November 25, 2025

U.S. West Consumer Preferences for Specialty Labeled Processed Foods

 A variety of specialty bottled food sitting on a table

Introduction

Highlights

  • Producers, food makers, and processors can use this fact sheet’s information to improve decision-making related to product development, pricing, placement, and promotion.
  • Survey results suggest that while consumers view both organic and local products favorably, health and safety attributes are important for organic products, and freshness and taste attributes are more important for local products.
  • Product options that included two labels were valued higher than the products that only included one specialty label.
  • Consumers’ willingness to pay underscores the value consumers place on specialty production practices.

In the United States, consumer demand for specialty processed foods is increasingly centered on natural, organic, and local offerings that represent health and ethical values. In 2023, organic food sales reached approximately $63.8 billion, reflecting a 3.4% increase from the previous year, with packaged food categories such as sauces, baked goods, and baby foods leading the growth (Gillco, 2022). Health remains the strongest motivator for organic food consumption, with more than 55% of consumers choosing organic foods to avoid pesticides and synthetic additives (Funk & Kennedy, 2016). While only about one-third of consumers believe organic foods taste better, this perception is significantly higher among frequent organic food buyers (Funk & Kennedy, 2016).

Preferences for locally labelled foods are also prominent as consumers associate local sourcing with supporting the regional economy, greater variety, and healthier options (Stanton et al., 2018). Farmers markets amplify this demand by fostering community connections and strengthening consumer trust. These values align with the growing clean label movement, in which shoppers prioritize minimally processed foods free from artificial additives, preservatives, or hormones, and seek transparency in ingredient lists (GlobeNewswire, 2024; Williams, 2023).

A study was conducted by Utah State University (USU) in the fall of 2024 to determine western U.S. consumer preferences and willingness to pay (WTP) for specialty labelled processed food products. Qualtrics collected study data from consumers using an online survey via the Qualtrics response system. A total of 1,282 responses were collected from all U.S. western states and territories. The following fact sheet provides an overview of study results in terms of respondent preferences for specialty labeled processed foods. Specifically, consumer knowledge and familiarity with various specialty production and labeling programs, including organic, local, grass-fed, and non-GMO, were examined, along with specialty food consumption habits and attitudes. Finally, consumer pricing preferences for each of the three processed products examined are discussed.

The information included in this fact sheet can be used by producers, food makers, and processors to improve decision-making related to product development, pricing, placement, and promotion. Additional fact sheets in this series examine consumer preferences and consumption habits for processed foods, as well as target market identification for three specific processed products.

Results Overview

Specialty Food Label Familiarity and Attitudes

Respondents were asked to indicate their familiarity on a scale of 1 to 5 (not at all familiar to extremely familiar) with various specialty production and labeling programs, specifically the “certified organic,” “locally grown,” “non-GMO,” and “grass-fed” programs. There was minimal variation in their familiarity across programs and less than a third, or approximately 25% to 27% of the respondents, reported being very familiar or extremely familiar with any one program. Respondents were most familiar with the grass-fed program and least familiar with the non-GMO program.

Similarly, respondents were asked to indicate how often they consumed foods with these specialty labels. As shown in Table 1, respondents consumed organic and locally grown foods more often than grass-fed or non-GMO foods, with just over 36% and 37% consuming organic and locally grown foods at least once a week, respectively. Fewer respondents (31%) consume grass-fed products at least once week.

Table 1. Specialty Labeled Food Consumption

Table 2. Package Label/Information Review Frequency
Specialty label Never Once a month or
less		 Several times a
month		 Once a week Several times a
week
Organic 11.23% 25.51% 26.83% 14.04% 22.39%
Non-GMO 15.44% 22.07% 27.77% 15.05% 19.66%
Grass-fed 17.00% 26.37% 25.43% 16.54% 14.66%
Locally grown 8.74% 23.95% 30.19% 15.91% 21.22%

To assess respondent attitudes, they were asked to rate their agreement (strongly agree to strongly disagree) with statements about organic products. As shown in Figure 1, respondents agreed most with the statement “Organic products are too expensive,” with 71% of the respondents somewhat agreeing or strongly agreeing. This suggests that price may be a barrier to organic purchases for some consumers. The statement respondents agreed with the least was “Organic products are not important to me,” as only 31% of the respondents somewhat agreed or strongly agreed with the statement. Respondents agreed heavily with statements that organic products are healthier, safer, and fresher.

Figure 1. Organic Product AttitudesHorizontal bar chart showing consumer agreement with seven statements about organic products. For ‘Organic products are healthier than conventional products,’ most respondents selected ‘Somewhat agree’ and ‘Strongly agree,’ with very few disagreeing. The pattern is similar for statements about organic products being fresher, safer, and better tasting, with agreement dominating across categories. For ‘Organic products are too expensive,’ a large majority selected ‘Somewhat agree’ or ‘Strongly agree.’ For ‘The selection of organic products isn’t good,’ responses are mixed, leaning slightly toward agreement. For ‘Organic products are not important to me,’ most respondents disagreed, indicating that organic products are generally considered important. The chart includes five response categories: Strongly disagree, Somewhat disagree, Neither agree nor disagree, Somewhat agree, and Strongly agree.

Additionally, respondents were asked to rate their agreement with statements about local products (see Figure 2). Respondents agreed most with the statement “Local products benefit local farmers,” with more than half (51%) of the respondents strongly agreeing and an additional 30% of the respondents somewhat agreeing. At least half of the respondents also somewhat agreed or strongly agreed with the statements “Local products are fresher than nonlocal products” and “Local products taste better than nonlocal products.” Respondents agreed the least with the statement “Local products are not important to me,” with only 25% of the respondents agreeing.

Figure 2. Local Product Attitudes
Horizontal bar chart displaying consumer agreement levels with eight statements about local food products. For the statements ‘Local products are healthier,’ ‘Local products are fresher,’ ‘Local products are safer,’ and ‘Local products taste better,’ most respondents chose ‘Somewhat agree’ or ‘Strongly agree,’ showing strong positive perceptions. For ‘Local products are too expensive,’ responses are mixed, with many selecting ‘Neither agree nor disagree,’ though some agreement is evident. For ‘The selection of local products isn’t good,’ responses vary widely, leaning slightly toward disagreement. For ‘Local products are not important to me,’ most respondents disagree, indicating local products are considered important. For ‘Local products benefit local farmers,’ a strong majority selected ‘Somewhat agree’ or ‘Strongly agree.’ The chart includes five response categories: Strongly disagree, Somewhat disagree, Neither agree nor disagree, Somewhat agree, and Strongly agree.

A circular green logo with the words "USDA Organic" in the center

When comparing respondent agreement ratings across statements for organic products and local products, respondents agreed more with statements about organic products being healthier, safer, and too expensive than they agreed with similar statements about local products. However, respondents agreed more with statements about local products being fresher and tasting better than they did with similar statements about organic products. These results suggest that while consumers view both organic and local products favorably, health and safety attributes are important for organic products, and freshness and taste attributes are more important for local products.

Willingness to Pay for Specialty Labeled Processed Food Products

Through a bidding process, respondent WTP or pricing was calculated for three processed foods: beef jerky, tart cherry juice, and mild salsa, each with various specialty labels. Respondents were willing to pay the most for the 8-ounce beef jerky labeled organic and grass-fed, closely followed by the beef jerky product labeled local and grass-fed (see Figure 3). The non-labeled beef jerky was valued at least $2.53 less than the other jerky products. The products with two labels were valued at least $0.60 more than products with only one label. Among the products with only one label, grass-fed beef jerky had the highest value.

Figure 3. WTP for Beef Jerky Products (8-ounce package)
A bar chart showing consumers’ mean willingness to pay (WTP) in dollars for different product labels. Organic, Local, and Grass-fed products each have mean WTP values just under $12. Local & organic, Organic & grass-fed, and Local & grass-fed all show slightly higher WTP, around $12 to $12.50. The Non-labeled option has the lowest WTP at about $9.

A countertop with a pink backsplash with a small box of charries and bottles of red liquid

Respondents were willing to pay the most for the local and organic labeled tart cherry juice (32 ounces; see Figure 4). The product options that included two specialty labels were valued at least $0.24 higher than those with only a single label. The highest-valued single label was organic, valued at $6.25 for a 32-ounce bottle. The least valued single label was non-GMO at $5.87. Consumers were willing to pay the least for non-labeled tart cherry juice, at least $1.01 less than any of the labeled products.

Figure 4. WTP for Tart Cherry Juice Products (32-ounce bottle)
The bar chart titled “Mean WTP ($)” compares willingness to pay for seven labeling claims. From left to right, the mean WTP values are: Non-GMO at about $5.8, Organic at about $6.3, Local at about $6.0, Organic and Non-GMO at about $6.6, Local and Non-GMO at about $6.5, Local and Organic at about $6.6, and Non-labeled at about $4.9. Overall, consumers show the highest willingness to pay for combination labels and the lowest for non-labeled products.

Respondents were willing to pay the most for local and organic labeled mild salsa (16 ounces; see Figure 5). Again, all product options that included two labels were valued higher than the products that only included one specialty label. The organic salsa was the single label valued most at $3.75, while non-GMO was the single label least valued. The non-labeled salsa was valued least at $2.78, $0.68 or more below all the other options.

Figure 5. WTP for Mild Salsa Products (16-ounce bottle)
A bar chart displays consumers’ mean willingness to pay (WTP) for different labeling claims on a product. Values are shown in dollars along the vertical axis, ranging from $0 to $4. The horizontal axis lists six label categories: Non-GMO, Organic, Local, Organic and non-GMO, Local and non-GMO, Local and organic, and Non-labeled. Bars for all labeled categories fall between roughly $3.30 and $4.00, with Local and organic showing the highest mean WTP at about $4.00. The Non-labeled option shows the lowest mean WTP at approximately $2.70. The chart indicates that consumers are willing to pay more for products with labeling claims, especially combinations of local and organic attributes.

Across all three processed products, respondents were willing to pay more for products with two specialty labels, especially compared to products with no labels, showing that consumers value labels and are willing to pay premiums for products with the labeled characteristics.

Conclusions

Green logo with a plant sprout on the top and "locallu grown" writen in cursive in the center

This publication demonstrates that consumers in the western U.S. place significant value on specialty labels such as organic, local, grass-fed, and non-GMO when purchasing processed food products. While familiarity with these programs was moderate, organic and locally labeled product consumption occurred most frequently, indicating that health, safety, freshness, and taste remain strong motivators. Price continues to be a barrier, especially for organic products, but some consumers value both organic and local foods due to their perceived health benefits, safety, and contributions to local economies.

Across all three processed food products studied (beef jerky, tart cherry juice, and salsa), consumers consistently demonstrated a willingness to pay more for items carrying specialty labels, particularly those with combined labels. This willingness underscores the value consumers place on specialty production practices. For food producers and processors, these results indicate that offering products with credible specialty certifications and clear labeling can capture consumer demand and justify premium pricing in the marketplace.

Recommendations

  • Prioritize specialty labels—especially dual-label combinations (e.g., organic + local)—to capture higher consumer willingness to pay.
  • Emphasize the following key consumer values in marketing.
    • Organic: highlight health and safety benefits.
    • Local: highlight freshness, taste, and support for local farmers.
  • Improve transparency in labeling and educate consumers about less familiar labels, such as non-GMO.
  • Address price sensitivity by:
    • Offering smaller or more affordable package sizes.
    • Highlighting the added value of products with multiple specialty labels.
    • Communicating long-term benefits of healthier or safer options.
  • Strengthen market presence through partnerships with retailers, farmers markets, and online platforms that emphasize specialty and clean label foods.
  • Use clear, consistent branding to build consumer trust and reduce confusion in the specialty food marketplace.

Acknowledgments

Funding for this publication was made possible by a grant/cooperative agreement from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Agricultural Marketing Service. Its contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the USDA.

The authors used ChatGPT to generate the “Recommendations” section from the fact sheet text, which the authors edited to ensure accuracy. Authors take full responsibility for the content.

References

Utah State University Extension Peer Reviewed verification logo

November 2025
Utah State University Extension
Peer-reviewed fact sheet

Download PDF

Authors

Kynda Curtis, Professor and USU Extension Specialist, Department of Applied Economics; Makaylie Langford, Research Assistant, Department of Applied Economics; Karin Allen, Associate Professor and USU Extension Specialist, Department of Nutrition, Dietetics, and Food Sciences; Ruby Ward, Professor and USU Extension Specialist, Department of Applied Economics

Kynda Curtis

Kynda Curtis

Food Systems Specialist

APEC Dept

Phone: (435) 797-0444
Office Location: Logan Campus | FL207A
Karin Allen

Karin Allen

Food Quality & Entrepreneurship Specialist

NDFS Dept

Phone: (435) 797-1768
Office Location: Logan Campus | NFS 328A
Ruby Ward

Ruby Ward

Agricultural Entrepreneurship Specialist

APEC Dept

Phone: 435-797-2323
Office Location: Logan Campus | AGRS 224
 

Related Research

Events

View Events Near You

Learn More

Take an Online Course Tips SIGN UP Find an Event