated other sources. Another study reports similar
preferred places for organic product acquisition [112–115].
According to the literature reviewed, consumers perceive organic fresh food as more
beneficial than conventional ones and are willing to pay additional money. Taste and
odor are the most common criteria for eco-food acquisition (N > 200, Figure 4D). For
fresh organic foods (fruits and vegetables), higher levels of antioxidants and various
nutrients could intensify the taste and flavor [
116
]. Provider and country (N = 176),
aspect (N = 144), and friend/family recommendations (N = 120) are other significant
criteria, while 40 respondents mention eco-friendly packages (p< 0.05). Organic food
packaging is essential in preserving product quality, supporting sustainability, and building
consumer trust in the producer company. Clear labeling (certifications and sustainability
information) builds trust in the product’s authenticity. It often uses materials that minimize
environmental impact, such as biodegradable, compostable, or recyclable materials. Eco-
friendly packaging is paper-based, bioplastic, and glass; they must balance sustainability
with functionality (moisture resistance and durability). Consumer expectations from these
eco-friendly packages are transparency, alignment with organic values, and aesthetic
consideration for a high-price food category [117].
4.4. Limitations
Even though online surveys are becoming increasingly popular because they are
convenient, easy, and inexpensive data collection tools [
75
], our study, based on the Google
Form questionnaire, has several limitations. The accuracy of the responses cannot be
verified because the study database consists of self-reported information on organic foods.
This study was conducted for three months; then, due to the condition of voluntary
participation, the sample size cannot be predicted. The 316 respondents to all 30 questions
did not represent the Romanian population due to the probabilistic selection of individuals
who wanted to fill in an online form.
4.5. Essential Considerations
Our results reveal that the organic food concept is still not correctly perceived due to
the lack of suitable information and transparency. Most consumers are moderately satisfied
with organic food consumption (S3), but a significant segment remains neutral, offering
opportunities to increase satisfaction through improving the current organic products and
sharing their benefits.
People with high educational levels (academic and post-college) report significant
satisfaction with organic food consumption (S4 and S5). There is also a high correlation
between ages 25–65, moderate–high satisfaction (S3–S5), and “yes” for eco-food recom-
mendations. Moderate to high satisfaction levels (S3–S5) are also associated with moderate
confidence in eco-food labels (C3) and moderate to high income. Our results show that
monthly income and residence are not essential factors in higher price perception. Insignifi-
cant price variation perception correlated with C4 and weekly acquisition. Similar price
perception substantially correlates with C5 and daily acquisition. Lower price perception
strongly correlates with minimal confidence and monthly acquisition. Our study results are
similar to those from previously published ones and verify the hypotheses. Literature data
show that gender, age, and education differentiate the criteria influencing the purchasing of
organic foods [118]. Young (18–25 years) and middle-aged women (35–60 years) with aca-
demic education highlight the importance of food safety, quality, and nutritional value [
119
].
Significant differences between the sexes appear in the field of bioactive compounds, which
are more important for women than for men. Young consumers are familiar with high
technology and are more receptive to its food processing applications. Motivations are
Foods 2025,14, 293 19 of 27
differentiated by age and gender; women and older men are generally more interested
in organic food safety and care more about their health [
95
]. Literature data also confirm
that individuals with a lower BMI (underweight and normal-weight) have healthier diets
and trust more in the organic food benefits [
119
]. Monthly income cannot explain the
differences in organic food purchasing behavior [120].
“Organic” does not always mean “healthy” because processed eco-foods are still high
in sugar, fat, and calories and have a lower shelf-life [
121
]. They may expose consumers
to the risk of nutritional imbalances, sometimes serious, because of the high content of
negative-impact compounds (salt, added sugar, and saturated fats). If sugar, salt, and
saturated fats, although organic certified, are added by manufacturers in exceedingly large
quantities, with the primary goal of obtaining products that entice many senses and create
consumer dependency, the risk of nutritional imbalance is as high as for conventional
foods [
17
]. That is the reason for the verification of organic food labels. Our results also
report that <35% of respondents always verify the eco-food ingredients, and <25% check
the shelf-life by reading the label from the package. It is significant to show that verifying
the organic food’s shelf-life and ingredients during the acquisition process is predominant
when respondents perceive eco-food as higher-quality (76.45% and 76.53%), pricier (93.52%
and 93.54%), and healthier than conventional ones (90.44% and 90,48%), with benefits
for the environment (91.13% and 91.16%) and human health (87.71% and 87.76%); when
they have an academic education (83.96 and 79.59%); and when they recommend organic
food (97.95% and 98.10%). The same is true for females and urban respondents with high
satisfaction levels (54.75–80.89%).
Our findings are similar to those from previous research [
16
,
122
]; the Romanian
organic product consumers in Romania are generally younger (under 40 years), educated,
and urban residents [
113
,
123
–
125
]. Women and high-income households are particularly
inclined toward organic products [
126
–
128
]. Higher education levels and environmental
awareness correlate with increased organic consumption, associated with superior quality,
freshness, and nutritional value [
16
,
129
,
130
]. The primary drivers are health benefits, taste,
the absence of harmful chemicals, and environmental sustainability [131–133]. High costs
remain the most significant barrier to broader adoption [
134
]. Skepticism toward organic
certifications and labeling undermines consumer confidence. Limited availability and
inadequate promotion reduce market penetration, especially in rural areas. The shorter
shelf lives of organic products diminish consumer interest. Supermarkets are the most
common purchase points, but farmer’s markets and specialty stores also play essential roles.
There is a preference for local organic products, reflecting support for domestic producers
and trust in local certifications [
135
,
136
]. Fresh fruits and vegetables are the most purchased,
followed by dairy, eggs, and meat [
76
,
137
]. Processed organic foods such as cereals, sweets,
and canned goods are less popular, partly due to cost and cultural preferences.
It is essential to notice that less self-care consciousness (overweight/obese—46.08%
and 46.60%) and substantial confidence in the eco-food label (C4/C5, 25.94%, and 24.05%)
and Romanian-certified organic foods (41.77% and 37.20%) decrease the organic food
verification during acquisition. Moreover, trust in an organic diet, eco-food certification,
and source credibility lead to a substantial appreciation of all organic food benefits. This
halo effect of organic food can bias sensory and healthiness perceptions and influence
eco-food acquisition behavior [135,138–141].
The choice of organic foods is correlated to perceived benefits for human health and
environmentally friendly behavior; therefore, ecological value is considered a health condi-
tion [
142
,
143
]. The COVID-19 pandemic focused people’s attention on healthy food, and fresh
vegetables or dairy products were purchased directly from local producers [88,137,144–148].
Foods 2025,14, 293 20 of 27
Moreover, organic food consumers could share their concerns, actions, ideas, and
experiences to achieve their desires or needs through social media [
149
]. The eco-food
purchase decision is determined by needs, knowledge, perceptions, motivations, values,
beliefs, attitudes, and financial resources; digital tools can play an essential role in real-
time communication between consumers and local suppliers and in promoting organic
food. In the present study, most respondents are young or middle-aged, with academic
studies and active workers. Health is the main priority in achieving their professional
targets. Most believe organic foods are healthier than conventional ones (91.14%) and that
eco-food benefits human health (88.61%). The main reasons are organic food safety, higher
quality and nutritional value (85.75%), and limited use of pesticides and additives (79.43%).
Personal trust in the positive health effects of organic food consumption leads to regular
information updates and rigorous verifying of the eco-food ingredients and shelf-life by
reading the labels during acquisition. Furthermore, they reported high satisfaction (S4–S5)
with organic food consumption and recommended it. These data suggest the Health Belief
Model (HBM) underlines their eco-food purchase behavior.
Organic food communities share common interests, values, and behaviors related
to organic food consumption and emphasize sustainability, health, and environmental
consciousness. The Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) can also be applied in this case
because organic food acquisition is based on firmly believing that it is appropriate and on
the approval of the social circle.
Our respondents claim that environmental concerns underline sustainable food acqui-
sition. They are convinced that organic foods positively impact the environment (91.77%)
and that their production is safe and sustainable. They purchase eco-foods from the neigh-
boring market (25/316); organic food acquisition is motivated by support for local farmers,
environmental concerns, limited use of pesticides, and eco-friendly packaging (94.62%).
In this case, the Value–Belief Norm (VBN) applies because organic foods are considered
eco-friendly, positively impacting the environment and preserving biodiversity.
Thus, our study results reveal that all three behavioral models could underline organic
food acquisition behavior, also reported by previous findings [59,72,73,150–153].
5. Conclusions and Further Directions
The present study shows that sociodemographic factors differentiate consumers and
influence perceptions and motivations for organic food acquisition. The extensive infor-
mation collected, and a deep analysis of the knowledge, perception, attitude, trust, and
motivation involved in Romanian consumer behavior regarding eco-food acquisition could
enrich the scientific database.
Overall, organic food products are well regarded by consumers and are recommended
with confidence. However, a segment of the population does not feel sufficiently informed
or convinced to make a clear recommendation, representing an opportunity for manufac-
turers and distributors to improve public information and education. The organic food
market in Romania is constantly developing, and trends indicate an increase in demand as
more and more consumers become aware of the benefits of these products. It is expected
that in the future, higher accessibility and the diversification of supply will lead to broader
market penetration.
Our findings suggest that policymakers’ involvement in public information, educa-
tional campaigns, financial investments, and marketing strategies to support local organic
food producers is essential for increasing interest in eco-foods. Furthermore, extensive
studies must be conducted on people with various chronic diseases to evaluate the health
benefits of organic food and investigate the possibility of affording their daily consumption.
Foods 2025,14, 293 21 of 27
Supplementary Materials: The following supporting information can be downloaded at https:
//www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/foods14020293/s1, Online Questionnaire; Data Analysis; Figure
S1. Organic foods produced by the winners of the 2024 EU Organic Awards. Figure S2. The most
significant differences between all parameters involved in organic food acquisition frequency.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, E.M. and V.P.; methodology, E.M. and V.P.; software, V.P.;
validation, E.M., V.P. and M.N.; formal analysis, V.P.; investigation, I.A.P., A.D., O.K., L.M.M., M.L.,
A.R., L.-M.-E.C., S.O., E.I.I. and A.S.; resources, E.M., V.P., I.A.P., A.D., O.K., L.M.M., M.L., A.R.,
L.-M.-E.C., S.O., E.I.I., A.S. and M.N.; data curation, I.A.P., A.D., O.K., L.M.M., M.L., A.R., L.-M.-E.C.,
S.O., E.I.I. and A.S.; writing—original draft preparation, E.M. and V.P.; writing—review and editing,
E.M., V.P., I.A.P., A.D., O.K., L.M.M., M.L., A.R., L.-M.-E.C., S.O., E.I.I., A.S. and M.N.; visualization,
E.M., V.P., I.A.P., A.D., O.K., L.M.M., M.L., A.R., L.-M.-E.C., S.O., E.I.I., A.S. and M.N.; supervision,
E.M. and M.N.; project administration, E.M. and M.N.; funding acquisition, E.M., V.P. and M.N. All
authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: Publication of this paper was supported by the “Carol Davila” University of Medicine and
Pharmacy Bucharest through the institutional program “Publish not Perish”.
Institutional Review Board Statement: This study was conducted following the Declaration of
Helsinki and approved by the Ethics Committee of the “Carol Davila” University of Medicine and
Pharmacy (Document No. 14357, approved on 30 May 2024) for studies involving humans.
Informed Consent Statement: All participants received comprehensive information regarding the
assurance of their anonymity, the purpose of the research, and the intended use of the data in case
of publication. Before conducting the study, ethical approval was obtained from the relevant ethics
committee, as is customary for all research involving human subjects.
Data Availability Statement: The original contributions presented in the study are included in the
article/Supplementary Materials, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding authors.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
References
1.
Ghatge, M.S.K.; Parasar, A. Suresh Kashinath Ghatge Impact of Modern Lifestyle on Health. PriMera Sci. Surg. Res. Pract. 2023,
2, 16–19. [CrossRef]
2.
Negre¸s, S.; Chiri¸t
ˇ
a, C.; Moro¸san, E.; Arsene, R.L. Experimental Pharmacological Model of Diabetes Induction with Aloxan in Rat.
Farmacia 2013,61, 313–322.
3.
Krokstad, S.; Ding, D.; Grunseit, A.C.; Sund, E.R.; Holmen, T.L.; Rangul, V.; Bauman, A. Multiple Lifestyle Behaviours and
Mortality, Findings from a Large Population-Based Norwegian Cohort Study—The HUNT Study. BMC Public Health 2017,17, 58.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
4.
Oster, H.; Chaves, I. Effects of Healthy Lifestyles on Chronic Diseases: Diet, Sleep and Exercise. Nutrients 2023,15, 4627. [CrossRef]
5.
Moro
s
,
an, E.; Lupu, C.; Mititelu, M.; Musuc, A.; Rusu, A.; Răducan, I.; Karampelas, O.; Voinicu, I.; Neac
s
,
u, S.; Licu, M.; et al.
Evaluation of the Nutritional Quality of Different Soybean and Pea Varieties: Their Use in Balanced Diets for Different Pathologies.
Appl. Sci. 2023,13, 8724. [CrossRef]
6.
Jassim, R.A.; Mihele, D.; Dogaru, E. Study Regarding the Influence of Vitis Vinifera Fruit (Muscat of Hamburg Species) on Some
Biochemical Parameters. Farmacia 2010,58, 332–340.
7.
Moro
s
,
an, E.; Secăreanu, A.A.; Musuc, A.M.; Mititelu, M.; Ioni
t
,
ă, A.C.; Ozon, E.A.; Dărăban, A.M.; Karampelas, O. Advances on
the Antioxidant Activity of a Phytocomplex Product Containing Berry Extracts from Romanian Spontaneous Flora. Processes 2022,
10, 646. [CrossRef]
8.
Moro
s
,
an, E.; Mititelu, M.; Drăgănescu, D.; Lupuliasa, D.; Ozon, E.A.; Karampelas, O.; Gîrd, C.E.; Aramă, C.; Hovane
t
,
, M.V.;
Musuc, A.M.; et al. Investigation into the Antioxidant Activity of Standardized Plant Extracts with Pharmaceutical Potential.
Appl. Sci. 2021,11, 8685. [CrossRef]
9.
Hovane¸t, M.V.; Ancuceanu, R.V.; Dinu, M.; Oprea, E.; Budura, E.A.; Negre¸s, S.; Velescu, B.¸S.; Du¸tu, L.E.; Anghel, I.A.; Ancu, I.;
et al. Toxicity and Anti-Inflammatory Activity of Ziziphus Jujuba Mill. Leaves. Farmacia 2016,64, 802–808.
10.
Moro
s
,
an, E.; Secareanu, A.A.; Musuc, A.M.; Mititelu, M.; Ioni
t
,
ă, A.C.; Ozon, E.A.; Raducan, I.D.; Rusu, A.I.; Dărăban, A.M.;
Karampelas, O. Comparative Quality Assessment of Five Bread Wheat and Five Barley Cultivars Grown in Romania. Int. J.
Environ. Res. Public Health 2022,19, 11114. [CrossRef]
Foods 2025,14, 293 22 of 27
11.
Streba, L.; Popovici, V.; Mihai, A.; Mititelu, M.; Lupu, C.E.; Matei, M.; Vladu, I.M.; Iovănescu, M.L.; Cioboată, R.; Călăra
s
,
u,
C.; et al. Integrative Approach to Risk Factors in Simple Chronic Obstructive Airway Diseases of the Lung or Associated with
Metabolic Syndrome—Analysis and Prediction. Nutrients 2024,16, 1851. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
12.
Hovanet, M.V.; Dociu, N.; Dinu, M.; Ancuceanu, R.; Morosan, E.; Oprea, E. A Comparative Physico-Chemical Analysis of Acer
Platanoides and Acer Pseudoplatanus Seed Oils. Rev. Chim. 2015,66, 987–991.
13.
Alexandropoulou, I.; Goulis, D.G.; Merou, T.; Vassilakou, T.; Bogdanos, D.P.; Grammatikopoulou, M.G. Basics of Sustainable Diets
and Tools for Assessing Dietary Sustainability: A Primer for Researchers and Policy Actors. Healthcare 2022,10, 1668. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
14. Pawar, J.; Choudhari, V.; Choudhari, G.; Wagh, P.; More, G.; Ramanathan, V. Organic Food: The Importance from Public Health
Perspective. J. Pharm. Res. Int. 2022,34, 28–37. [CrossRef]
15.
Williams, C.M. Nutritional Quality of Organic Food: Shades of Grey or Shades of Green? Proc. Nutr. Soc. 2002,61, 19–24.
[CrossRef]
16.
Bruma, I.S.; Vasiliu, C.D.; Tanasă, L.; Dobo
s
,
, S. The Perception of Consumers from the North-East Region of Development of
Romania of Organic Produce. Agrar. Econ. Rural. Dev. Realities Perspect. Rom. 2020,11, 100–109.
17.
Voinea, L.; Popescu, D.V.; Negrea, M.T. Good Practices in Educating and Informing the New Generation of Consumers on Organic
Foodstuffs. Amfiteatru Econ. 2015,17, 488–506.
18.
Liu, C.; Wang, D.; Liu, C.; Jiang, J.; Wang, X.; Chen, H.; Ju, X.; Zhang, X. What Is the Meaning of Health Literacy? A Systematic
Review and Qualitative Synthesis. Fam. Med. Community Health 2020,8, e000351. [CrossRef]
19.
Platter, H.; Kaplow, K.; Baur, C. The Value of Community Health Literacy Assessments: Health Literacy in Maryland. Public
Health Rep. 2022,137, 471–478. [CrossRef]
20.
Carvalho, G.P.; Costa-Camilo, E.; Duarte, I. Advancing Health and Sustainability: A Holistic Approach to Food Production and
Dietary Habits. Foods 2024,13, 3829. [CrossRef]
21.
USDA. EU Organic Report: Economic Woes Slows Growth in EU Organic Sales; Vienna_European Union_E42024-0003; USDA:
Washington, DC, USA, 2024.
22.
Willer, H.; Schlatter, B.; Trávníˇcek, J. The World of Organic Agriculture Statistics and Emerging Trends 2023; Research Institute of
Organic Agriculture FiBL: Frick, Switzerland, 2023. [CrossRef]
23.
Billen, G.; Aguilera, E.; Einarsson, R.; Garnier, J.; Gingrich, S.; Grizzetti, B.; Lassaletta, L.; Le Noë, J.; Sanz-Cobena, A. Beyond the
Farm to Fork Strategy: Methodology for Designing a European Agro-Ecological Future. Sci. Total Environ. 2024,908, 168160.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
24.
Paull, J. Organic Agriculture in Europe: EU Sets Goal of Growing Organic Farmland from 10% to 25% by 2030. Eur. J. Agric. Food
Sci. 2024,6, 26–31. [CrossRef]
25.
Kowalska, A.; Bieniek, M. Meeting the European Green Deal Objective of Expanding Organic Farming. Equilibrium. Q. J. Econ.
Econ. Policy 2022,17, 607–633. [CrossRef]
26.
Couto, J.; Tiago, T.; Gil, A.; Tiago, F.; Faria, S. It’s Hard to Be Green: Reverse Green Value Chain. Environ. Res 2016,149, 302–313.
[CrossRef]
27.
European Organic Day 2024. Available online: https://www.organicseurope.bio/events/european-organic-day-2024/ (accessed
on 10 January 2025).
28.
Bailey, A.R.; Fu, J.; Dong, H.; Martins, T.S. Sustaining Supply Chain Relationships for Co-Operative Success: The Case of South
Devon Organic Producers Co-Operative (UK). Int. Food Agribus. Manag. Rev. 2021,24, 162–178. [CrossRef]
29.
European Organic Awards 2024. Available online: https://www.organicseurope.bio/get-involved/european-organic-awards/
european-organic-awards-2024/ (accessed on 10 January 2025).
30. The EU-Funded “Organic School” Campaign Promotes the Consumption of Organic Products by Pupils and Children, to Build
and Maintain a Healthy Lifestyle. Available online: https://organicschool.eu/index.php/en/ (accessed on 10 January 2025).
31.
Family Farming Knowledge Platform. Available online: https://www.fao.org/family-farming/detail/en/c/1632916/ (accessed
on 10 January 2025).
32.
Europe Organic Food Market Report 2024–2032 by Product Types, Distribution Channel, Country and Company Analysis. Avail-
able online: https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2024/05/30/2890853/28124/en/Europe-Organic-Food-Market-
Report-2024-2032-by-Product-Types-Distribution-Channel-Country-and-Company-Analysis.html (accessed on 10 January 2025).
33.
Michelsen, J. Organic Farmers and Conventional Distribution Systems: The Recent Expansion of the Organic Food Market in
Denmark. Am. J. Altern. Agric. 1996,11, 18–24. [CrossRef]
34.
Ditlevsen, K.; Sandøe, P.; Lassen, J. Healthy Food Is Nutritious, but Organic Food Is Healthy Because It Is Pure: The Negotiation
of Healthy Food Choices by Danish Consumers of Organic Food. Food Qual Prefer 2019,71, 46–53. [CrossRef]
35.
Aschemann-Witzel, J.; Niebuhr Aagaard, E.M. Elaborating on the Attitude-Behaviour Gap Regarding Organic Products: Young
Danish Consumers and in-Store Food Choice. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2014,38, 550–558. [CrossRef]
Foods 2025,14, 293 23 of 27
36.
Squires, L.; Juric, B.; Cornwell, T.B. Level of Market Development and Intensity of Organic Food Consumption: Cross-Cultural
Study of Danish and New Zealand Consumers. J. Consum. Mark. 2001,18, 392–409. [CrossRef]
37.
Wier, M.; O’Doherty Jensen, K.; Andersen, L.M.; Millock, K. The Character of Demand in Mature Organic Food Markets: Great
Britain and Denmark Compared. Food Policy 2008,33, 406–421. [CrossRef]
38.
Daugbjerg, C. Using Public Procurement of Organic Food to Promote Pesticide-Free Farming: A Comparison of Governance
Modes in Denmark and Sweden. Environ. Sci Policy 2023,140, 271–278. [CrossRef]
39.
Daugbjerg, C.; Schvartzman, Y. Organic Food and Farming Policy in Denmark: Promoting a Transition to Green Growth. In
Successful Public Policy in the Nordic Countries; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2022.
40.
Pacho, F.T.; Batra, M.M. Factors Influencing Consumers’ Behaviour towards Organic Food Purchase in Denmark and Tanzania.
Stud. Agric. Econ. 2021,123, 62–75. [CrossRef]
41.
Maigne, E.; Monier Dilhan, S.; Poméon, T. Impact of the Consumer’s Environment on the Demand for Organic Food in France. J.
Org. 2017,4, 3–20.
42. Mann, S. Why Organic Food in Germany Is a Merit Good. Food Policy 2003,28, 459–469. [CrossRef]
43. Ichim, O. An Overview of Organic Pig Farming in Romania. Porc. Res. Int. J. Bioflux Soc. Res. Artic. 2012,2, 50–65.
44.
Giucă, A.D.; Gaidargi Chelaru, M.; Kuzman, B. The Market of Organic Agri-Food Products in Romania. In Geopolitical Perspectives
and Technological Challenges for Sustainable Growth in the 21st Century; Sciendo: Warsaw, Poland, 2023.
45.
Sima, V.; Gheorghe, I.G. Trends in the Evolution of Organic Food Market in Romania. Int. J. Sustain. Econ. Manag. 2018,7, 45–55.
[CrossRef]
46.
Tudor, C.; Holerga, A.; Gheorghe, C.; Zemeleagă, M. Study on the Consumption and Demand of Organic Food Products. “Ovidius”
Univ. Ann. Econ. Sci. Ser. 2023,XXIII, 298–303.
47.
Vassiliades, A.; Bassiliades, N.; Meditskos, G.; Spiliopoulos, K. Building Eurostat Knowledge Graph. In Proceedings of the 14th
International Joint Conference on Knowledge Discovery, Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management; SCITEPRESS—Science and
Technology Publications: Setúbal, Portugal, 2022; Volume 2, pp. 128–135.
48.
Laaboudi, C.; Karlberg, M.; Islam, M. Open Data Dissemination at Eurostat: State of the Art. Stat. J. IAOS 2024,40, 81–90.
[CrossRef]
49.
Jayanthi, S.; Priya, P.; Devi, D.M.; Smily, J.M.B. Lichens: Origin, Types, Secondary Metabolites and Applications. J. Acad. Indus.
Res 2012,1, 45–49.
50.
Organic Food Market in Europe—Statistics & Facts. Available online: https://www.statista.com/topics/3446/organic-food-
market-in-europe/ (accessed on 10 January 2024).
51.
Brumă, I.S.; Jelea, A.R.; Rodino, S. Organic agriculture and products certified under quality schemes in romania. Ann. Acad. Rom.
Sci. Ser. Agric. Silvic. Vet. Med. 2023,12, 29–37. [CrossRef]
52. Available online: https://www.madr.ro/agricultura-ecologica.html (accessed on 10 January 2025).
53. Schmidt, H.; Haccius, M. Analysis of Regulation (EU) 2018/848 on Organic Food. Eur. Food Feed Law Rev. (EFFL) 2020,15, 2–17.
54.
Pacho, F. What Influences Consumers to Purchase Organic Food in Developing Countries? Br. Food J. 2020,122, 3695–3709.
[CrossRef]
55.
Rashid, I.; Lone, A.H. Organic Food Purchases: Does Green Trust Play a Part? Asia-Pac. J. Bus. Adm. 2024,16, 914–939. [CrossRef]
56.
Carrión Bósquez, N.G.; Arias-Bolzmann, L.G.; Martínez Quiroz, A.K. The Influence of Price and Availability on University
Millennials’ Organic Food Product Purchase Intention. Br. Food J. 2023,125, 536–550. [CrossRef]
57.
Bernabéu, R.; Brugarolas, M.; Martínez-Carrasco, L.; Nieto-Villegas, R.; Rabadán, A. The Price of Organic Foods as a Limiting
Factor of the European Green Deal: The Case of Tomatoes in Spain. Sustainability 2023,15, 3238. [CrossRef]
58.
Ladwein, R.; Sánchez Romero, A.M. The Role of Trust in the Relationship between Consumers, Producers and Retailers of Organic
Food: A Sector-Based Approach. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2021,60, 102508. [CrossRef]
59.
Canova, L.; Bobbio, A.; Manganelli, A.M. Buying Organic Food Products: The Role of Trust in the Theory of Planned Behavior.
Front. Psychol. 2020,11, 575820. [CrossRef]
60.
Nuttavuthisit, K.; Thøgersen, J. The Importance of Consumer Trust for the Emergence of a Market for Green Products: The Case
of Organic Food. J. Bus. Ethics 2017,140, 323–337. [CrossRef]
61.
Cao, D.; Xie, Q.; Yao, X.; Zheng, Y. Organic Food Consumption in China: Food Safety Concerns, Perceptions, and Purchase
Behavior under the Moderating Role of Trust. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2023,7, 1319309. [CrossRef]
62.
Bourn, D.; Prescott, J. A Comparison of the Nutritional Value, Sensory Qualities, and Food Safety of Organically and Convention-
ally Produced Foods. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2002,42, 1–34. [CrossRef]
63.
Garcia, J.M.; Teixeira, P. Organic versus Conventional Food: A Comparison Regarding Food Safety. Food Rev. Int. 2017,33, 424–446.
[CrossRef]
64.
Li, R.; Lee, C.-H.; Lin, Y.-T.; Liu, C.-W. Chinese Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Organic Foods: A Conceptual Review. Int. Food
Agribus. Manag. Rev. 2020,23, 173–188. [CrossRef]
Foods 2025,14, 293 24 of 27
65.
Gundala, R.R.; Singh, A. What Motivates Consumers to Buy Organic Foods? Results of an Empirical Study in the United States.
PLoS ONE 2021,16, e0257288. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
66.
Prakash, G.; Singh, P.K.; Ahmad, A.; Kumar, G. Trust, Convenience and Environmental Concern in Consumer Purchase Intention
for Organic Food. Span. J. Mark. ESIC 2023,27, 367–388. [CrossRef]
67.
Snekha, M.; Sreeya, B. A Study on Role of Organic Foods on Consumer and Their Level of Trust. Int. J. Membr. Sci. Technol. 2023,
10, 2253–2258. [CrossRef]
68.
Pedersen, S.; Zhang, T.; Zhou, Y.; Aschemann-Witzel, J.; Thøgersen, J. Consumer Attitudes Towards Imported Organic Food in
China and Germany: The Key Importance of Trust. J. Macromarketing 2023,43, 233–254. [CrossRef]
69.
Lazaroiu, G.; Andronie, M.; U¸tă, C.; Hurloiu, I. Trust Management in Organic Agriculture: Sustainable Consumption Behavior,
Environmentally Conscious Purchase Intention, and Healthy Food Choices. Front. Public Health 2019,7, 340. [CrossRef]
70.
Murphy, B.; Martini, M.; Fedi, A.; Loera, B.L.; Elliott, C.T.; Dean, M. Consumer Trust in Organic Food and Organic Certifications
in Four European Countries. Food Control 2022,133, 108484. [CrossRef]
71.
Yazdanpanah, M.; Forouzani, M.; Hojjati, M. Willingness of Iranian Young Adults to Eat Organic Foods: Application of the Health
Belief Model. Food Qual. Prefer. 2015,41, 75–83. [CrossRef]
72.
Fauzi, M.A.; Hanafiah, M.H.; Kunjuraman, V. Tourists’ Intention to Visit Green Hotels: Building on the Theory of Planned
Behaviour and the Value-Belief-Norm Theory. J. Tour. Futures 2024,10, 255–276. [CrossRef]
73.
Wang, C.-P.; Zhang, Q.; Wong, P.P.W.; Wang, L. Consumers’ Green Purchase Intention to Visit Green Hotels: A Value-Belief-Norm
Theory Perspective. Front. Psychol. 2023,14, 1139116. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
74.
Kalyani, R.; Prabhavathi, Y. Understanding Consumer Behavior in the Organic Food Market: Perceptions, Preferences and
Purchase Factors. Asian J. Agric. Ext. Econ. Sociol. 2023,41, 992–1004. [CrossRef]
75.
Demirtas, B. Assessment of the Impacts of the Consumers’ Awareness of Organic Food on Consumption Behavior. Food Sci.
Technol. 2019,39, 881–888. [CrossRef]
76.
Dan, I.S.; Jitea, I.M. Understanding the Perceptions of Organic Products in Romania: Challenges and Opportunities for Market
Growth in the Context of the European Green Deal. Agriculture 2024,14, 2292. [CrossRef]
77.
Han, S.; Lee, Y. Analysis of the Impacts of Social Class and Lifestyle on Consumption of Organic Foods in South Korea. Heliyon
2022,8, e10998. [CrossRef]
78.
Ayaviri-Nina, V.D.; Jaramillo-Quinzo, N.S.; Quispe-Fernández, G.M.; Mahmud, I.; Alasqah, I.; Alharbi, T.A.F.; Alqarawi, N.;
Carrascosa, C.; Saraiva, A.; Alfheeaid, H.A.; et al. Consumer Behaviour and Attitude towards the Purchase of Organic Products
in Riobamba, Ecuador. Foods 2022,11, 2849. [CrossRef]
79.
Al-Hasan, S.; Thomas, B.; Koerkamp, S.G. Consumer Behaviour Towards Organic Food in France with a Special Focus on Brittany.
Int. J. Sci. Adv. 2022,3, 49–61. [CrossRef]
80.
Zagata, L. Consumers’ Beliefs and Behavioural Intentions towards Organic Food. Evidence from the Czech Republic. Appetite
2012,59, 81–89. [CrossRef]
81.
Neagu, R.; Popovici, V.; Ionescu, L.-E.; Ordeanu, V.; Bi
t
,
ă, A.; Popescu, D.M.; Ozon, E.A.; Gîrd, C.E. Phytochemical Screening
and Antibacterial Activity of Commercially Available Essential Oils Combinations with Conventional Antibiotics against Gram-
Positive and Gram-Negative Bacteria. Antibiotics 2024,13, 478. [CrossRef]
82.
Mititelu, M.; Popovici, V.; Neac
s
,
u, S.M.; Musuc, A.M.; Busnatu, S.S.; Oprea, E.; Boroghină, S.C.; Mihai, A.; Streba, C.T.; Lupuliasa,
D.; et al. Assessment of Dietary and Lifestyle Quality among the Romanian Population in the Post-Pandemic Period. Healthcare
2024,12, 1006. [CrossRef]
83.
Moro
s
,
an, E.; Dărăban, A.; Popovici, V.; Rusu, A.; Ilie, E.I.; Licu, M.; Karampelas, O.; Lupuliasa, D.; Ozon, E.A.; Maravela, V.M.;
et al. Socio-Demographic Factors, Behaviors, Motivations, and Attitudes in Food Waste Management of Romanian Households.
Nutrients 2024,16, 2738. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
84. Muhammad, S.; Fathelrahman, E.; Tasbih Ullah, R. The Significance of Consumer’s Awareness about Organic Food Products in
the United Arab Emirates. Sustainability 2016,8, 833. [CrossRef]
85.
Dudziak, A.; Kocira, A. Preference-Based Determinants of Consumer Choice on the Polish Organic Food Market. Int. J. Environ.
Res. Public Health 2022,19, 10895. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
86.
Wang, P.; McCarthy, B.; Kapetanaki, A.B. To Be Ethical or to Be Good? The Impact of ‘Good Provider’ and Moral Norms on Food
Waste Decisions in Two Countries. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2021,69, 102300. [CrossRef]
87.
Hilverda, F.; Kuttschreuter, M.; Giebels, E. The Effect of Online Social Proof Regarding Organic Food: Comments and Likes on
Facebook. Front. Commun. 2018,3, 30. [CrossRef]
88.
Masih, J.; Deshpande, M.; Singh, H.; Deutsch, J. Study of Public Sentiment Using Social Media for Organic Foods
in Pre-Covid and Post-Covid Times Worldwide. In Proceedings of the Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems; Springer:
Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2023; Volume 557.
89. Leifeld, J. How Sustainable Is Organic Farming? Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2012,150, 121–122. [CrossRef]
Foods 2025,14, 293 25 of 27
90.
Smith-Spangler, C.; Brandeau, M.L.; Hunter, G.E.; Bavinger, J.C.; Pearson, M.; Eschbach, P.J.; Sundaram, V.; Liu, H.; Schirmer,
P.; Stave, C.; et al. Are Organic Foods Safer or Healthier Than Conventional Alternatives? Ann. Intern. Med. 2012,157, 348.
[CrossRef]
91.
Dziuba, S.; Cierniak-Emerych, A.; Klímová, B.; Poulová, P.; Napora, P.; Szromba, S. Organic Foods in Diets of Patients with
Alzheimer’s Disease. Sustainability 2020,12, 1388. [CrossRef]
92.
Gumber, G.; Rana, J. Who Buys Organic Food? Understanding Different Types of Consumers. Cogent. Bus. Manag. 2021,
8, 1935084. [CrossRef]
93.
Goetzke, B.; Nitzko, S.; Spiller, A. Consumption of Organic and Functional Food. A Matter of Well-Being and Health? Appetite
2014,77, 96–105. [CrossRef]
94.
Kahl, J.; Zał˛ecka, A.; Ploeger, A.; Bügel, S.; Huber, M. Functional Food and Organic Food Are Competing Rather than Supporting
Concepts in Europe. Agriculture 2012,2, 316. [CrossRef]
95.
Migliore, G.; Rizzo, G.; Bonanno, A.; Dudinskaya, E.C.; Tóth, J.; Schifani, G. Functional Food Characteristics in Organic Food
Products—The Perspectives of Italian Consumers on Organic Eggs Enriched with Omega-3 Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids. Org.
Agric. 2022,12, 149–161. [CrossRef]
96.
Çakmakçı, S.; Çakmakçı, R. Quality and Nutritional Parameters of Food in Agri-Food Production Systems. Foods 2023,12, 351.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
97.
Liang, R.-D. Predicting Intentions to Purchase Organic Food: The Moderating Effects of Organic Food Prices. Br. Food J. 2016,
118, 183–199. [CrossRef]
98.
Schmidt, H. Regulation (EU) 2018/848—The New EU Organic Food Law: War in the Villages or a New Kind of Coexistence. Eur.
Food Feed Law Rev. 2019,14, 15.
99. Cei, L.; Defrancesco, E.; Gatto, P.; Pagliacci, F. Pay More for Me, I’m from the Mountains! The Role of the EU Mountain Product
Term and Other Credence Attributes in Consumers’ Valuation of Lamb Meat. Agric. Food Econ. 2023,11, 12. [CrossRef]
100.
Bostan, I.; Onofrei, M.; Gavrilu¸tă, A.F.; Todera
s
,
cu, C.; Lazăr, C.M. An Integrated Approach to Current Trends in Organic Food in
the EU. Foods 2019,8, 144. [CrossRef]
101.
Mie, A.; Andersen, H.R.; Gunnarsson, S.; Kahl, J.; Kesse-Guyot, E.; Rembiałkowska, E.; Quaglio, G.; Grandjean, P. Human Health
Implications of Organic Food and Organic Agriculture: A Comprehensive Review. Environ. Health 2017,16, 111. [CrossRef]
102.
Magkos, F.; Arvaniti, F.; Zampelas, A. Organic Food: Nutritious Food or Food for Thought? A Review of the Evidence. Int. J. Food
Sci. Nutr. 2003,54, 357–371. [CrossRef]
103.
Bara´nski, M.; Rempelos, L.; Iversen, P.O.; Leifert, C. Effects of Organic Food Consumption on Human Health; the Jury Is Still Out!
Food Nutr. Res. 2017,61, 1287333. [CrossRef]
104.
Limbu, Y.B.; McKinley, C.; Ganesan, P.; Wang, T.; Zhang, J. Examining How and When Knowledge and Motivation Contribute to
Organic Food Purchase Intention among Individuals with Chronic Diseases: Testing a Moderated Mediation Model. Sustainability
2023,15, 14584. [CrossRef]
105.
Poulia, K.-A.; Bakaloudi, D.R.; Alevizou, M.; Papakonstantinou, E.; Zampelas, A.; Chourdakis, M. Impact of Organic Foods on
Health and Chronic Diseases: A Systematic Review of the Evidence. Clin. Nutr. ESPEN 2023,58, 506–507. [CrossRef]
106.
Liang, S.; Yuan, X.; Han, X.; Han, C.; Liu, Z.; Liang, M. Is Seeing Always Good? The Influence of Organic Food Packaging
Transparency on Consumers’ Purchase Intentions. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2023,58, 6517–6529. [CrossRef]
107.
Kun, A.I.; Kiss, M. On the Mechanics of the Organic Label Effect: How Does Organic Labeling Change Consumer Evaluation of
Food Products? Sustainability 2021,13, 1260. [CrossRef]
108. Tapas, P.; Desai, K. Study of Consumer Perception about Organic Food Labels. Int. Rev. Bus. Econ. 2020,4, 3. [CrossRef]
109.
Kuchler, F.; Bowman, M.; Sweitzer, M.; Greene, C. Evidence from Retail Food Markets That Consumers Are Confused by Natural
and Organic Food Labels. J. Consum. Policy 2020,43, 379–395. [CrossRef]
110.
Morna, A.A.; Brata, A.M.; Tirpe, O.P.; Muresan, I.C.; Arion, F.H.; Fora, A.F.; Popa, D.; Chereji, A.I.; Milin, I.A.; Bacter, R.V. Analysis
of the factors and barriers influencing the consumption of organic products. case of bihor county, Romania. Sci. Pap. Ser. Manag.
Econ. Eng. Agric. Rural. Dev. 2023,23, 605–616.
111.
Popa, I.D.; Dabija, D.-C. Developing the Romanian Organic Market: A Producer’s Perspective. Sustainability 2019,11, 467.
[CrossRef]
112.
Naspetti, S.; Zanoli, R. Do consumers care about where they buy organic products? A means-end study with evidence from
italian data. In Marketing Trends for Organic Food In The 21st Century; World Scientific: Singapore, 2004; pp. 239–255.
113.
Vietoris, V.; Kozelova, D.; Mellen, M.; Chrenekova, M.; Potclan, J.; Fikselova, M.; Kopkas, P.; Horska, E. Analysis of Consume’s
Preferences at Organic Food Purchase in Romania. Pol. J. Food Nutr. Sci. 2016,66, 139–146. [CrossRef]
114.
Chereji, A.I.; Chiurciu, I.A.; Popa, A.; Chereji, I.; Iorga, A.M. Consumer Behaviour Regarding Food Waste in Romania, Rural
versus Urban. Agronomy 2023,13, 571. [CrossRef]
115.
Pocol, C.B.; Šedík, P.; Ristovski, D. Tendencies and Characteristics of Organic Food Consumption in Romania. Geogr. Timisiensis
2017,26, 5.
Foods 2025,14, 293 26 of 27
116.
Zhao, X.; Chambers, E.; Matta, Z.; Loughin, T.M.; Carey, E.E. Consumer Sensory Analysis of Organically and Conventionally
Grown Vegetables. J. Food Sci. 2007,72, S87–S91. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
117.
Paunonen, S.; Pitkänen, M.; Vähä-Nissi, M.; Leminen, V.; Kainusalmi, M. Comparison of Organic Food Packaging in Denmark,
Finland, Germany, Great Britain and Italy. J. Appl. Packag. Res. 2019,11, 6.
118.
Oliveira, J.d.S.C.; de Faria, C.P.; de São José, J.F.B. Organic Food Consumers and Producers: Understanding Their Profiles,
Perceptions, and Practices. Heliyon 2024,10, e31385. [CrossRef]
119.
Brantsaeter, A.L.; Ydersbond, T.A.; Hoppin, J.A.; Haugen, M.; Meltzer, H.M. Organic Food in the Diet: Exposure and Health
Implications. Annu. Rev. Public Health 2024,11, 44. [CrossRef]
120.
Dettmann, R.L.; Dimitri, C. Who’s Buying Organic Vegetables? Demographic Characteristics of U.S. Consumers. J. Food Prod.
Mark. 2009,16, 79–91. [CrossRef]
121.
Solárová, Z.; Liskova, A.; Samec, M.; Kubatka, P.; Büsselberg, D.; Solár, P. Anticancer Potential of Lichens’ Secondary Metabolites.
Biomolecules 2020,10, 87. [CrossRef]
122.
Dumea, A.C.; Andrei, A.G. Organic Food Consumer in Romania. Available online: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?
abstract_id=2008150 (accessed on 10 January 2025).
123.
Cretu, D.; Iova, A.R.; Alecu, I. Researches on the Consumers’ Behaviour of Organic Food. Case Study, Romania–Bulgaria Cross
Border Area. J. Biotechnol. 2014,185, S58–S59. [CrossRef]
124.
Voinea, L.; Popescu, D.V.; Bucur, M.; Negrea, T.M.; Dina, R.; Enache, C. Reshaping the Traditional Pattern of Food Consumption
in Romania through the Integration of Sustainable Diet Principles. A Qualitative Study. Sustainability 2020,12, 5826. [CrossRef]
125.
Petrescu, D.C.; Petrescu-Mag, R.M.; Burny, P.; Azadi, H. A New Wave in Romania: Organic Food. Consumers’ Motivations,
Perceptions, and Habits. Agroecol. Sustain. Food Syst. 2017,41, 46–75. [CrossRef]
126.
Petrescu, A.; Oncioiu, I.; Petrescu, M. Perception of Organic Food Consumption in Romania. Foods 2017,6, 42. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
127.
Zapucioiu, L. Consumption of Organic Products in Romania in 2020. West. Balk. J. Agric. Econ. Rural Dev. 2021,3, 35–49.
[CrossRef]
128.
Manea, N.; Cetina, I. Quantitative Research On Romanian Consumer preferences of Certified Organic Food. Ann. Univ. Apulensis
Ser. Oeconomica 2016,2, 151–155. [CrossRef]
129.
Marinescu, V.; Fox, B.; Cristea, D.; Roventa-Frumusani, D.; Marinache, R.; Branea, S. Talking about Sustainability: How the Media
Construct the Public’s Understanding of Sustainable Food in Romania. Sustainability 2021,13, 4609. [CrossRef]
130.
Koswatta, T.J.; Wingenbach, G.; Leggette, H.R. Effect of Information on Public Perception of Organic Foods: A Case Study. Br.
Food J. 2023,125, 2514–2539. [CrossRef]
131.
Mahmood Ali, I. The Harmful Effects of Pesticides on the Environment and Human Health: A Review. Diyala Agric. Sci. J. 2023,
15, 114–126. [CrossRef]
132.
Crinnion, W.J. Organic Foods Contain Higher Levels of Certain Nutrients, Lower Levels of Pesticides, and May Provide Health
Benefits for the Consumer. Altern. Med. Rev. 2010,15, 4–12.
133.
Jallow, M.; Awadh, D.; Albaho, M.; Devi, V.; Thomas, B. Pesticide Knowledge and Safety Practices among Farm Workers in
Kuwait: Results of a Survey. Int. J. Environ. Res Public Health 2017,14, 340. [CrossRef]
134.
Smoluk-Sikorska, J.; ´
Smiglak-Krajewska, M.; Rojík, S.; Fulneˇcková, P.R. Prices of Organic Food—The Gap between Willingness to
Pay and Price Premiums in the Organic Food Market in Poland. Agriculture 2023,14, 17. [CrossRef]
135.
Richetin, J.; Caputo, V.; Demartini, E.; Conner, M.; Perugini, M. Organic Food Labels Bias Food Healthiness Perceptions:
Estimating Healthiness Equivalence Using a Discrete Choice Experiment. Appetite 2022,172, 105970. [CrossRef]
136.
Curvelo, I.C.G.; Watanabe, E.A.d.M.; Alfinito, S. Purchase Intention of Organic Food under the Influence of Attributes, Consumer
Trust and Perceived Value. Rev. Gestão2019,26, 198–211. [CrossRef]
137.
Brata, A.M.; Chereji, A.I.; Brata, V.D.; Morna, A.A.; Tirpe, O.P.; Popa, A.; Arion, F.H.; Banszki, L.I.; Chereji, I.; Popa, D.; et al.
Consumers’ Perception towards Organic Products before and after the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Case Study in Bihor County,
Romania. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022,19, 12712. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
138.
Besson, T.; Lalot, F.; Bochard, N.; Flaudias, V.; Zerhouni, O. The Calories Underestimation of “Organic” Food: Exploring the
Impact of Implicit Evaluations. Appetite 2019,137, 134–144. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
139.
Amos, C.; King, J.; King, S. The Health Halo of Morality- and Purity-Signifying Brand Names. J. Prod. Brand Manag. 2021,30,
1262–1276. [CrossRef]
140.
Lanero, A.; Vázquez, J.-L.; Sahelices-Pinto, C. Halo Effect and Source Credibility in the Evaluation of Food Products Identified by
Third-Party Certified Eco-Labels: Can Information Prevent Biased Inferences? Foods 2021,10, 2512. [CrossRef]
141.
Asioli, D.; Wongprawmas, R.; Pignatti, E.; Canavari, M. Can Information Affect Sensory Perceptions? Evidence from a Survey on
Italian Organic Food Consumers. AIMS Agric. Food 2018,3, 327–377. [CrossRef]
142.
Magnusson, M.K.; Arvola, A.; Hursti, U.-K.K.; Åberg, L.; Sjödén, P.-O. Choice of Organic Foods Is Related to Perceived
Consequences for Human Health and to Environmentally Friendly Behaviour. Appetite 2003,40, 109–117. [CrossRef]
Foods 2025,14, 293 27 of 27
143.
Butu, A.; Vasiliu, C.D.; Rodino, S.; Brumă, I.-S.; Tanasă, L.; Butu, M. The Process of Ethnocentralizing the Concept of Ecological
Agroalimentary Products for the Romanian Urban Consumer. Sustainability 2019,11, 6226. [CrossRef]
144.
Butu, A.; Brumă, I.S.; Tanasă, L.; Rodino, S.; Vasiliu, C.D.; Dobo
s
,
, S.; Butu, M. The Impact of COVID-19 Crisis upon the Consumer
Buying Behavior of Fresh Vegetables Directly from Local Producers. Case Study: The Quarantined Area of Suceava County,
Romania. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020,17, 5485. [CrossRef]
145.
Brumă, I.S.; Vasiliu, C.D.; Rodino, S.; Butu, M.; Tanasă, L.; Dobo
s
,
, S.; Butu, A.; Coca, O.; Stefan, G. The Behavior of Dairy
Consumers in Short Food Supply Chains during COVID-19 Pandemic in Suceava Area, Romania. Sustainability 2021,13, 3072.
[CrossRef]
146.
Alagarsamy, S.; Mehrolia, S.; Vasudevan, M.; Jeevananda, S. Predicting Intention to Buy Organic Food during the COVID-19
Pandemic: A Multi-Group Analysis Based on the Health Belief Model. J. Int. Food Agribus. Mark. 2023,35, 508–534. [CrossRef]
147.
Liu, C.; Zheng, Y.; Cao, D. Similarity Effect and Purchase Behavior of Organic Food Under the Mediating Role of Perceived Values
in the Context of COVID-19. Front. Psychol. 2021,12, 628342. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
148.
Bhattacharjee, S.; Reddy, K.P.; Sharma, V. Covid Stimulating Organic Food Consumption: Exploring Factors of Consumer Buying
Behaviour. Indian J. Ecol. 2021,48, 59–63.
149.
Brumă, I.-S.; Dinu Vasiliu, C.; Tanasa, L.; Dobo
s
,
, S.; Brumă, I.-S.; Zane, G.; Tanasă, L. Social media for the organic food consumer’s
behaviour and its impact upon the development of digital tools for small farmers in Romania. Ecoforum J. 2020,9, 1–13.
150.
Pang, S.M.; Tan, B.C.; Lau, T.C. Antecedents of Consumers’ Purchase Intention towards Organic Food: Integration of Theory of
Planned Behavior and Protection Motivation Theory. Sustainability 2021,13, 5218. [CrossRef]
151.
Ghazali, E.M.; Nguyen, B.; Mutum, D.S.; Yap, S.-F. Pro-Environmental Behaviours and Value-Belief-Norm Theory: Assessing
Unobserved Heterogeneity of Two Ethnic Groups. Sustainability 2019,11, 3237. [CrossRef]
152.
Teixeira, S.F.; Barbosa, B.; Cunha, H.; Oliveira, Z. Exploring the Antecedents of Organic Food Purchase Intention: An Extension of
the Theory of Planned Behavior. Sustainability 2021,14, 242. [CrossRef]
153.
Yilmaz, B. Factors Influencing Consumers’ Behaviour towards Purchasing Organic Foods: A Theoretical Model. Sustainability
2023,15, 14895. [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
