Consumer Perception of “Recycled Content” and “Organic” Claims 

Joint Staff Report of the Bureau of Economics and Bureau of Consumer Protection 

Federal Trade Commission 

A Report on a Study Co-funded by the U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Dated August 10, 2016 
1 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

In 2015, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s 

(USDA) National Organic Program (NOP) co-funded an Internet-based study to examine 

consumer understanding of “recycled content” and “organic” claims. FTC staff initiated the 

study to determine whether to recommend updates to the FTC’s Guides for the Use of 

Environmental Marketing Claims (“Green Guides” or “Guides”).1 This report provides FTC 

staff’s analysis of the study results. 

During its last Guide review in 2012, the Commission stated that it lacked a sufficient 

basis, including consumer perception evidence, upon which to provide guidance on certain 

recycled content claims and on organic claims. Nonetheless, the Commission reminded 

marketers that Section 5 of the FTC Act still prohibits unfair or deceptive practices using these 

terms. 

To determine whether we could provide more specific advice, staff conducted this study 

of the views of more than 8,000 consumers to examine how consumers perceive recycled content 

and organic claims. Because NOP provides comprehensive regulation of organic claims for 

agricultural products, we studied items consisting either partially or entirely of non-agricultural 

components (e.g., mattresses), which the NOP generally does not address. As discussed below, 

the study’s recycled content results do not support any additional guidance; however, the organic 

claims results merit further consideration. 

Recycled Content Claims 

The Commission’s Green Guides currently advise marketers to make recycled content 

claims based only on materials that have been recovered or diverted from the waste stream 

during the manufacturing process (pre-consumer) or after consumer use (post-consumer).2 The 

Guides further advise marketers that in making these claims, they need not distinguish between 

pre- and post- consumer materials. Because “diversion from the waste stream” in a preconsumer context is subject to individual interpretation, and the record lacked any consumer 

perception evidence, the Commission declined to provide new guidance at the last Guide review. 

To try to fill in this consumer perception gap, we asked study respondents whether they 

agreed that an unqualified “Made with Recycled Content” claim accurately describes products 

(storage bins, floor tiles, or bowls) made from pre-consumer material. To render the results more 

generalizable, we varied details regarding the nature of this material (e.g, plastic, rubber, or 

glass) and the manufacturing process used to make the product (e.g., whether the material came 

from within the same process used to make the product or from making another product). To 

ensure reliable results, we included a control question, that asked respondents whether a recycled 

 

1

 16 CFR Part 260. The Guides, which help marketers avoid making unfair or deceptive environmental claims, 

specifically address recycled content, but not “organic” claims. 2

 Section 260.13(b). 
2 

content claim would be accurate if the material used to make the advertised good came from 

post-consumer sources.3

After accounting for the control question, the percentage of respondents who thought 

recycled content claims inaccurately describe products made with pre-consumer materials 

slightly exceeded the percentage of respondents who had the same belief about products made 

with post-consumer materials, but the difference was too small to be practically significant.4 

The study also included a question testing whether qualified recycled content claims 

(e.g., claims qualified with the terms “pre-consumer” or “post-industrial”) changed the results. 

These qualifications did not change respondents’ views of the claims’ accuracy. This result may 

be due, in part, to the fact that a large proportion of the respondents (39% and 47%, respectively) 

reported having little to no understanding of what these terms meant. 

 Based on these results, FTC staff has concluded that the study provides no basis for 

modifying the Commission’s advice on recycled content claims. 

Organic Claims 

 While marketers can make organic claims for food outside the coverage of the National 

Organic Program, the USDA certification is so ubiquitous that any potentially inconsistent or 

duplicative advice provided by the Commission in this area may be confusing to the public. 

Therefore, the study focused solely on organic claims for shampoos, mattresses, or dry cleaning 

services that generally fall outside of the NOP program. 

 To test consumer understanding of unqualified organic claims in this context, we asked 

respondents whether an organic claim accurately describes a product containing a small 

percentage of non-organic material. Specifically, we asked respondents about a product that 

contained a small, but varying, percentage (i.e., less than 1%; 1% to 5%; and 5% to 10%) of 

materials “made by a man-made, chemical process.” For all three percentage categories, a 

significant minority of respondents disagreed that the organic claims accurately describe the 

product.5

 Moreover, informing respondents that the non-organic materials in the product “pose 

no health or safety hazard to consumers” did not significantly affect their views.6

 

 

3

 By using a control question that provided the most accepted form of recycled content, we could screen out 

response bias based on nay-saying (i.e., those respondents who would not find a recycled content claim accurate 

regardless of the facts presented). A control question also controls for other possible sources of measurement error, 

such as inattention and random guessing, that may result from the use of a closed-ended question format. 

4

 The proportion of respondents that disagree that a “made with recycled content” claim accurately describes a 

product in a pre-consumer scenario exceeds the proportion that disagree in the post-consumer control scenario by 6 

to 14 percentage points, depending on the pre-consumer scenario. 

5

 The proportion of respondents that disagree that an organic claim accurately describes a product that contains <1%, 

1-5%, or 5-10% non-organic content exceeds the proportion that disagree in a control scenario (i.e., when the 

product does not contain non-organic content) by 22, 24, and 29 percentage points, respectively. 

6

 The results demonstrated slightly more agreement, and slightly less disagreement, than when the question did not 

describe these products as safe. However, the effect is too small (between 3 and 8 percentage points) to indicate that 

agreement with the organic claim depends on this information to a substantial proportion of consumers. 
3 

The study also examined the effect of qualifying language on consumer perception of an 

organic claim. We found that qualifications could make a significant difference. For example, 

when we qualified an organic claim for shampoo by limiting the organic materials to the 

cleansing ingredients, the percentage of respondents identifying the product as all organic 

dropped from 52% to 22%. 

There are two additional findings of note. First, respondents were roughly equally split 

between those who believe that organic claims have the same meaning for non-food products and 

food products, and those who believe they have different meanings. Second, roughly 35% of 

respondents believed that organic claims for shampoos or mattresses imply that the product 

meets some government standard. About 30% of respondents believed that USDA certifies 

organic claims for these products. 

Study Limitations 

For the types of products and claims tested in the study, the results provide valuable 

insight into consumers’ views and expectations regarding recycled content and organic claims. 

However, readers should consider several limitations when weighing the study’s results. These 

limitations include: 

o Internet panels do not provide a true probability sample. Therefore, while our 

methodology allowed us to build sample demographics to match U.S. Census 

targets, the results are not specifically projectable to the general population; 

o The survey’s low response rate (4.6%) may, or may not, indicate some nonresponse bias; 

o Unexpected distributions of responses to some control questions could indicate 

measurement error due to respondent yea-saying, inattention, or confusion; and 

o Due to the form of the questions, the results may reflect consumers’ personal 

views of how recycled content or organic claims should be used, rather than 

whether they would be deceived by such claims in the marketplace. 

Due to these limitations, readers should regard the exact response percentages and 

quantitative differences between scenarios with some caution. However, FTC staff sees no 

reason to expect that any resulting biases would affect some scenarios significantly more than 

others. For example, if a response bias exists, it should exist for both the question and the 

control. Thus, substantial differences in responses between scenarios appear to indicate an 

important qualitative difference in consumers’ views. 

 Finally, staff notes two additional limitations of the organic survey: 

o The questionnaire defined non-organic content as material “made by a man-made 

chemical process.” Some consumers may have interpreted this description to 
4 

exclude agricultural materials commonly understood to be non-organic (e.g., 

plants grown with the aid of pesticides or herbicides, but otherwise free of 

chemicals). Thus, the study’s results may not apply to products that contain such 

non-organic material (e.g., a shampoo containing small amounts of lavender 

grown with pesticides). While consumers may not consider such products to be 

organic, the survey would not have captured those responses; and 

o The study did not test the term “USDA Organic.” Therefore, the survey results 

should not be applied to the USDA label, which consumers may interpret very 

differently from the claim presented in the survey. 

 

Conclusion 

 

The study’s recycled content results do not support any additional guidance. However, 

considering the organic survey results in light of the study’s limitations, FTC staff concludes that 

the results are sufficiently robust to consider these organic issues further. Thus, the FTC and 

USDA plan to hold a public roundtable on October 20 to explore organic claims for non-food 

products, and how we can work together to reduce deceptive organic claims. The roundtable 

discussion will bring together industry members, environmental groups, government agencies, 

and academics to fully explore how to convey organic claims non-deceptively. 
5 

1. INTRODUCTION 

In 2015, the FTC and the USDA commissioned an internet-based study to explore consumer 

perceptions of “organic” and “recycled content” claims related to the Commission’s Guides for 

the Use of Environmental Marketing Claims (“Green Guides” or “Guides”) (16 CFR Part 260),7

and the USDA’s National Organic Program (“NOP”). Although NOP regulates organic claims 

for agricultural products, products either partially or entirely consisting of non-agricultural 

components do not generally fall within the core of the USDA’s program, and the FTC’s Guides 

currently do not provide guidance regarding organic claims for such products.8

 When issuing 

revised Green Guides in 2012, the Commission noted that it lacked sufficient evidence regarding 

how consumers perceive organic claims to provide generally applicable advice.9

In addition, although the current Guides address recycled content claims, they focus on waste 

stream diversion as a proxy for determining whether consumers would consider a material 

recycled content. While determining whether waste stream diversion has occurred is relatively 

simple for post-consumer materials, the Guides do not provide concrete factors for marketers to 

consider when trying to determine whether pre-consumer or post-industrial materials (e.g., 

materials recovered from a manufacturing process) have been diverted. In 2012, the Commission 

stated that consumer perception of recycled content claims for pre-consumer materials is an area 

ripe for testing.10 This report details the results of the FTC/USDA study, which should aid the 

FTC staff in considering recommendations for potential revisions to the Green Guides. 

To explore consumer interpretation of recycled content and organic claims, the FTC staff 

designed the study to allow us to compare participant responses regarding the meaning of these 

 

7 The Commission issued the Green Guides in 1992 (57 FR 36363) and subsequently revised them in 1996 (61 FR 

53311), 1998 (63 FR 24240), and 2012 (77 FR 62121). The Guides help marketers avoid making unfair or deceptive 

environmental claims. The Guides address several categories of green claims including: general environmental 

benefit claims such as “environmentally friendly;” degradable claims; compostable claims; recyclable claims; 

recycled content claims; source reduction claims; refillable claims; and “free-of” claims. The Green Guides explain 

how reasonable consumers are likely to interpret claims within these categories. The Guides also describe the basic 

elements necessary to substantiate claims and present options for qualifying them to avoid deception. The Guides do 

not, however, establish standards for environmental performance or prescribe testing protocols. 

The Commission’s industry guides, such as the Green Guides, are administrative interpretations of the 

application of Section 5 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 45(a), to advertising claims. The Commission issues industry 

guides to provide guidance for the public to conform with legal requirements. These guides provide the basis for 

voluntary abandonment of unlawful practices by industry members. 16 CFR Part 17. The Guides do not have the 

force and effect of law and are not independently enforceable. However, the Commission can take action under the 

FTC Act if a business makes environmental marketing claims inconsistent with the Guides. In any such enforcement 

action, the Commission must prove that the act or practice at issue is unfair or deceptive. 

8

 USDA regulations define “agricultural product” to mean “any agricultural commodity or product . . . that is 

marketed in the United States for human or livestock consumption.” 7 C.F.R. 205.2; and 7 U.S.C. 6502. 

9 See p. 263 of The Green Guides Statement of Basis and Purpose, 

https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/attachments/press-releases/ftc-issues-revised-greenguides/greenguidesstatement.pdf.

10 Id. at 193-194.
6 

claims across different variations in the claim, product, and description of ingredients or 

materials used to make the product. Ipsos, the research firm the FTC commissioned to conduct 

the study, obtained responses to the research questionnaire from 8,015 respondents. In the 

questionnaire, we asked respondents viewing such claims whether they believe that these 

products have particular environmental benefits or attributes. We randomly assigned respondents 

to different “scenarios,” or specifications of the product description or context. For recycled 

content claims, we asked respondents questions about products produced with materials sourced 

under different pre-consumer scenarios for the purposes of comparing participant responses 

between these scenarios. For organic claims, we asked how respondents understand the term 

“organic” in a variety of contexts, focusing on products that may fall outside of USDA’s existing 

National Organic Program requirements, in particular, non-food products with non-agricultural 

components, such as an “organic” mattress. 

This report details the study’s basic structure, including its methodology, sample frame and 

questionnaire design, as well as the study results for both recycled content and organic claims. 

Appendices present the survey questionnaire and the demographic profile of the respondents. 

2. STUDY METHODOLOGY AND SAMPLE FRAME 

2.1 Overview of Study Methodology 

To gain understanding of consumer perception of the claims, we generally compared consumer 

responses to questions regarding various scenarios in which the claims may be used. In general, 

each respondent saw only one of the many scenario variations for a given claim. The study 

design also used different product framings and versions of the claim (unqualified or qualified), 

with each respondent seeing only one of the possible products and claims for each question. Our 

analysis focuses on comparing responses between groups of respondents who viewed different 

versions of each question, where each version has a unique product, claim, and scenario 

combination. The key results focus on differences in responses between question versions. These 

differences indicate the net effect of certain details of the given scenarios, in comparison to other 

scenarios with different details. 

With all of the combinations of claim, product framing, and scenarios used, we randomly 

assigned respondents to one of 42 different cells in the recycled content part of the study (Part I) 

and then randomly and independently assigned each respondent to one of 31 different cells in the 

organic part of the study (Part II). In addition to the main research questions, for which a 

different version was given to each respondent cell, a number of other questions were also 

included in the questionnaire, some of which also have different variations to which respondents 

were randomly assigned. We provide a detailed description of the questionnaire structure in 

Section 3. 

2.2 Sample Frame and Methodology 

To most efficiently meet the research objectives within a feasible budget, the study employed an 

Internet panel with nationwide coverage. We contracted with Ipsos to implement the study 
7 

through its Ipsos Interactive Services online portal using its iSay Internet panel, supplemented 

with responses from other similar panels as needed. This panel consists of more than 800,000 

individuals drawn from throughout the country, derived from a series of convenience sampling 

procedures, rather than true probability sampling. Panel members typically receive up to 4 email 

invitations per month to participate in research projects. 

To be eligible for participation, respondents had to be enrolled in the Internet panel and be 18 

years of age or older. Ipsos recruited respondents according to demographic targets 

approximately reflective of the gender, age, race, education level, and state population 

percentages in the 2010 U.S. Census. Ipsos’s method of balancing the sample according to these 

targets was to set demographic quotas, send invitations, gradually send additional invitations 

targeted at slower-filling demographic quotas, and screen out respondents when quotas have 

been filled. All respondents received a standard panel incentive in the form of rewards points and 

entry in a monthly prize sweepstakes. 

Considering the available funds, the cost of different sample sizes, the number of claim, product 

and scenario cells into which the sample was divided, and a power analysis, we determined that 

8,000 consumers was an appropriate sample size. With the volume of responses needed, and to 

assist in reaching hard-to-reach groups who have lower than average response rates to online 

surveys, Ipsos supplemented its iSay panel with participants from two other Internet panels: 

Global Market Insite, Inc. (1,070 responses) and Research Now (214 responses). Ipsos selected 

and monitored the performance of these vendors. 

Ipsos sent 173,422 invitation emails to a combination of i-Say, Research Now, and Global 

Market Insite, Inc., panelists to collect a final sample of 8,015 completed responses, for a 

completed response rate of 4.6%.11 Because the study received a relatively low response rate, the 

results may exhibit non-response bias. However, the sample’s demographic makeup is 

approximately consistent with U.S. Census targets for gender, age, race, education level, and 

state of residence. Appendix B provides tables summarizing the sample’s demographic makeup. 

While the study did not use a probability sample, and thus is not representative of the nation as a 

whole, the sample nonetheless reflects the views of a broad population. 

Ipsos fielded the study between January 28 and February 26, 2015.12 Ipsos randomly allocated 

each respondent to one of the 42 cells in Part I (approximately 190 respondents per cell), and one 

of the 31 cells in Part II (approximately 260 respondents per cell). The random assignments in 

the two parts were independent of one another. 

 

11 The total number of initiated responses was 8,573, for an initiated response rate of 4.9%. Initiated responses 

include respondents screened out for being underage (16 responses), falling into a full demographic quota (2), or 

abandoning the survey (365). Ipsos dropped an additional 175 responses not meeting basic data quality criteria, such 

as those clicking through the survey as quickly as possible. A total of 558 responses were dropped for these reasons. 12 Prior to fielding the study, we conducted a pretest through the same Ipsos Interactive Services portal with 100 

respondents to test the questions for clarity and difficulty. The pretest questionnaire included additional open-ended 

questions asking respondents to report any confusion or other issues they experienced when answering the 

questions. Based on our review of these comments, we did not find changes to the questionnaire to be necessary. 
8 

Because we drew the sample of respondents from convenience panels and it is not a nationally 

representative probability sample, we recognize that the study results are not projectable to the 

general population. Accordingly, our analysis in this report and interpretation of the results 

focuses on comparing responses between various claim and scenario combinations to detect 

qualitative differences in respondents’ perceptions between them. Where we discuss quantitative 

results, we do not seek to project the percentages to the population at large. We instead focus our 

analysis on how respondents’ views differ between scenarios with various combinations of 

product, claim, and product details presented, in comparison to control scenarios. Where we find 

quantitative differences in responses between these scenarios, we interpret them not as 

quantitative predictions of the general population’s views, but as qualitative evidence that 

consumers’ views depend meaningfully on certain attributes of the scenario presented. We 

regard these results as part of a broader policy analysis considering information from this as well 

as other relevant sources. 

3. QUESTIONNAIRE DESIGN 

Because the study collected consumer perception evidence regarding two specific types of 

environmental marketing claims, the questionnaire consisted of two separate parts, one for each 

type of claim. Part I included questions regarding recycled content claims for products made 

from material recovered from a manufacturing process (“pre-consumer” material). Part II 

included questions on organic claims for non-food products, which may contain some 

agricultural components, but also contain substantial non-agricultural components. All 

consumers surveyed responded to both parts of the questionnaire in this order. 

Both parts of the questionnaire asked respondents a series of questions about a specific claim in 

the context of a specific product the consumer might encounter bearing that claim (e.g., floor 

tiles with a “Made with Pre-Consumer Recycled Content” claim). Some questions asked whether 

they would agree or disagree with the claim in a given scenario. Each scenario provided details 

about how the product was manufactured or the type and quantity of materials it contained. In 

each Part of the questionnaire, we randomly assigned respondents to one of several cells, 

independent of their cell assignment in the other part of the questionnaire. In each part, each cell 

of respondents was presented with only one product, claim, and scenario combination. This 

design allows us to compare responses across cells to determine whether responses are sensitive 

to differences in the product, claim, and scenario presented. 

In the remainder of this Section, we explain the design of Parts I and II of the questionnaire. We 

provide more detail on the design in the results discussion in later sections. Following Parts I and 

II of the questionnaire, a battery of supplementary questions asked respondents about their level 

of awareness of environmental issues, the environmental costs and benefits of products they 

consider purchasing, and their demographic characteristics. Appendix A contains the 

questionnaire itself, including all of the product, claim and scenario variations. 
9 

3.1 Part I: Recycled Content Claims 

Part I’s primary purpose was to determine whether consumers think that labeling a product with 

a “Made with Recycled Content,” or related qualified, claim would be accurate if the product 

was made with materials that were recycled before they reached the final consumer (“preconsumer”). Following an introductory question asking respondents to rate their familiarity with 

the given claim (Q1) and an open-ended question asking them to explain what that claim means 

(Q2), we posed the main research question (Q3). 

In Q3, we informed respondents that a product was made in a certain way, and we asked whether 

they agree or disagree that one of the three claims tested – “Made with Recycled Content,” 

“Made with Pre-Consumer Recycled Content,” or “Made with Post-Industrial Recycled Content” 

– accurately describes the product given the information provided. Response options included 

“strongly agree,” “somewhat agree,” “neither agree nor disagree,” “somewhat disagree,” and 

“strongly disagree.” We included a “not sure” option to avoid biasing the results with forced 

answers. We used six manufacturing scenarios, consisting of one in which the product was made 

entirely from post-consumer material, one in which the product was made entirely from virgin 

material, and four in which the product was made from pre-consumer material, with varying 

details about the manufacturing scenario. 

In the analysis of the results, we compared the responses to Q3 in each scenario using preconsumer material to the responses to the control scenario, where the product is made entirely 

from post-consumer material and carries the unqualified “Made with Recycled Content” claim. 

The latter scenario is appropriate to serve as the control because consumers are highly familiar 

with such products and should have highly consistent views that a “Made with Recycled 

Content” claim accurately describes a product made from post-consumer material. Comparing 

responses between the control and other scenarios reveals differences between scenarios, if any, 

in the proportion of consumers who perceive the claim to be accurate. In addition to the 

unqualified claim, we presented some respondent cells with the pre-consumer material scenarios 

with a qualified “Made with Pre-Consumer Recycled Content” or “Made with Post-Industrial 

Recycled Content” claim to test whether respondents viewed these claims differently from the 

unqualified claim. 

We included six manufacturing scenarios with the unqualified claim and four pre-consumer 

scenarios with each of the two qualified claims, for a total of 14 claim/scenario combinations in 

Q3. We presented each of these claim/scenario combinations with three different products, 

bowls, floor tiles, and storage bins, to determine whether responses are sensitive to the particular 

product considered. This yielded a total of 42 product/claim/scenario cells. In all other questions 

in Part I, we presented each respondent with the same product and claim as in Q3 (with the 

exception of Q5 below), so there are a total of 42 respondent cells in Part I. 

Following Q3, Part I included two follow-up questions conditional on certain responses to Q3. If 

the respondent disagreed with the claim in Q3, then an open-ended question (Q4) asked the 

respondent to explain why she disagreed. If the respondent was shown the unqualified claim in 

Q3 and disagreed, then a closed-ended question (Q5) asked whether she agrees or disagrees that 

the claim accurately describes the product, using the same product and scenario, but with the 
10 

qualified “Made with Pre-Consumer Recycled Content” claim instead. See Figure 3.1 for a 

diagram of the structure of Part I of the questionnaire. 

3.2 Part II: Organic Claims 

Part II of the study addressed claims for products advertised or labeled as organic that may fall 

outside of USDA’s existing NOP requirements, such as non-food products with non-agricultural 

components (e.g., an “organic” mattress). This part of the study involved two main research 

questions testing consumer perception of what an organic claim implies about a product’s 

content, as well as several other questions testing consumer beliefs about the meaning and 

regulation of organic claims for these products. 

Before presenting one of the two main questions in Part II, we asked respondents to rate their 

familiarity with an organic claim without any product framing (Q6), and then presented an openended question asking them to explain what that claim means if used in reference to one of three 

products: a dry cleaning service, a mattress, or a shampoo (Q7). We then asked whether 

respondents think an organic claim in reference to the same product means the same as an 

organic claim in reference to an apple, with response options “Yes,” “No,” and “Not Sure” (Q8). 

Conditional on answering “No” to Q8, an open-ended follow-up question (Q9) asked 

respondents to explain the difference in the meaning of “organic” between the two contexts. 

42 respondent cells 

Q2 (initial open-end) 

9 versions (3 claims x 3 products) 

Q3 (agreement with claim) 

42 versions [(unqualified claim x 6 scenarios x 3 products) 

+ (“Pre-Consumer” qualified claim x 4 pre-consumer scenarios x 3 products) 

+ (“Post-Industrial” qualified claim x 4 pre-consumer scenarios x 3 products)] 

Q4 (follow-up open-end) 

Q5 (agreement with “Pre-Consumer” qualified claim) 

12 versions (4 pre-consumer scenarios x 3 products) 

If unqualified claim in pre-consumer scenario

Q1 (understanding of claim) 

3 versions (3 claims) 

If “Disagree” in Q3

Figure 3.1: Questionnaire Design – Part I: Recycled Content

Otherwise END Part I

Otherwise END Part I
11 

We then asked each respondent one of the two main research questions in Part II. The first main 

question (Q10.1) presented a product with an organic claim and a simple description of the types 

of materials the product contains and in what proportion. We then asked respondents whether 

they agree or disagree that the organic claim accurately describes that product, using the same 

response options used for the recycled content claims in Part I. Again, we also included a “Not 

sure” option to avoid biasing the results with forced answers. The question included one of three 

possible products (the same product presented in Q7-Q9), each with one of nine possible 

descriptions of the product composition that vary in the proportions of organic and non-organic 

material and how those types of material are described. The scenario in which 100% of the 

materials in the product satisfy a simple definition of “organic” (“obtained from plants or 

animals, which were grown or raised without any substances that do not occur in nature”) serves 

as a control for comparison with scenarios with lower proportions of organic material and 

alternative descriptions of the materials. We included a total of 27 cells of respondents with this 

question, each with only one of the above products and scenarios. We also presented respondents 

who disagreed in Q10.1 with a follow-up open-ended question (Q11) asking them to explain why 

they disagreed. 

The alternative main question in Part II (Q10.2) asked about products with either an unqualified 

organic claim or a qualified claim specifying that certain parts or ingredients are organic. This 

closed-ended question asked respondents to choose the interpretation that best describes the 

product with the given claim from several answer options, including that the entire product is 

organic, or several options indicating the product may contain other non-organic materials. 

Responses to the unqualified and qualified claims for a given product can be compared to 

determine whether consumers perceive any difference in their meaning regarding the product’s 

composition. This question used only two different product framings (mattress and shampoo), 

each with a different qualified claim, to determine whether responses are sensitive to the specific 

product and claim used, yielding a total of 4 cells of respondents presented with this question. 

Across both Q10.1 and Q10.2, there were a total of 31 respondent cells in Part II of the study. 

For respondents in a cell with mattress or shampoo product framings (22 of the 31 Part II cells), 

the next question asked respondents whether they believe organic claims for the products are 

regulated by the government (Q12). Respondents saw either a version asking specifically 

whether the USDA regulates these products, a version that asked more generally whether the 

products meet some government standard, or a version that asked whether a different claim (e.g., 

“refreshing scent”) implies that the products meet some government standard. The last version of 

the question, using an alternative claim, provides a control, allowing us to determine whether 

organic claims are more likely to imply government regulation than other product claims. 

We presented respondents answering “Yes” to Q12, that either the USDA specifically or the 

government generally does regulate organic claims for the given product, with a follow-up 

question (Q13) asking whether the given entity regulates the manufacturing process, inspects the 

final product, neither, or both (a “not sure” option was also included). Respondents in cells in 

which the product was a dry cleaning service were not asked questions Q12 and Q13. See Figure 

3.2 for a diagram of the structure of Part II of the questionnaire. 
12 

Q6 (understanding of claim) 

1 version

Q7 (initial open-end) 

3 versions (3 products)

Q8 (product vs. apple) 

3 versions (3 products)

Q9 (follow-up open-end) 

If “No” in Q8

Q10.1 (agreement with claim) 

27 versions (9 scenarios x 3 products) 

OR 

Q10.2 (interpretation best describing claim) 

4 versions (unqualified/qualified claim x mattress/shampoo)

Otherwise

Figure 3.2: Questionnaire Design – Part II: Organic

31 respondent cells (independent of Part I cells) 

Q11 (follow-up open-end)

If “Disagree” in Q10.1 Otherwise 

if mattress/shampoo

Q12.1 (organic claim – government standard)

2 versions (mattress/shampoo)

OR

Q12.2 (organic claim – USDA certified)

2 versions (mattress/shampoo) 

OR

Q12.3 (control claim – government standard)

2 versions (mattress/shampoo)

Q13.1 (follow-up: organic 

claim – government standard) 

If “Yes” in Q12.1 If “Yes” in Q12.2 

Q13.2 (follow-up: organic 

claim – USDA certified) 

If dry cleaning 

END Part II 

If mattress/shampoo

Otherwise 

if dry cleaning 

END Part II

If Q12.3 END Part II
13 

4. RESULTS 

4.1 Part I: Recycled Content Claims 

4.1.1 Familiarity with Recycled Content Claims

Part I of the questionnaire first asked respondents to state how well they understand the meaning 

of the given claim (Q1). The claim displayed to a respondent was the same as the claim 

displayed in subsequent questions, including the main research question (Q3). Of the 42 

respondent cells in Part I, we presented18 cells of respondents with the unqualified “Made with 

Recycled Content” claim, while 12 cells of respondents viewed the “Pre-Consumer” and another 

12 cells of respondents viewed the “Post-Industrial” qualified claims. Figure 4.1.1 and Table 

4.1.1 summarize the results. 

Figure 4.1.1: Self-Reported Understanding of Claim 

Table 4.1.1: Self-Reported Understanding of Claim 

 Unqualified Pre-Consumer Post-Industrial 

Very thorough or some understanding 90% 61% 53% 

Very little or no understanding 10% 39% 47% 

N 3,433 2,289 2,293 

The vast majority of consumers surveyed are confident that they have at least some 

understanding of what an unqualified recycled content claim means, with 90% reporting a “very 

thorough” or “some” understanding. A smaller majority of respondents also report at least some 

understanding of “Pre-Consumer” or “Post-Industrial” qualified claims, but a large minority 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Unqualified Pre‐Consumer Post‐Industrial

No idea

Very little understanding

Some understanding

Very thorough

understanding
14 

report having “very little understanding” or “no understanding” of these claims (39% and 47%, 

respectively, compared to 10% for the unqualified claim).13

4.1.2 Meaning of Recycled Content Claims: Open-Ended Responses 

Before proceeding to closed-ended questions investigating consumer perception of claim 

meaning, the questionnaire included an open-ended question (Q2) asking respondents to explain 

what the claim suggests or implies about the product. Table 4.1.2 below summarizes IPSOS 

staff’s coding of the verbatim responses, which followed coding guidelines we 

provided.“Recycled” and “Recyclable” categories count responses that explain the claim 

meaning using those words. Other categories count responses in which the consumer describes 

the source material or, for the “Green” category, the environmental benefits of the product. 

Table 4.1.2: Coding of Open-Ended Responses on Claim Meaning 14

Coding Category Recycled Pre-Consumer Recycled Post-Industrial Recycled 

Recycled 42% 43% 47% 

Reuse 18% 11% 10% 

Green 13% 9% 9% 

Post-Consumer 2% 3% 1% 

Pre-Consumer 2% 10% 6% 

Waste 2% 1% 2% 

Recyclable 1% 1% 1% 

Other 14% 10% 11% 

Nothing 11% 17% 18% 

Total 3,433 2,289 2,293 

Overall, responses to this question are not very revealing. Across all three claims presented, 

nearly half of responses provide uninformative answers by simply repeating back the word 

“recycled” in some form, with little additional explanation. Between 10 and 20 percent of 

respondents state in some way that the material is reused, without further specifying whether the 

source is pre-consumer or post-consumer. Roughly 10% across all three claims mention some 

environmental benefits. Very few responses describe the material as waste or describe it 

specifically as pre-consumer or post-consumer, though the qualifying language increases such 

responses slightly. 

4.1.3 Consumer Agreement with Unqualified Recycled Content Claims 

The main research question in Part I of the study attempted to determine what types of preconsumer material are consistent with consumer perception of a “Made with Recycled Content” 

claim. To address this question, we developed four brief descriptions of manufacturing scenarios 

using pre-consumer material. All four scenarios describe the product carrying the claim as “made 

entirely from pieces of [the material]” that came from a given production process but were not 

 

13 Differences in response distributions between all three claims are statistically significant at the .05 level according 

to a chi-squared test. 

14 Responses may be coded under multiple categories. 
15 

used in the final product of that process. These four scenarios vary on two dimensions that we 

hypothesized as potentially meaningful determinants of whether a material should be considered 

“recycled” or not. The first dimension is whether the material comes from within the same 

process of manufacturing the product in question (hereafter labeled “same”), or from the process 

of making some other product (hereafter labeled “different”). For example, we describe storage 

bins as made from pieces of plastic that came from the process of making other storage bins 

(same), or from the process of making milk containers (different). The second dimension is 

whether making the product from this reused material costs more (hereafter labeled “cost+”) or 

less (hereafter labeled “cost-”) than making the product from virgin, or “new,” material. We 

identified these as general criteria that consumers might recognize as proxies for whether the 

material is actually diverted from the waste stream, or whether it is simply reused as part of a 

regular production process that does not necessarily involve recycling. 

In addition to the four pre-consumer scenarios, we included two control scenarios to provide 

benchmarks for comparison. The Post-Consumer scenario describes the product as made from 

materials “recovered after consumers dispose of them in collection bins.” The Not Recycled 

scenario describes the material as made from a raw material harvested from a domestic natural 

resource (e.g., storage bins made from “wood pulp harvested from domestic forests”).15 We used 

three product framings, storage bins, floor tiles, and bowls, with each of the six scenarios, 

yielding a total of 18 cells of approximately 190 respondents each. 

Within each scenario and product framing, we asked respondents whether they agreed or 

disagreed that the recycled content claim accurately describes the product. Figure 4.1.3 and 

Table 4.1.3a, below, present pooled responses across the three products for each scenario. We 

pool responses for each scenario because, with the exception of one scenario,16 we do not find a 

statistically significant difference in responses across products. 

 

15 See Q3 in Appendix A for the full wording of the scenarios presented to respondents. 

16 In the Pre-Consumer (same/cost+) scenario, response distributions differ significantly between products, as the 

proportion agreeing ranges from 56% for bowls to 66% for storage bins, while the proportion disagreeing ranges 

from 12% for floor tiles to 20% for storage bins. 
16 

Figure 4.1.3: Agreement with “Made with Recycled Content” Claim, by Scenario 

Table 4.1.3a: Agreement with “Made with Recycled Content” Claim, by Scenario 

 

PostConsumer 

PreConsumer 

(different/ 

cost+) 

PreConsumer 

(same/ 

cost+) 

PreConsumer 

(different/ 

cost-) 

PreConsumer 

(same/ 

cost-) 

Not 

Recycled 

Strongly or somewhat 

agree 86% 67% 62% 75% 71% 44% 

Neither agree nor 

disagree/Not sure 12% 19% 21% 14% 20% 21% 

Strongly or somewhat 

disagree 3% 14% 17% 11% 9% 36% 

N 572 570 568 573 576 574 

For the Post-Consumer control scenario, the proportion of respondents agreeing with the claim is 

high (86%), and the proportion disagreeing is low (6%), as expected. We anticipated that, 

conversely, a low proportion of respondents would agree and a high proportion would disagree 

with the claim in the Not Recycled scenario. However, the observed percentage agreeing (44%) 

and disagreeing (36%) in this scenario indicate either a large measurement error (possibly due to 

yea-saying, inattention, or respondent confusion/ misunderstanding of the question), or that 

respondents are confused about the definition of recycling. Because all of the scenarios presented 

in this question were rather complicated, some bias due to measurement error might affect 

responses to the other scenarios as well. However, note the large differences between the Not 

Recycled scenario and the Pre-Consumer scenarios in percent agreeing (18 to 31 percentage 

points) and disagreeing (19 to 27 percentage points). These appear to indicate that consumers 

recognize an important qualitative difference between materials that are clearly not recycled, and 

materials in pre-consumer scenarios. 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Post‐Consumer Pre‐Consumer

(different/cost+)

Pre‐Consumer

(same/cost+)

Pre‐Consumer

(different/cost‐)

Pre‐Consumer

(same/cost‐)

Not Recycled

Strongly agree Somewhat agree Neither agree nor disagree

Not sure Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree
17 

The main results of interest from this question are the differences in responses between the PreConsumer scenarios and the Post-Consumer control for the unqualified claim. For each PreConsumer scenario, the difference in the percent of the sample disagreeing with the claim 

between that scenario and the Post-Consumer control is reported in Table 4.1.3b below. The 

Table also reports 95% confidence interval estimates for this difference. Assuming a random 

sample of the population, we could be 95% certain that the true population difference between 

these scenarios in the percentage disagreeing lies somewhere within that interval.17 However, 

because we have a non-probability sample, we cannot rely on these estimates as an unbiased 

projection to the general population. Also, note that these intervals reflect the sampling error 

involved in the study, but do not account for any measurement error. They also do not account 

for the likely non-response bias due to the study’s low response rate. Hence, these ranges likely 

underestimate the true margin of error, which we are unable to quantify precisely. 

Table 4.1.3b: Difference in Percentage Disagreeing 

between Post-Consumer Control and Pre-Consumer 

Scenarios 

Pre-Consumer 

Scenario 

Sample Difference (% points) 

(95% Confidence Interval) 

different/cost+ 11.8 

 (8.6, 14.9) 

same/cost+ 14.5 

 (11.1, 17.8) 

different/cost- 8.5 

 (5.7, 11.4) 

same/cost- 6.1 

 (3.4, 8.7) 

We find statistically significant differences between Pre-consumer responses and that of the 

Post-consumer control. 18 However, the proportion disagreeing in Pre-Consumer scenarios 

exceeds the proportion disagreeing in the Post-Consumer control by an amount too small to be 

practically significant (less than 10 percentage points in some pre-consumer scenarios, and less 

than 15 percentage points in all of them). Notice also that, for some scenarios, values as low as 

3.4 percentage points fall within the confidence intervals. We also find that differences in 

responses between the four Pre-Consumer scenarios are too small in magnitude (all less than 10 

percentage points) to indicate that disagreement with an unqualified Recycled claim depends 

meaningfully on the details of the manufacturing scenario.19

 

17 Technically, the meaning of a 95% confidence interval is that if we elicited responses from a large number of 

repeated random samples of consumers, 95% of the confidence intervals estimated from these response samples 

would contain the true percentage of the population holding a particular view. This survey, however, is not based on 

a random sample of consumers. 

18 Differences in response distributions between Pre-Consumer scenarios and both control scenarios are statistically 

significant at the .05 level according to a chi-squared test. 

19 Differences in response distributions between same/cost+ and same/cost- scenarios and between different/costand same/cost- scenarios are statistically significant at the .05 level according to a chi-squared test. However, we do 

not interpret the differences in the proportions agreeing and disagreeing between these scenarios as practically 

meaningful. 
18 

4.1.4 Consumer Agreement with Qualified Recycled Content Claims 

In addition to presenting respondents with an unqualified recycled content claim as described in 

the previous section, we presented other respondents with one of two qualified claims, either 

“Made with Pre-Consumer Recycled Content” or “Made with Post-Industrial Recycled Content.” 

We also presented each of these two qualified claims within each of the four Pre-Consumer 

scenarios and three product framings described above for the unqualified claim20 for a total of 24 

cells, each with approximately 190 respondents. Responses to these qualified claims can be 

compared to those with the unqualified claim in each scenario to determine whether the 

qualification affects consumers’ agreement with the claim. Figure 4.1.4 and Table 4.1.4, below, 

present results for each of the four Pre-Consumer scenarios.21

 

20 The Post-Consumer and Not Recycled control scenarios used with the unqualified claim were not repeated here 

with the qualified claims. 

21 As in the results presented, above, for the unqualified claim, the results here are pooled across the three product 

framings. 
19 

Figure 4.1.4: Unqualified vs. Qualified Claims in Pre-Consumer Scenarios

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Unqualified Pre‐Consumer Post‐Industrial

Pre‐Consumer Scenario:

diffferent/cost+

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Unqualified Pre‐Consumer Post‐Industrial

Pre‐Consumer Scenario:

same/cost+

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Unqualified Pre‐Consumer Post‐Industrial

Pre‐Consumer Scenario:

different/cost‐

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Unqualified Pre‐Consumer Post‐Industrial

Pre‐Consumer Scenario:

same/cost‐
20 

Table 4.1.4: Unqualified vs. Qualified Claims in Pre-Consumer Scenarios22

 different/cost+ same/cost+ different/cost- same/cost- 

 Unqual. 

PreCons. PostInd. Unqual. PreCons. PostInd. Unqual. PreCons. PostInd. Unqual. PreCons. PostInd. 

Strongly 

or 

somewhat 

agree 67% 61% 59% 62% 62% 56% 75% 73% 69% 71% 72% 71% 

Neither 

agree nor 

disagree/ 

Not sure 19% 27% 30% 21% 26% 31% 14% 20% 23% 20% 21% 23% 

Strongly 

or 

somewhat 

disagree 14% 13% 12% 17% 12% 13% 11% 7% 8% 9% 7% 6% 

N 570 575 571 568 570 570 573 572 576 576 572 576 

Distributions of responses for the Pre-Consumer scenarios with the qualified claims are largely 

similar to those with the unqualified claim. Notice that, in most cases, the proportion disagreeing 

with the claims declines slightly (less than 5 percentage points in all cases) when qualifying 

language is added, but the proportion agreeing with the claim also declines, and the proportion 

giving an indecisive response increases. These results suggest that “Pre-Consumer” and “PostIndustrial” qualifying language does not significantly affect consumer agreement or 

disagreement with a recycled content claim among consumers surveyed. The results on 

respondents’ self-reported understanding of these claims, reported in Section 4.1.1 above, 

suggest that this lack of an effect may be due to respondents’ uncertainty about the meaning of 

the qualified claims. 

4.1.5 Follow-Up Questions for Respondents Disagreeing with Recycled Content Claim 

In an open-ended follow-up question (Q4), we asked respondents who disagreed with the 

recycled content claim presented in Q3 to explain why they disagreed that the claim accurately 

describes the given product. Tables 4.1.5a and 4.1.5b below summarize IPSOS staff’s coding of 

the verbatim responses, by scenario, for the unqualified and qualified claims, respectively.

IPSOS staff’s coding of the responses followed coding guidelines we provided. For each 

category, the tables report the proportion of respondents whose open-ended response was coded 

in that category, as a percentage of all responses to the scenario including those agreeing, 

disagreeing, or indecisive. The last row in each table reports the total percent disagreeing in Q3 

(the sum of each column). 

 

22 Columns labeled “Unqual.,” “Pre-Cons.,” and “Post-Ind.” present results for unqualified recycled content, preconsumer recycled content, and post-industrial recycled content claims, respectively. 
21 

Table 4.1.5a: Reasons for Disagreeing as a Percentage of All Responses, 

All Scenarios with Unqualified Claim 23

Coding Category 

PostConsumer 

PreConsumer 

(different/ 

cost+) 

PreConsumer 

(same/ 

cost+) 

PreConsumer 

(different/ 

cost-) 

PreConsumer 

(same/ 

cost-) 

Not 

Recycled 

Not previously 

used/new 

material/scraps 0% 6% 8% 8% 6% 19% 

Not recycled/not 

recycled material <1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 5% 

Made from trees/local 

forests 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 8% 

Made from sand/sand 

pits 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 

Made from tires/rubber 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% <1% 

Expensive 0% 2% 2% <1% 0% 0% 

Cost/price 0% <1% <1% 0% 0% 0% 

Poor quality 0% 0% 0% <1% <1% 0% 

Hard to 

understand/confusing 0% 1% <1% <1% <1% 1% 

Not believable <1% 1% 1% <1% 1% 1% 

Not informative 1% 1% <1% 1% 1% 1% 

Other 1% 2% 2% 1% <1% 2% 

Nothing <1% 2% 3% 1% 1% 2% 

Total Disagreeing 3% 14% 17% 11% 9% 36% 

 

23 Responses may be coded under multiple categories. 
22 

Table 4.1.5b: Reasons for Disagreeing as a Percentage of All Responses, 

Pre-Consumer Scenarios with “Pre-Consumer” and “Post-Industrial” Qualified Claims 24

 Pre-Consumer Post-Industrial 

Coding Category 

different/ 

cost+ 

same/ 

cost+ 

different/ 

costsame/ costdifferent/ cost+ 

same/ 

cost+ 

different/ 

costsame/ costNot previously 

used/new 

material/scraps 3% 4% 3% 3% 3% 5% 3% 2% 

Not recycled/not 

recycled material 2% 1% 1% <1% 0% 1% <1% <1% 

Made from 

trees/local forests 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 

Made from 

sand/sand pits 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 

Made from 

tires/rubber 0% 0% 0% 0% <1% 0% 0% 0% 

Expensive 1% 1% 0% 0% 2% 1% <1% 0% 

Cost/price 1% 1% 0% 0% <1% <1% 0% 0% 

Poor quality 0% <1% <1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 

Hard to 

understand/confusing 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 

Not believable 1% <1% 1% 0% 1% 1% <1% 0% 

Not informative <1% 1% 1% <1% 1% 1% 1% <1% 

Other 2% 1% 1% <1% 1% <1% 1% 1% 

Nothing 3% 2% 1% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 

Total 

Disagreeing 13% 12% 7% 7% 12% 13% 8% 6% 

The most frequent reason for disagreeing with the unqualified claim in pre-consumer scenarios is 

that the material is “not previously used” or “new.” This response was given by 6-8% of all 

respondents, out of the 9%-17% of total respondents disagreeing in these scenarios. These 

consumers appear to believe that an unqualified recycled content claim implies post-consumer 

material. Note that this remains a frequently-cited reason for disagreeing (3-5% of all 

respondents out of a total of 6%-13% disagreeing) even when the claim is qualified. However, 

while these responses represent a large proportion of respondents who disagreed with the claim, 

they are only a very small proportion of all respondents who viewed the claim.

We observe a slightly higher percentage of respondents disagreeing in “cost+” pre-consumer 

scenarios than in “cost-” scenarios. Some of this difference is explained by open-ended responses 

referring to the fact that using the material is more expensive in the cost+ scenarios. An example 

typical of responses in this category states, “Recycled material should cost less than new 

material, but this material costs more, so it can’t be recycled.” Hence, some consumers appear to 

believe that recycled material is defined by a lower input cost to the firm, even though the firm 

would likely still use such material absent a recycled content claim. However, no more than 2% 

of consumers viewing the claim held this view in any version of the claim or scenario. 

 

24 Responses may be coded under multiple categories. 
23 

For respondents who were shown the unqualified “Made with Recycled Content” claim with a 

pre-consumer scenario in Q3 and disagreed that the claim accurately describes the given product, 

we asked a second follow-up question, Q5. This question gave the same product and scenario, 

but asked whether they would agree or disagree if the product were instead labeled with the 

qualified claim, “Made with Pre-Consumer Recycled Content.” Table 4.1.5c present the results 

of this question. As with the results presented for Q4, above, we express responses to Q5 in 

terms of the percentage of all respondents in the given scenario in Q3. 

Table 4.1.5c: Responses to “Pre-Consumer” Qualified Claim among 

Respondents who Disagreed with an Unqualified Claim in the Same Scenario 

Pre-Consumer 

(different/cost+) 

Pre-Consumer 

(same/cost+) 

Pre-Consumer 

(different/cost-) 

Pre-Consumer 

(same/cost-) 

Strongly or somewhat 

agree (Q5) 5% 7% 4% 3% 

Neither agree nor 

disagree/Not sure (Q5) 7% 8% 5% 5% 

Strongly or somewhat 

disagree (Q5) 3% 2% 2% 1% 

Total (% Disagreeing in 

Q3) 14% 17% 11% 9% 

N 570 568 573 576 

In all four pre-consumer manufacturing scenarios, only a minority of those who disagreed in Q3 

that the unqualified claim accurately describes the product would agree that a “Pre-Consumer” 

qualified claim would accurately describe the same product. The proportion of all respondents in 

this category is low, between 3% and 7% depending on the scenario. 25 Between this result and 

the results of Q3 scenarios with the qualified claims, we find little evidence that such qualifying 

language substantially affects consumer agreement or disagreement with recycled content claims 

according to consumers surveyed. 

4.2 Part II: Organic Claims 

4.2.1 Familiarity with Organic Claims

Part II of the questionnaire began with a question (Q6) asking respondents to state how well they 

understand the meaning of the claim, “Organic,” before specifying a specific product framing. 

We asked this question without product framing because other questions asked for comparisons 

in claim meaning between different products, so it seems useful to know how well consumers 

think they understand the claim in general. Figure 4.2.1 and Table 4.2.1, below, summarize 

responses to this question, along with responses to the self-reported understanding of the 

unqualified recycled content claim for comparison. 

 

25 Differences between Q5 response distributions are not statistically significant at the .05 level according to a chisquared test 
24 

Figure 4.2.1: Self-Reported Understanding of Claim 

Table 4.2.1: Self-Reported Understanding of Claim 

 Organic Made with Recycled Content (from Q1) 

Very thorough or some 

understanding 82% 90% 

Very little or no understanding 18% 10% 

N 8,015 3,433 

We find that more than 4 out of 5 consumers surveyed believe that they have at least some 

understanding of what an organic claim means, but they report somewhat less understanding of 

this claim than “Made with Recycled Content” (82% vs. 90%). This suggests that fewer 

consumers may understand organic claims. Hence, this part of this study aims to explore when 

consumers would consider an organic claim appropriate and when they would not. 

4.2.2 Meaning of Organic Claims: Open-Ended Responses 

Before proceeding to closed-ended questions investigating consumer agreement with organic 

claims made in various scenarios, we included an open-ended question (Q7) asking respondents 

to explain what the claim suggests or implies about either a dry cleaning service, a mattress, or a 

shampoo. This part of the study used the same product framing as in subsequent questions, 

including the main research questions (Q10.1 and Q10.2). Of the 31 respondent cells in Part II, 

we used the dry cleaning service framing for 9 cells (all Q10.1), while we used the mattress and 

shampoo framings for 11 cells each (9 for Q10.1 and 2 for Q10.2). Table 4.2.2 summarizes 

IPSOS staff’s coding of the verbatim responses, which followed coding guidelines we provided. 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Organic Made with Recycled

Content (from Q1)

No idea

Very little understanding

Some understanding

Very thorough

understanding
25 

Table 4.2.2: IPSOS Coding of Open-Ended Responses on Meaning of Organic Claim 26 Coding Category Dry Cleaning Service Shampoo Mattress 

Natural/natural materials 25% 42% 31% 

No/less chemicals/additives 25% 31% 28% 

Organic/organic materials 7% 6% 7% 

Contains no/less toxic/harmful materials/chemicals 7% 4% 2% 

Plant/plant based 1% 2% 2% 

Expensive 1% 3% 2% 

Healthy/good for you/your hair 1% 3% 1% 

Environmentally friendly/ecological 6% 1% 2% 

Good/quality product 1% 2% 2% 

No GMO/genetically modified organism <1% 2% 2% 

Non/less processed 1% 1% 2% 

Food 1% 1% 1% 

Safe to use 1% 1% <1% 

Ground/growth 1% 1% 1% 

Contains chemicals/non-toxic/ecological chemical material 2% <1% <1% 

No hormones 1% <1% 1% 

Certified/follows federal guidelines <1% 1% 1% 

Not convincing/wouldn't buy/use <1% 1% 1% 

Living material/organism <1% <1% 1% 

Fresh/fresh materials <1% <1% 1% 

Recycled/recycled materials <1% <1% 1% 

Clean 1% <1% <1% 

Contains animal material <1% <1% 1% 

Unique/unusual <1% <1% <1% 

Irrelevant to product <1% <1% <1% 

Not effective/doesn't work <1% <1% 0% 

Poor quality <1% <1% <1% 

No antibiotics <1% <1% <1% 

Man-made/not natural <1% <1% <1% 

Contains no animal byproducts <1% 1% <1% 

Unappealing <1% <1% <1% 

Convincing <1% <1% <1% 

New/new materials <1% <1% <1% 

Dumb/silly/stupid <1% <1% <1% 

No animal testing 0% 1% 0% 

Home grown <1% <1% <1% 

Not organic <1% <1% <1% 

Carbon/carbon based <1% <1% <1% 

Gentle <1% <1% 0% 

Contains no plastics <1% 0% <1% 

Nice <1% <1% <1% 

Not unique/unusual <1% <1% <1% 

Believable <1% <1% <1% 

Edible 0% <1% <1% 

Environmentally conscience individuals <1% 0% <1% 

Cool/hip <1% 0% <1% 

Affordable/inexpensive 0% <1% <1% 

Germ free 0% 0% <1% 

Hard to understand/confusing 2% <1% 1% 

Not believable 3% 1% 2% 

Not informative 1% <1% 1% 

Not familiar with/never heard of product <1% <1% 1% 

Other <1% 1% 1% 

Nothing 24% 15% 22% 

N 2333 2840 2842 

 

26 Responses may be coded in multiple categories. 
26 

The most frequent responses say that the materials are “natural,” or that they contain no or less 

chemicals or additives. Combined, these categories account for 44% of responses for dry 

cleaning, 63% of responses for shampoo, and 52% of responses for mattress.27 The results show 

that the next most frequent categories of responses across products described the product as 

“organic” or made from “organic materials” (a circular definition), or explained that the product 

contains no or less “toxic” or “harmful” chemicals or materials. Other categories including at 

least 100 responses in the shampoo and mattress framings combined (between 1% and 3% of 

responses for each product) include “expensive,” “plant-based” material, or “healthy.” For the 

dry cleaning framing, 6% of responses interpreted the claim to mean environmentally or 

ecologically friendly.28

Between 25% and 31% of responses fell into the “No/less chemicals/additives” category, 

depending on the product. In a supplementary analysis, FTC staff analyzed a randomly selected 

10% subsample of the responses in this category for whether the response states that the product 

has “no” chemicals or additives, “less” chemicals or additives, or is indeterminate. Of the 227 

responses in this subsample, 87% of these say “no” chemicals or additives, 5% say “less,” and 

8% are indeterminate. This is consistent with the findings in other questions that many 

consumers perceive organic claims to mean that the product has no non-organic content 

whatsoever (see Section 4.2.4).29

4.2.3 Meaning of Organic Claim for Non-Food vs. Food Products 

Before investigating how specific details of the product relate to consumer agreement with 

organic claims, we included a more general question (Q8) about the claim’s meaning for nonfood products compared to food products. We asked respondents whether or not an organic claim 

for the given product (dry cleaning service, mattress or shampoo) has the same meaning as an 

organic claim for an apple. Figure 4.2.3 and Table 4.2.3, below, present these results. 

 

27 The proportion of responses coded in both the “natural/natural materials” and the “no/less chemicals/additives” 

categories is 6% for dry cleaning, 10% for shampoo, and 7% for mattress. 28 Aside from the coding categories listed in Table 4.2.2, searches for keywords of interest reveal that the word plant 

appears in only 190 responses (2%), while the word animal appears in only 74 responses (1%). Conversely, the 

words “man made,” “man-made,” or “manmade” appear in 271 responses (3%). 

29 Only 75 (<1%) out of all 8,015 responses include the words “entirely,” “completely,” or “100%”, but 697 

responses (9%) include the word “all.” Other responses define “organic” by what it does not include, e.g., “no” or 

“less” chemicals or additives. 
27 

Figure 4.2.3: Does the word “Organic” have the same 

meaning for this product as it does for an apple? 

Table 4.2.3a: Does the word “Organic” have the same 

meaning for this product as it does for an apple? 

 Overall 

Dry Cleaning 

Service Shampoo Mattress 

Yes 33% 29% 41% 30% 

No 37% 42% 31% 37% 

Not Sure 30% 29% 28% 33% 

N 8015 2333 2840 2842 

Overall, responses to this question are fairly evenly split between “yes,” “no,” and “not sure.” 

However, we can reject the hypothesis that respondents guessed randomly,30 and we do observe 

some differences across product framings. We observe more “no” than “yes” responses (approx. 

ratio of 4:3) for dry cleaning, slightly less “no” than “yes” responses for shampoo (approx. ratio 

of 3:4), and roughly equal “no” and “yes” responses for mattress.31 Therefore, although it is 

possible to rank these three products according to their consistency in claim meaning with a food 

product, for all three there is substantial heterogeneity among consumers in their beliefs about 

whether the meaning differs between non-food and food products.32

 

30 Response distributions for all three products are significantly different from 33.33%/33.33%/33.33% at the .05 

level according to a chi-squared test. 

31 Differences in response distributions between all three products are statistically significant at the .05 level 

according to a chi-squared test. 

32 For respondents who answered “No” to this closed-ended question, we ask for an open-ended explanation of how 

the meaning of “Organic” differs between products (Q9). Table C.2 in Appendix C summarizes the contractor’s 

coding of the verbatim responses, which followed coding guidelines we provided, but overall the responses proved 

very difficult to classify in a meaningful way. The most frequent reasons either differentiate between the products by 

describing one of them as something like “made from natural materials” or by referring to the materials, ingredients 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

OVERALL Dry Cleaning

Service

Shampoo Mattress

Yes Not Sure No
28 

4.2.4 Consumer Agreement with Organic Claims 

This part of the study involved the main research questions on consumer perception of organic 

claims, with each individual respondent seeing only one of the two questions. The first of these 

(Q10.1) was a controlled study of whether surveyed consumers believe an organic claim 

accurately describes a non-food product given certain details of the materials it contains and their 

proportions. These details varied across nine different possible scenarios, each with three 

different product framings (dry cleaning service, mattress or shampoo), for a total of 27 cells of 

approximately 260 respondents each. 

In five of the nine scenarios, we described the product as made up of two different types of 

materials and gave the proportions of each that the product contains. Scenarios described the 

product as containing a specific proportion of materials “obtained from plants or animals, which 

were grown or raised without any substances that do not occur in nature,” with the given 

proportion specified as 100%, over 99% (but not all), 95-99%, 90-95%, or 5%. We described 

“the rest” (or, in the 100% organic control scenario, “none”) of the materials in the product as 

“made by a man-made chemical process.” These descriptions were our best attempt to provide 

definitions of organic and non-organic material that are both simple enough to be easily read and 

comprehended by surveyed consumers, and general enough to apply to wide range of products 

with non-agricultural components.33 For purposes of the analysis below, we denote these 

scenarios by the proportion of non-organic material (“No Non-Organic,” “<1% Non-Organic,”1-

5% Non-Organic,” “5-10% Non-Organic,” and “95% Non-Organic”) in the product. We 

included “No Non-Organic” and “95% Non-Organic” as control scenarios to provide useful 

benchmarks for comparison with the others. 

Three of the nine scenarios alternatively stated that the non-organic materials in the product were 

“made by a man-made chemical process, but they pose no health or safety hazard to consumers.” 

Across these three scenarios, we varied the proportion of such materials between <1%, 1-5% and 

5-10%. We also included an additional scenario (“Hydrocarbons”) with a somewhat different 

description, which stated that 100% of the materials were “obtained from plants or animals or 

from the process of refining petroleum or natural gas,” and that no other materials are in the 

product. 

We summarize pooled responses across the three products for each scenario in Figure 4.2.4 and 

Table 4.2.4a, below. We pool responses for each scenario because we do not find a statistically 

significant difference in responses between products for any of them.34

 or process of making the products. The contractor also coded too few responses in the “food,” “not referring to 

food,” “edible,” and “not edible” categories. At least 5% of all responses to the open-ended Q9 (out of a total of 

31%-42% answering “No” to Q8) differentiate between products based on food vs. non-food. 

33 Because the study is an investigation of organic claims generally, the definition of non-organic material given in 

the question is not completely exhaustive of all substances the USDA defines as non-organic, e.g., wild harvested 

products that are uncertified such as certain forest mushrooms and naturally occurring materials, such as mined 

minerals and atmospheric gases. 

34 Although differences in response distributions between products are not statistically significant, we present the 

results separately by product in Appendix D. 
29 

Figure 4.2.4: Agreement with Organic Claim in 9 Scenarios 

Table 4.2.4a: Agreement with Organic Claim in 9 Scenarios 

 

No 

NonOrganic 

<1% 

NonOrganic 

1-5% 

NonOrganic 

5-10% 

NonOrganic 

<1% 

NonOrganic/ 

Safe 

1-5% 

NonOrganic/ 

Safe 

5-10% 

NonOrganic/ 

Safe 

Hydrocarbons 

95% 

NonOrganic 

Strongly or somewhat 

agree 73% 47% 48% 43% 52% 51% 52% 47% 22% 

Neither agree nor 

disagree/Not sure 21% 24% 22% 22% 22% 23% 21% 26% 23% 

Strongly or somewhat 

disagree 6% 29% 30% 35% 25% 25% 28% 26% 55% 

N 773 773 777 777 777 780 776 776 776 

For the No Non-Organic control scenario, the proportion of respondents agreeing with the claim 

is relatively high (73%), and the proportion disagreeing is low (6%), as expected. However, 

when the product is described as 95% Non-Organic, 22% of respondents still agree (and only 

55% disagree) that an organic claim accurately describes it. The unexpectedly high proportion of 

respondents agreeing with the claim in this scenario likely indicates some yea-saying bias, and 

overall the responses to this scenario suggests that respondent inattention, confusion, or 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Strongly agree Somewhat agree Neither agree nor disagree

Not sure Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree
30 

misunderstanding of the question may contribute some measurement error to the results in this as 

well as the other scenarios.35

The main results of interest from this question are the differences in responses between the No 

Non-Organic control scenario, and the scenarios where the product contains some non-organic 

content or hydrocarbons. For each of the latter scenarios, Table 4.2.4b below reports the 

difference in the percentage of respondents disagreeing with the claim compared to the 

percentage disagreeing in the No Non-Organic control.36 The table also reports the 95% 

confidence intervals for these differences. Assuming a random sample of the population, we 

could be 95% certain that the true population difference in the percentage disagreeing between 

the scenarios lies somewhere within that interval.37 However, because we have a non-probability 

sample, we cannot rely on these estimates as an unbiased projection to the general population, 

and include the confidence intervals only for illustrative purposes. Also, note that these intervals 

reflect the sampling error involved in the study, but do not account for any measurement error. 

They also do not account for the likely non-response bias due to the study’s low response rate. 

Hence, these ranges likely underestimate the true margin of error, which we are unable to 

quantify precisely. 

 

35 Among those respondents who agreed with the organic claim in the 95% Non-Organic scenario, a relatively high 

proportion compared to the rest of the sample (29%) gave a response to open-ended question Q7 that is coded in the 

“Nothing” category as having no meaningful content. However, a considerable proportion of these respondents did 

provide meaningful responses to Q7, distributed similarly to the rest of the sample. The next three most common 

categories for Q7 responses among this group are “Natural/natural materials” (26%), “No/less chemicals/additives” 

(20%) and “Organic/organic materials” (7%). 

36 According to a chi-squared test at the .05 significance level, we find significant differences in response 

distributions between No Non-Organic and all other scenarios, between the 95% Non-Organic and all other 

scenarios, between 5-10% Non-Organic and 5-10% Non-Organic/Safe scenarios, between the Hydrocarbons and the 

5-10% Non-Organic scenarios, and between the Hydrocarbons and the 5-10% Non-Organic/Safe scenarios. All other 

differences between scenarios are statistically insignificant. 37 Technically, the meaning of a 95% confidence interval is that if we elicited responses from a large number of 

repeated random samples of consumers, 95% of the confidence intervals estimated from these response samples 

would contain the true percentage of the population holding a particular view. This survey, however, is not based on 

a random sample of consumers. 
31 

Table 4.2.4b: Difference in Percentage Disagreeing between 

No Non-Organic Control and Other Scenarios

Scenario Sample Difference (% points) 

(95% Confidence Interval) 

<1% Non-Organic 22.3 

 (18.6, 25.9) 

1-5% Non-Organic 23.8 

 (20.1, 27.4) 

5-10% Non-Organic 28.8 

 (25.0, 32.6) 

<1% Non-Organic/Safe 19.0 

 (15.5, 22.5) 

1-5% Non-Organic/Safe 18.9 

 (15.4, 22.4) 

5-10% Non-Organic/Safe 21.2 

 (17.6, 24.8) 

Hydrocarbons 19.8 

 (16.3, 23.4) 

The results suggest that a significant proportion of consumers believe that if a non-food product 

contains even a small amount of material from a man-made chemical process (as opposed to 

from plants or animals), even less than 1%, then an unqualified organic claim does not accurately 

describe that product. The proportion disagreeing in the scenarios with some non-organic 

material exceeds the proportion disagreeing in the control by at least 22.3 percentage points 

when the non-organic material is not described as safe for consumers, and by at least 18.9 

percentage points when it is described as safe. In addition, none of the confidence intervals 

include values lower than 15.4 percentage points. 

These results are compelling, but there are several limitations to their interpretation. Note that 

this survey question asks respondents whether they agree with the claim, not how they interpret 

the claim. Accordingly, the results do not provide a direct measure of deception because 

respondents might disagree with the claim due to their opinions on what the term should mean 

compared to how it is actually used in the marketplace. Therefore, they may not be deceived by 

the claim.38 Another limitation is that the scenarios define non-organic content as material “made 

by a man-made chemical process.” Some consumers may not interpret this description to include 

some non-organic agricultural materials (e.g., a plant grown with the aid of pesticides or 

 

38 A consumer may respond, “disagree,” to a Q10.1 scenario because the way the “Organic” claim is applied there is 

inconsistent with her understanding of what the claim means in the marketplace, the understanding she relies on in 

making actual purchase decisions. This would signal deception. Alternatively, a consumer may respond, “disagree,” 

even if the way the claim is applied here is consistent with her understanding of what it means in the marketplace, or 

her understanding of how it is defined by regulatory authorities, if the consumer believes the way the claim is 

commonly used or defined is wrong. In that case, the claim does not actually deceive the consumer, but we register a 

“disagree” response anyway. 
32 

herbicides, but otherwise free of chemicals). Thus, this definition may limit the study results as 

applied to products that contain such non-organic material (e.g., a shampoo containing small 

amounts of lavender grown with pesticides). Finally, note that we did not test the term “USDA 

Organic.” Therefore, the results may not apply to products bearing the USDA’s certification seal, 

if this seal signals something different to the consumer than a simple use of the word “organic.” 

Although our primary results compare various scenarios to the No Non-Organic control, 

described above, other comparisons between the various scenarios are also of interest. For 

example, compared to the 5-10% Non-Organic scenario, the level of agreement is slightly higher 

(and the level of disagreement slightly lower) for the <1% and 1-5% Non-Organic scenarios, 

though the difference is not statistically significant. There is virtually no difference in responses 

between the <1% and 1-5% Non-Organic scenarios. This suggests that a small proportion of 

consumers surveyed may be sensitive to the 95% cutoff used in USDA regulations, but the effect 

is insignificant for the products tested here. 

When we describe the non-organic materials in the product as, “made by a man-made chemical 

process, but they pose no health or safety hazard to consumers,” we observe slightly more 

agreement (and slightly less disagreement) than when we describe these materials without the 

safety clause. However, the effect is too small (between 3 and 8 percentage points) to indicate 

that agreement with the claim depends on this information to a substantial proportion of 

consumers. 

When we describe the materials in the product as 100% “obtained from plants or animals or from 

the process of refining petroleum or natural gas,” we observe responses comparable to the <1% 

or 1-5% Non-Organic scenarios that did not mention petroleum or natural gas. The proportion 

agreeing (47%) in this scenario is higher, and the proportion disagreeing (26%) is lower, than 

anticipated, suggesting either that respondents did not understand the question or claim, or that 

many respondents interpret the word “organic” according to the scientific definition, i.e., any 

material containing carbon. Nevertheless, the proportion disagreeing in this scenario exceeds the 

proportion disagreeing in the No Non-Organic control by 19.8 percentage points, suggesting that 

to a significant proportion of consumers, an organic claim does not accurately describe such 

products. 

In an open-ended follow-up question (Q11), we asked respondents who disagree that the organic 

claim accurately describes the product in the given scenario to explain why they disagreed. Table 

4.2.4c below summarizes IPSOS staff’s coding of the verbatim responses, by scenario, which 

followed coding guidelines we provided. For each category, the tables report the proportion 

whose open-ended response was coded in that category, as a percentage of all responses to the 

scenario including those agreeing, disagreeing, or indecisive. The last row in each table reports 

the total percent disagreeing for each scenario. 
33 

Table 4.2.4c: Reasons for Disagreeing as a Percentage of All Responses 39

 

No 

NonOrganic 

<1% 

NonOrganic 

1-5% 

NonOrganic 

5-10% 

NonOrganic 

<1% 

NonOrganic/ 

Safe 

1-5% 

NonOrganic/ 

Safe 

5-10% 

NonOrganic/ 

Safe 

Hydrocarbons 

95% 

NonOrganic 

Man made/contains nonnatural materials 1% 9% 10% 14% 10% 9% 11% 2% 17% 

Contains chemicals/uses a 

chemical process 1% 7% 6% 7% 3% 5% 5% 7% 10% 

Not 100 percent 

natural/fully 

organic/percentage of 

product not enough to be 

organic 0% 9% 10% 11% 8% 7% 9% 0% 25% 

Contains petroleum 

products/hydrocarbon 

materials 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 9% 0% 

Contains refined 

materials/uses a 

refining/mechanical 

process 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 5% 0% 

Not organic/contains 

inorganic materials 0% 0% 1% 1% 0% 1% 1% 2% 2% 

Not referring to 

food/something edible 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% 0% 

Contains animal material 0% 0% 1% 0% 1% 0% 0% 1% 0% 

Irrelevant to product 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 1% 1% 

The word 'Organic' is 

overused 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 

Use of word 

'process'/processed 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 

Materials have been 

altered/had natural 

composition changed 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 

Not plant based 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 

Materials/ingredients 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 

Not animal based 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 

Not environmentally 

friendly/ecological 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 

Not informative 0% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 2% 1% 

Not believable 0% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 2% 

Hard to 

understand/confusing 0% 0% 1% 0% 1% 0% 0% 1% 0% 

Other 0% 0% 1% 0% 1% 0% 0% 1% 1% 

Nothing 2% 3% 3% 4% 2% 4% 2% 4% 4% 

Total Disagreeing 6% 28% 30% 34% 25% 25% 27% 26% 54% 

The most common reasons for disagreeing that that an organic claim accurately describes the 

given product refer to the type of content the product contains, either that it contains “man made” 

materials or materials that are not “natural,” or that the product “contains chemicals” or “uses a 

chemical process.” Responses of this type explain about half of the observed disagreement. In 

addition, about one-third of respondents disagreeing with the claim emphasize percentage as the 

 

39 Responses may be coded under multiple categories. 
34 

key factor, explaining that the product is not “100 percent natural,” not “fully organic,” or that 

the percentage of organic material in the product is not enough to justify the claim. The results 

are somewhat different for the Hydrocarbons scenario. The product content unique to this 

scenario, “Contains petroleum products/hydrocarbon materials” or “Contains refined 

materials/uses a refining/mechanical process,” as well as the more general category, “Contains 

chemicals/uses a chemical process,” are the most frequently cited reasons for disagreeing in this 

scenario. 

In addition to gleaning information by organizing verbatim responses into categories, we gained 

interesting insights on consumer perception of organic claims from individual responses. 

Although we did not ask respondents to suggest a more accurate claim for the product, some of 

them nevertheless suggest a qualified claim that would better describe the product. Among those 

disagreeing in the <1%, 1-5%, and 5-10% Non-Organic scenarios, some responses suggest 

labeling a product that is 5% non-organic as “95% Organic” instead. Other respondents suggest 

that respondents see organic as an all-or-nothing concept, and that the product must not contain 

any non-organic content if it carries an organic label. 

4.2.5 Consumer Perception of Organic Claims: Qualified vs. Unqualified Claims 

The other main research question in Part II of the study (Q10.2) investigated the effect of 

qualifying language on consumer perception of an organic claim, specifically when the claim 

refers to specific components or ingredients of the product. This closed-ended question used two 

different product framings (mattress and shampoo), each with either an unqualified organic claim 

or a qualified claim referring only to a specific part of the product (“Organic Fabric and Fill” for 

mattress, and “Organic Cleansing Ingredients” for shampoo).40 This yielded 4 cells (2 products x 

2 claims), each with around 260 respondents, presented with this question. Respondents then 

selected from the closed-ended answer options that best describe what part of the product, if any, 

the claim implies to be organic. Figure 4.2.5 and Table 4.2.5, below, present these results. 

 

40 The dry cleaning framing was not used for this question or subsequent questions due to sample size constraints 

and the greater prevalence of organic claims for furniture and personal care products on the marketplace. 
35 

Figure 4.2.5: Unqualified vs. Qualified Organic Claims

Table 4.2.5: Unqualified vs. Qualified Organic Claims

 

Shampoo/ 

Unqualified Claim 

Shampoo/ 

Qualified Claim 

Mattress/ 

Unqualified Claim 

Mattress/ 

Qualified Claim 

All 

ingredients/materials 

are organic. 52% 22% 40% 20% 

All cleansing 

ingredients/fabric and 

fill are organic. 17% 37% 20% 51% 

Some cleansing 

ingredients/fabric and 

fill are organic. 13% 26% 18% 17% 

None of the 

ingredients/materials 

are organic. 2% 1% 3% 2% 

Not sure 16% 14% 19% 10% 

N 258 256 256 260 

Consistent with the results of the other main question in Part II, when we asked respondents to 

choose between possible interpretations of an unqualified organic claim, the most common 

response (52% of responses for shampoo, and 40% for mattress) is that all ingredients or 

materials in the product are organic. However, when we replaced the unqualified claim with a 

qualified claim specifying which parts are organic, there is a significant decrease in the 

proportion of respondents who believe that all ingredients or materials in the product are 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Shampoo/

Unqualified Claim

Shampoo/Qualified

Claim

Mattress/

Unqualified Claim

Mattress/ Qualified

Claim

Not sure

None of the

ingredients/materials

are organic.

Some cleansing

ingredients/fabric

and fill are organic.

All cleansing

ingredients/fabric

and fill are organic.

All

ingredients/materials

are organic.
36 

organic.41 Nevertheless, when told that the product was made with organic cleansing ingredients 

or with organic fabric and fill, about one-fifth of respondents still answer that this means that all 

ingredients or materials are organic. This is consistent with results of previous questions that 

indicate a similar amount of respondent inattention or misunderstanding of the question or claim. 

These results suggest that for products with less than 100% organic content, qualified claims 

stating which parts of the product are organic are significantly less likely to mislead consumers 

than unqualified organic claims. Alternatively, a percentage qualification may also make the 

claim less misleading, as suggested by some open-ended responses to discussed in Section 4.2.4, 

though we have not directly tested claims with such a qualification in this study. 

4.2.6 Consumer Beliefs about How Organic Claims are Regulated 

Following the main research questions, we included questions probing consumer beliefs about 

the regulation of organic claims for two of the three products (mattress and shampoo). Within 

each product framing, we divided respondents into three groups, and asked each group a 

different question. One of these questions (Q12.1) asked whether the claim suggests or implies 

that the product “meets some government standard.” Alternatively, another version of the 

question (Q12.1) asked whether the claim suggests or implies that the product “is certified as 

‘organic’ by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.” A third version of this question (Q12.3) asked 

whether an alternative claim (“Refreshing Scent” for shampoo and “Soft and Comfortable” for 

mattress) suggests or implies that the product “meets some government standard.” This last 

version with an alternative claim provides a control, allowing us to test whether organic claims 

are more likely to imply government regulation than claims about other product attributes. We 

presented this question only to respondents who were given the shampoo or mattress product 

framings in previous questions, and we randomly assigned these respondents to one of these 

three possible versions of the question, keeping the same product framing. 

Respondents given the organic claim instead of the control claim in Q12 and answering “Yes,” 

that the claim is regulated, were then presented with a follow-up question (Q13) asking them to 

choose which of several options best describes how they believe the claim is regulated. The 

options included that the given entity (either “the government” or “the USDA”) “regulates the 

process used for making the product, but does not necessarily inspect the final product,” that it 

“inspects the final product to ensure that it contains only approved ingredients/materials, but 

does not necessarily regulate the process used for making the product,” or that it “regulates the 

process used for making the product and inspects the final product to ensure that it contains only 

approved ingredients/materials.” We also included a “not sure” option. Because respondents 

were only asked Q13 conditional on a “Yes” response to Q12, we combine results of Q12 and 

Q13 in Figures 4.2.6a/4.2.6b and Table 4.2.6 below.

 

41 Differences in response distributions between unqualified and qualified claims are statistically significant at the 

.05 level according to a chi-squared test. Differences in response distributions between products is statistically 

significant for qualified claim but not for unqualified claim. 
37 

Figure 4.2.6a: Beliefs about Government Regulation of Claims for a Shampoo 

Figure 4.2.6b: Beliefs about Government Regulation of Claims for a Mattress 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Organic/is

certified as

Organic by the

USDA

Organic/meets

some

government

standard

Refreshing

Scent/meets

some

government

standard

No

Not sure

Yes/not sure

Yes/inspects product

Yes/both

Yes/regulates process

Yes/no Q13 (control)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Organic/is

certified as

Organic by the

USDA

Organic/meets

some

government

standard

Soft and

Comfortable/

meets some

government

standard

No

Not sure

Yes/not sure

Yes/inspects product

Yes/both

Yes/regulates process

Yes/no Q13 (control)
38 

Table 4.2.6: Q12 and Q13 Responses 

 Shampoo Mattress 

Claim Organic Organic 

Refreshing 

Scent Organic Organic 

Soft and 

Comfortable 

Regulator USDA government government USDA government government 

Yes/regulates 

process 10% 11% 8% 12% 

Yes/inspects 

product 7% 8% 8% 7% 

Yes/both 9% 13% 9% 11% 

Yes/not sure 4% 5% 4% 4% 

Yes 30% 37% 11% 29% 34% 12% 

No 40% 33% 71% 36% 35% 71% 

Not sure 30% 30% 18% 35% 31% 17% 

N 948 949 943 950 944 948 

Roughly 35% of consumers surveyed believe that organic claims for a shampoo or mattress 

imply that the product meets some government standard, compared to about 12% for a control 

claim regarding subjective product qualities. Roughly one-third of consumers surveyed believe 

that organic claims for these products do not imply that the product meets a government 

standard, with the remainder answering “not sure.” In comparison, about 30% of consumers 

surveyed believe that organic claims for a shampoo or mattress are certified by the USDA. A 

slightly higher percentage (36%-40%) believe that such claims are not certified by the USDA, 

with the remainder responding “not sure.” 42

Respondents whose answer to Q12 is “Yes,” that the organic claim is regulated, are nearly as 

likely to believe that the given regulator inspects the final product as they are to believe that they 

regulate the process by which it is made. Across variations of questions Q12 and Q13, between 

17% and 24% of all respondents report believing that the given entity either only regulates the 

process or both regulates the process and inspects the product. Between 16% and 21% of all 

respondents report believing that the regulator either only inspects the product or both inspects 

the product and regulates the process. 43

5. LIMITATIONS 

Several limitations should be considered when weighing the study results. These limitations 

include the use of an internet panel that does not provide a probability sample (and therefore 

does not yield results that are projectable to the general population), a low response rate 

(meaning that results may exhibit some non-response bias), unexpected distributions of 

responses to some control questions (possibly indicating measurement error), and the fact that 

 

42 For both products, differences in Q12 response distributions between scenarios are statistically significant at the 

.05 level according to a chi-squared test. Difference between products for Organic/USDA scenario is also 

statistically significant. 

43 Differences in Q13 response distributions between scenarios and products are not statistically significant. 
39 

results do not necessarily provide a direct measure of deception (i.e., the results may indicate that 

consumers disagree with the definition of organic used in the study for policy reasons, rather 

than that they are deceived by the claims). Due to these possible biases, the exact response 

percentages and quantitative differences between scenarios should be regarded with some 

caution. However, we see no reason to believe that these biases would affect certain scenarios 

significantly more than others, so we interpret substantial differences in responses between 

scenarios to indicate an important qualitative difference in how consumers perceive them. 

For the types of products and claims tested in the study, the results provide valuable insight into 

consumers’ tolerance and expectations regarding non-organic material in a product bearing an 

unqualified organic claim. However, there are some notable limitations to the scope of the 

results. The study defines non-organic content as material “made by a man-made chemical 

process.” Some consumers may not interpret this description to include some non-organic 

agricultural materials (e.g., a plant grown with the aid of pesticides or herbicides, but otherwise 

free of chemicals). Thus, this definition may limit the study results as applied to products that 

contain such non-organic material (e.g., a shampoo containing small amounts of lavender grown 

with pesticides). Note also that in testing perceptions of organic claims, the study did not test the 

term “USDA Organic.” 

APPENDIX A: QUESTIONNAIRE 

Part I. Recycled Content Claims 

SORT RESPONDENTS RANDOMLY INTO 42 CELLS [(1 CLAIM x 6 SCENARIOS + 2 

CLAIMS x 4 SCENARIOS) x 3 PRODUCTS] 

CLAIMS = “Recycled”, “Pre-Consumer Recycled”, “Post-Industrial Recycled” 

PRODUCTS = storage bins, floor tiles, bowls 

SCENARIOS: see Q3 

Q1. The claim “Made with “Made with Recycled/Pre-Consumer Recycled/Post-Industrial 

Recycled Content,” may appear on some product labels or in advertisements. How well do you 

understand the meaning of this claim? 

(1) I have a very thorough understanding of what “Made with Recycled/Pre-Consumer 

Recycled/Post-Industrial Recycled Content” means. 

(2) I have some understanding of what “Made with Recycled/Pre-Consumer Recycled/PostIndustrial Recycled Content” means. 

(3) I have very little understanding of what “Made with Recycled/Pre-Consumer 

Recycled/Post-Industrial Recycled Content” means. 

(4) I have no idea what “Made with Recycled/Pre-Consumer Recycled/Post-Industrial 

Recycled Content” means. 
40 

Q2. If you see storage bins/floor tiles/bowls labeled as “Made with Recycled/Pre-Consumer 

Recycled/Post-Industrial Recycled Content,” what does that make you think about the storage 

bins/floor tiles/bowls? 

[TEXT BOX] 

Q3. Please consider the following scenario:

[INSERT 1 OF SCENARIOS A-F] 

Suppose the storage bins/floor tiles/bowls are labeled as “Made with Recycled/Pre-Consumer 

Recycled/Post-Industrial Recycled Content.” Would you agree or disagree that this statement, as 

you understand it, accurately describes the storage bins/floor tiles/bowls? 

(1) Strongly agree 

(2) Somewhat agree 

(3) Neither agree nor disagree 

(4) Somewhat disagree 

(5) Strongly disagree 

(6) Not sure 

IF Q3 RESPONSE IS (1) OR (2), SKIP TO Q5 

IF Q3 RESPONSE IS (3) OR (6), SKIP TO Q4 

Scenarios for Q3: 

A. Post-Consumer – “Recycled” Claim Only

 Some storage bins/floor tiles/bowls are made entirely from pieces of 

plastic/rubber/glass recovered after consumers dispose of them in collection bins. 

 After being collected, the plastic/rubber/glass is processed into a usable form, and 

then used to produce storage bins/floor tiles/bowls. 

B. Different product, costs more – All Claims

 Some storage bins/floor tiles/bowls are made entirely from pieces of 

plastic/rubber/glass that came from the process of making milk containers/bicycle 

tires/juice bottles. These pieces were not used in the milk containers/bicycle 

tires/juice bottles. 

 Using this plastic/rubber/glass to make the storage bins/floor tiles/bowls costs more 

than using new plastic/rubber/glass because this plastic/rubber/glass must be broken 

down and reformed before it can be fed into the storage bin/floor tile/bowl production 

line. 

C. Same product, costs more – All Claims

 Some storage bins/floor tiles/bowls are made entirely from pieces of 

plastic/rubber/glass that came from the process of making other storage bins/floor 
41 

tiles/bowls. These pieces were not used in the first set of storage bins/floor 

tiles/bowls. 

 Using this plastic/rubber/glass to make the storage bins/floor tiles/bowls costs more 

than using new plastic/rubber/glass because this plastic/rubber/glass must undergo a 

separate manufacturing process before it can be fed into the storage bin/floor 

tile/bowl production line. 

D. Same product, costs less – All Claims

 Some storage bins/floor tiles/bowls are made entirely from pieces of 

plastic/rubber/glass that came from the process of making other storage bins/floor 

tiles/bowls. These pieces were not used in the first set of storage bins/floor 

tiles/bowls. 

 Using this plastic/rubber/glass to make the storage bins/floor tiles/bowls costs less 

than using new plastic/rubber/glass because this plastic/rubber/glass only needs to be 

cleaned before it can be fed directly into the storage bin/floor tile/bowl production 

line. 

E. Different product, costs less – All Claims

 Some storage bins/floor tiles/bowls are made entirely from pieces of 

plastic/rubber/glass that came from the process of making milk containers/bicycle 

tires/juice bottles. These pieces were not used in the milk containers/bicycle 

tires/juice bottles. 

 Using this plastic/rubber/glass to make the storage bins/floor tiles/bowls costs less 

than using new plastic/rubber/glass because this plastic/rubber/glass only needs to be 

shipped to the factory and fed directly into the storage bin/floor tile/bowl production 

line. 

F. Not Recycled – “Recycled” Claim Only

 Some storage bins/floor tiles/bowls are made entirely from wood pulp/rubber/silica 

harvested from domestic forests/rubber trees/sand pits. 

 This wood pulp/rubber/silica is processed into a usable form and then used to produce 

the storage bins/floor tiles/bowls, which are made entirely from this material.

Q4. Please briefly explain why you disagreed that the statement “Made with Recycled/PreConsumer Recycled/Post-Industrial Recycled Content” accurately describes the storage 

bins/floor tiles/bowls: 

[TEXT BOX] 

IF SCENARIO=A OR SCENARIO=F OR CLAIM=”Pre-Consumer Recycled” OR 

CLAIM=”Post-Industrial Recycled”, SKIP TO Q6 

Q5. Suppose the storage bins/floor tiles/bowls are instead labeled as “Made with Pre-Consumer 

Recycled Content.” Would you agree or disagree that this statement, as you understand it, 

accurately describes the storage bins/floor tiles/bowls? 
42 

(1) Strongly agree 

(2) Somewhat agree 

(3) Neither agree nor disagree 

(4) Somewhat disagree 

(5) Strongly disagree 

(6) Not sure 

Part II. Organic Claims 

SORT RESPONDENTS RANDOMLY INTO 31 CELLS [(3 PRODUCTS x 9 Q10.1 

SCENARIOS) + (2 PRODUCTS x 2 Q10.2 CLAIMS)] 

PRODUCTS = dry cleaning service; shampoo, mattress 

CLAIMS = “Organic”, “Organic Cleansing Ingredients” (shampoo only), “Organic Fabric and 

Fill” (mattress only) 

SCENARIOS: see Q10.1 

Q6. The claim “Organic” may appear on some product labels or in advertisements. How well do 

you understand the meaning of this claim? 

(1) I have a very thorough understanding of what “Organic” means. 

(2) I have some understanding of what “Organic” means. 

(3) I have very little understanding of what “Organic” means. 

(4) I have no idea what “Organic” means. 

Q7. If you see a dry cleaning service advertised/shampoo labeled/mattress labeled as “Organic,” 

what does that make you think about the dry cleaning service/shampoo/mattress? 

[TEXT BOX] 

Q8. Suppose you see a dry cleaning service advertised/shampoo labeled/mattress labeled as 

“Organic.” Suppose you also see some apples labeled as “Organic.” Does the word “Organic” 

have the same meaning for both products? 

(1) Yes 

(2) No 

(3) Not sure 

IF Q8 RESPONSE IS (1) OR (3), SKIP TO NOTE BEFORE Q10.1 

Q9. Please briefly explain how the meaning of the word “Organic” in reference to a dry cleaning 

service/shampoo/mattress differs from the meaning of the word “Organic” in reference to an 

apple: 

[TEXT BOX] 
43 

NOTE: 27 Cells see Q10.1 [(3 Products x 9 Q10.1 Scenarios]. 4 Cells see Q10.2 (2 Products x 2 

Q10.2 Claims). 

Q10.1. Please consider the following scenario: 

 [INSERT 1 OF SCENARIOS A-I] 

Suppose the dry cleaning service is advertised/shampoo is labeled/mattress is labeled as 

“Organic.” Would you agree or disagree that the word “Organic,” as you understand it, 

accurately describes the dry cleaning service/shampoo/mattress? 

(1) Strongly agree 

(2) Somewhat agree 

(3) Neither agree nor disagree 

(4) Somewhat disagree 

(5) Strongly disagree 

(6) Not sure 

IF Q10.1 RESPONSE IS (4) OR (5), SKIP TO Q11. ELSE SKIP TO NOTE BEFORE Q12.1. 

Scenarios for Q10.1: 

A. No Non-organic 

 100% of the substances used by a dry cleaning service/ingredients in a 

shampoo/materials in a mattress were obtained from plants or animals, which were 

grown or raised without any substances that do not occur in nature. 

 None of the substances used by the dry cleaning service/ingredients in the 

shampoo/materials in the mattress were made by a man-made chemical process. 

B. Hydrocarbons 

 100% of the substances used by a dry cleaning service/ingredients in a 

shampoo/materials in a mattress were obtained from plants or animals or from the 

process of refining petroleum or natural gas. 

 No other substances are used by the dry cleaning service/ingredients are in the 

shampoo/materials are in the mattress.

C. <1% Non-organic 

 Over 99% (but not all) of the substances used by a dry cleaning service/ingredients in 

a shampoo/materials in a mattress were obtained from plants or animals, which were 

grown or raised without any substances that do not occur in nature. 

 The rest of the substances used by the dry cleaning service/ingredients in the 

shampoo/materials in the mattress were made by a man-made chemical process.

D. <1% Non-organic, Safe 
44 

 Over 99% (but not all) of the substances used by a dry cleaning service/ingredients in 

a shampoo/materials in a mattress were obtained from plants or animals, which were 

grown or raised without any substances that do not occur in nature.

 The rest of the substances used by the dry cleaning service/ingredients in the 

shampoo/materials in the mattress were made by a man-made chemical process, but 

they pose no health or safety hazard to consumers.

E. 1%-5% Non-organic 

 95% - 99% of the substances used by a dry cleaning service/ingredients in a 

shampoo/materials in a mattress were obtained from plants or animals, which were 

grown or raised without any substances that do not occur in nature. 

 The rest of the substances used by the dry cleaning service/ingredients in the 

shampoo/materials in the mattress were made by a man-made chemical process.

F. 1%-5% Non-organic, Safe 

 95% - 99% of the substances used by a dry cleaning service/ingredients in a 

shampoo/materials in a mattress were obtained from plants or animals, which were 

grown or raised without any substances that do not occur in nature. 

 The rest of the substances used by the dry cleaning service/ingredients in the 

shampoo/materials in the mattress were made by a man-made chemical process, but 

they pose no health or safety hazard to consumers.

G. 5%-10% Non-organic 

 90% - 95% of the substances used by a dry cleaning service/ingredients in a 

shampoo/materials in a mattress were obtained from plants or animals, which were 

grown or raised without any substances that do not occur in nature. 

 The rest of the substances used by the dry cleaning service/ingredients in the 

shampoo/materials in the mattress were made by a man-made chemical process.

H. 5%-10% Non-organic, Safe 

 90% - 95% of the substances used by a dry cleaning service/ingredients in a 

shampoo/materials in a mattress were obtained from plants or animals, which were 

grown or raised without any substances that do not occur in nature. 

 The rest of the substances used by the dry cleaning service/ingredients in the 

shampoo/materials in the mattress were made by a man-made chemical process, but 

they pose no health or safety hazard to consumers.

I. 95% Non-organic 

 5% of the substances used by a dry cleaning service/ingredients in a 

shampoo/materials in a mattress were obtained from plants or animals, which were 

grown or raised without any substances that do not occur in nature. 

 The rest of the substances used by the dry cleaning service/ingredients in the 

shampoo/materials in the mattress were made by a man-made chemical process. 

NOTE: For Q10.2, if Product = shampoo, then Claim = “Organic” or “Organic Cleansing 

Ingredients.” If Product = mattress, then Claim = “Organic or “Organic Fabric and Fill.” 
45 

Q10.2. Suppose you see a shampoo/mattress labeled as “Organic/Organic Cleansing 

Ingredients/Organic Fabric and Fill.” Which of the following best describes the 

shampoo/mattress? 

(1) All ingredients/materials in the shampoo/mattress are organic. It contains no 

ingredients/materials that are not organic. 

(2) All cleansing ingredients/fabric and fill in the shampoo/mattress are organic, but the 

shampoo/mattress may contain other ingredients/materials (such as preservatives/thread) 

that are not organic. 

(3) Some cleansing ingredients/fabric and fill in the shampoo/mattress are organic, but the 

shampoo/mattress may contain other cleansing ingredients/fabric and fill that are not 

organic. 

(4) None of the ingredients in the shampoo/mattress are organic. 

(5) Not sure 

IF Q10.1, PROCEED TO Q11. IF Q10.2, SKIP TO NOTE BEFORE Q12.1. 

Q11. Please briefly explain why you disagreed that the word “Organic” accurately describes the 

dry cleaning service/shampoo/mattress: 

[TEXT BOX] 

IF PRODUCT=”dry cleaning service”, SKIP TO Q14 

NOTE: Respondents who see Product = “mattress” or Product = “shampoo” are sorted randomly 

such that one-third see Q12.1 and Q13.1, one-third see Q12.2 and Q13.2, and one-third see 

Q12.3. Respondents who see Product = “dry cleaning service” skip Q12 and Q13.

Q12.1 

Suppose you see a shampoo/mattress labeled as “Organic.” Does this statement suggest or imply 

that the shampoo/mattress meets some government standard? 

(1) Yes 

(2) No 

(3) Not sure 

IF Q12.1 RESPONSE IS (2) OR (3), SKIP TO Q14 

Q12.2. Suppose you see a shampoo/mattress labeled as “Organic.” Does this statement suggest 

or imply that the product is certified as “Organic” by the U.S. Department of Agriculture 

(“USDA”)? 
46 

(1) Yes 

(2) No 

(3) Not sure 

IF Q12.2 RESPONSE IS (2) OR (3), SKIP TO Q14 

Q13.1. Which of the following most accurately describes what the word “Organic” implies about 

the shampoo/mattress? 

(1) The government regulates the process used for making the product, but does not necessarily 

inspect the final product. 

 

(2) The government inspects the final product to ensure that it contains only approved 

ingredients/materials, but does not necessarily regulate the process used for making the product. 

 

(3) The government regulates the process used for making the product and inspects the final 

product to ensure that it contains only approved ingredients/materials. 

(4) Not sure 

Q13.2. Which of the following most accurately describes what the word “Organic” implies about 

the shampoo/mattress? 

(1) The USDA regulates the process used for making the product, but does not necessarily 

inspect the final product. 

 

(2) The USDA inspects the final product to ensure that it contains only approved 

ingredients/materials, but does not necessarily regulate the process used for making the product. 

 

(3) The USDA regulates the process used for making the product and inspects the final product 

to ensure that it contains only approved ingredients/materials. 

(4) Not sure 

Q12.3 Suppose you see a shampoo/mattress labeled as “Refreshing Scent/Soft and 

Comfortable.” Does this statement suggest or imply that the shampoo/mattress meets some 

government standard? 

(1) Yes 

(2) No 

(3) Not sure 

Part III. Environmental Interest and Demographics 
47 

Q14. How would you describe your awareness of environmental issues? 

(1) Not at all aware 

(2) Somewhat aware 

(3) Fairly aware 

(4) Very aware 

(5) Extremely aware 

Q15. How would you describe your awareness of the environmental costs and benefits of 

products you consider purchasing? 

(1) Not at all aware 

(2) Somewhat aware 

(3) Fairly aware 

(4) Very aware 

(5) Extremely aware 

Q16. How often do environmental costs and benefits affect your decisions of which products to 

purchase? 

(1) Never 

(2) Rarely 

(3) Sometimes 

(4) Often 

(5) Always 

Q17. Are you...? 

(1) Male 

(2) Female 

Q18. In what state or territory do you currently reside? 

[LIST STATES] 

Q19. What is your age? 

(1) 18-29 

(2) 30-39 

(3) 40-49 

(4) 50-59 

(5) 60-69 

(6) 70+ 

Q20. What is the highest level of education you have completed or the highest degree you have 

received? 
48 

(1) Less than high school 

(2) Some high school 

(3) High school diploma 

(4) Some college 

(5) Associate degree 

(6) Bachelor’s degree 

(7) Some graduate school 

(8) Master’s degree 

(9) Professional degree 

(10) Doctoral degree 

Q21. Are you of Hispanic or Latino origin? 

(1) Yes, of Hispanic origin 

(2) No, not of Hispanic origin 

(3) Decline to answer 

Q22. Please choose one or more categories to indicate your race. Are you...? 

(1) White 

(2) Black or African American 

(3) Asian 

(4) American Indian or Alaska Native 

(5) Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 

(6) Decline to answer 

APPENDIX B: DEMOGRAPHICS 

Gender 2010 Census Study Sample 

Male 48.5% 48.5% 

Female 51.5% 51.5% 

Race 2010 Census Study Sample 

White 74.8% 82.5% 

Black 13.6% 10.0% 

Asian 5.6% 4.9% 

American Indian/Alaskan 

Native 1.7% 1.9% 

Native Hawaiian/Pacific 

Islander 0.4% 0.4% 

Hispanic/Latino 16.3% 11.2% 

 

Age 2010 Census Study Sample 

 18 to 24 years 13.1% 12.5% 

 25 to 34 years 17.5% 17.3% 
49 

 35 to 44 years 17.5% 17.5% 

 45 to 54 years 19.2% 19.5% 

 55 to 64 years 15.6% 15.6% 

 65 to 74 years 9.3% 13.7% 

 75 to 84 years 5.6% 3.5% 

 85 years and over 2.3% 0.4% 

 

Education 2014 CPS Study Sample 

Less than H.S. 4.3% 0.54% 

Some H.S. 8.0% 3.22% 

H.S. Grad 29.6% 25.64% 

Some College 19.4% 25.08% 

Associates 9.4% 9.89% 

Bachelors 18.9% 24.14% 

Masters 7.5% 8.66% 

Professional 1.3% 1.55% 

Doctoral 1.6% 1.29% 

State 2010 Census Study Sample 

 Alabama 1.5% 1.4% 

 Alaska 0.2% 0.1% 

 Arizona 2.1% 2.1% 

 Arkansas 0.9% 0.9% 

 California 12.1% 10.8% 

 Colorado 1.6% 1.9% 

 Connecticut 1.2% 1.1% 

 Delaware 0.3% 0.5% 

 District of Columbia 0.2% 0.2% 

 Florida 6.1% 6.7% 

 Georgia 3.1% 3.2% 

 Hawaii 0.4% 0.3% 

 Idaho 0.5% 0.6% 

 Illinois 4.2% 4.1% 

 Indiana 2.1% 1.9% 

 Iowa 1.0% 1.2% 

 Kansas 0.9% 0.6% 

 Kentucky 1.4% 1.8% 

 Louisiana 1.5% 1.1% 

 Maine 0.4% 0.4% 

 Maryland 1.9% 1.9% 

 Massachusetts 2.1% 1.6% 

 Michigan 3.2% 3.1% 

 Minnesota 1.7% 1.8% 

 Mississippi 1.0% 0.6% 

 Missouri 1.9% 1.9% 

 Montana 0.3% 0.3% 
50 

 Nebraska 0.6% 0.6% 

 Nevada 0.9% 1.0% 

 New Hampshire 0.4% 0.3% 

 New Jersey 2.8% 3.3% 

 New Mexico 0.7% 0.5% 

 New York 6.3% 7.1% 

 North Carolina 3.1% 3.0% 

 North Dakota 0.2% 0.1% 

 Ohio 3.7% 4.2% 

 Oklahoma 1.2% 0.9% 

 Oregon 1.2% 1.7% 

 Pennsylvania 4.1% 4.4% 

 Rhode Island 0.3% 0.3% 

 South Carolina 1.5% 1.6% 

 South Dakota 0.3% 0.3% 

 Tennessee 2.1% 2.3% 

 Texas 8.1% 7.3% 

 Utah 0.9% 0.9% 

 Vermont 0.2% 0.1% 

 Virginia 2.6% 2.7% 

 Washington 2.2% 2.5% 

 West Virginia 0.6% 0.5% 

 Wisconsin 1.8% 2.3% 

 Wyoming 0.2% 0.2% 

APPENDIX C: ADDITIONAL TABLES

Table C.1: General Open-ended Response Length and Time Spent on Survey 

 Mean Min Max 10th% 25th% 50th% 75th% 90th% 

Q2 Response Length (characters) 45 1 244 7 18 38 61 92 

Q7 Response Length (characters) 41 1 244 7 13 31 56 87 

Time Spent (minutes:seconds) 10:25 1:09 544:11 3:24 4:42 6:47 10:25 16:49 

Table C.2: Coded explanations for why the word “Organic” does not 

have the same meaning for this product as it does for an apple 

 Dry cleaning Shampoo Mattress 

Materials/ingredients/process of being made 26% 20% 23% 

Natural 25% 20% 21% 

No/less chemicals/additives/gmo's 11% 10% 10% 

Natural ingredients/materials 1% 2% 1% 

Edible 0% 0% 0% 

Not edible 0% 0% 0% 

Food 0% 0% 1% 

Healthy/good for you 0% 0% 0% 

Clean 0% 0% 0% 
51 

Environmentally friendly 0% 0% 0% 

Good/quality product 0% 0% 0% 

Not referring to food 0% 0% 0% 

Fresh 0% 0% 0% 

Poor quality product 0% 0% 0% 

Other 1% 1% 1% 

Nothing 8% 5% 8% 

Total Q8 No’s 42% 31% 37% 

Table C.3: (Q14) How would you describe your awareness of environmental issues?

 # % 

Not at all aware 401 5% 

Somewhat aware 3622 45% 

Fairly aware 2587 32% 

Very aware 1033 13% 

Extremely aware 372 5% 

Total 8015 100% 

Table C.4: (Q15) How would you describe your awareness of the environmental 

costs and benefits of products you consider purchasing? 

 # % 

Not at all aware 1201 15% 

Somewhat aware 3224 40% 

Fairly aware 2459 31% 

Very aware 822 10% 

Extremely aware 309 4% 

Total 8015 100% 

Table C.5: (Q16) How often do environmental costs and benefits 

affect your decisions of which products to purchase?

 # % 

Never 860 11% 

Rarely 2012 25% 

Sometimes 3661 46% 

Often 1181 15% 

Always 301 4% 

Total 8015 100% 
52 

APPENDIX D: Q10.1 RESULTS FOR INDIVIDUAL PRODUCTS 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

No

Artificial

<1% Art. 1‐5% Art. 5‐10% Art. <1%

Art.+Safe

1‐5%

Art.+Safe

5‐10%

Art.+Safe

Hydro‐

carbons

95%

Artificial

Agreement with "Organic" Claim ‐ Dry Cleaning Service

Strongly agree Somewhat agree Neither agree nor disagree

Not sure Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree
53 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

No

Artificial

<1% Art. 1‐5% Art. 5‐10% Art. <1%

Art.+Safe

1‐5%

Art.+Safe

5‐10%

Art.+Safe

Hydro‐

carbons

95%

Artificial

Agreement with "Organic" Claim ‐ Shampoo

Strongly agree Somewhat agree Neither agree nor disagree

Not sure Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

No

Artificial

<1% Art. 1‐5% Art. 5‐10% Art. <1%

Art.+Safe

1‐5%

Art.+Safe

5‐10%

Art.+Safe

Hydro‐

carbons

95%

Artificial

Agreement with "Organic" Claim ‐ Mattress

Strongly agree Somewhat agree Neither agree nor disagree

Not sure Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree