1. In doing so, we followed Alfnes et al. (2006 Alfnes, F., Guttormsen, A. G., Steine, G. and Kolstad, K. 2006. Consumers' Willingness to pay for the color of salmon: A choice experiment with real economic incentives. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 88(4): 1050–1061. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]) who excluded 16 participants from a sample of 115 when conducting choice experiments because interviewees did not consume the product under investigation or chose the “none of these” option in every choice set. The 31 participants that are excluded from our sample are characterized by a slightly higher share of females and being slightly younger than the 229 individuals remaining for the analysis at hand.

2. As stated before, 31 of the participants did not consume pork (both organic and conventional) at all and thus were excluded from the sample, leading to a total sample size of 229. Nevertheless, in our ordered probit model with 4 ordered levels we have a category 1=never to account for participants who do not consume conventional pork (i.e. never) but consume organic pork, or for others who may consume conventional pork but never consume organic. This is also shown in the cross tabulation in Table III, where one can see that we have a share of 0 in the never/never category.

3. Fifty-eight percent of participants purchase pork primarily at a supermarket, 9% primarily at a discounter, 28% primarily at a butcher and 6% primarily at a weekly market.

4. Food safety is important to 41% of the sample. One might expect safety to be perceived as more important. Hence, this result might be counterintuitive but also a special Eurobarometer on food-related risks finds that food safety is rather weakly related with food and eating compared to other attributes such as freshness and taste (Eurobarometer, 2010 Eurobarometer 2010 Special Eurobarometer 354, Food-related risks Report . Accessed 22 June 2011, available at: http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/factsheet/docs/reporten.pdf  [Google Scholar]).