Taking a Stand through Food Choices? : Characteristics of Political Food Consumption and Consumers in Finland

Taking a S and h ough Food Choices? Cha ac e is ics o Poli ical Food Consump ion and Consume s in Finland Ma i Ni a · Piia Jallinoja Ma i Ni a Facul y o Educa ional Sciences Uni e si y o Helsinki P. O. Box 9 (Sil a uo enpenge 10) FI-00014 Uni e si y o Helsinki, Finland [email p o ec ed] Tel. +358 29 412 0916, +358 50 574 4967 Piia Jallinoja Facul y o Social Sciences Uni e si y o Tampe e P. O. Box 100 FI-33014 Uni e si y o Tampe e, Finland piia.jallinoja@u a. i Tel. +358 50 437 7047 This is he pos p in e sion o he a icle, which has been published in Ecological Economics, 2018, Volume 154, 349-360. h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.08.013 2 Taking a s and h ough ood choices? Cha ac e is ics o poli ical ood consump ion and consume s in Finland Abs ac This s udy looks a ood as a ealm o poli ical consump ion by examining buyco ing and boyco ing o oods o e hical, poli ical o en i onmen al easons in Finland. The esul s o an In e ne -based su ey (N=1,021) showed ha a ound hal o he esponden s o en o occasionally bo h buyco ed and boyco ed oods. Mul inomial eg ession models indica ed ha women, he highly educa ed, he poli ical le , hose who dona ed o cha i y, hose whose ood choices we e mo i a ed by domes ic o igin and e hical ood p oduc ion, and hose who us ed ha consump ion choices, ins i u ional ac o s and he media can ad ance e hical ood p oduc ion and consump ion, we e mos likely o be ac i e in buyco ing and boyco ing. Buyco e s/boyco e s we e e y ac i e in buying local ood bu less eage , o ins ance, o buy o ganic o Fai T ade p oduc s o o educe he use o mea o milk. The a icle concludes by c i ically assessing he complex ela ionship be ween buyco ing/boyco ing and sus ainable p ac ices and sugges ing ha consume s may be mo e willing o ans o m hei ea ing pa e ns i o he socie al ac o s, oo, make an e o o in luence e hical ood consump ion. Keywo ds (4-6) boyco ing; buyco ing; ood; poli ical consump ion; su ey 3 1 In oduc ion Since consump ion pa e ns ela ed o housing, a ic, and ood a e signi ican sou ces o g eenhouse gas emissions and o he en i onmen al p oblems (Nissinen e al., 2015), he deba es on he ole o consump ion in ad ancing sus ainabili y a e now p ominen bo h in e e yday li e, he media and a ious poli ical s a egies. In social and poli ical s udies since he la e 1990s, p ac ices ha y o con ibu e o sus ainable ansi ions ha e been e med as en i onmen ally iendly, sus ainable, e hical, conce ned, esponsible, o poli ical, because hey expand he ocus om sel - ega ding p e e ences in consump ion, such as p ice o sa e y, in o wide socie al conce ns (e.g., Ba ne e al., 2011; Bos öm e al., 2005; Michele i, 2003; Sassa elli, 2014; S olle and Michele i, 2013). In he classic discussion on poli ical consume ism, Michele i (2003) e e ed o hese di e en o ien a ions as “p i a e i ues” and “public i ues”, hus making a concep ual di e ence be ween sel -in e es and al uism, bu a he same ime no ing ha in poli ical consump ion p ac ices, hese wo i ues end o be ied oge he . Poli ical consump ion has been de ined as consume s using he ma ke o become poli ically ac i e and as consump ion ha includes “social, cul u al and animal- ela ed conce ns ha go beyond he immedia e sel -in e es s o he indi idual consume o household” (Klin man and Bos öm, 2006, 401). The phenomenon has been analysed om a a ie y o pe spec i es including also c i ical deba es. Fi s , poli ical consump ion has been in e p e ed as an inc ease o mo e pe sonalized o ms o poli ical pa icipa ion and ci izen mobiliza ion a ound economic jus ice, en i onmen al p o ec ion, human igh s and animal wel a e (Benne , 2012). In such discou ses, poli ical consump ion is celeb a ed as an in luen ial means o ci izens o enew democ acy and de elop consciousness abou he socie al consequences o consump ion (Willis and Scho , 2012), exe poli ical p essu e on go e nmen s and companies, make a di e ence a he le el o e e yday li e, and become empowe ed h ough “indi idualized collec i e ac ion” (Michele i, 2003). Second, i has been asked whe he placing he esponsibili y o global sus ainable ansi ion on consume s is jus i ied, o whe he o he measu es a he le el o he poli ical sys em may be mo e legi ima e and e ec i e (e.g., Jacobsen and Duls ud, 2007; Kjæ nes, 2012). Resea che s c i ical o he idea o poli ical consume ism ha e no ed ha a ious complexi ies o e e yday li e and se e al compe ing social esponsibili ies and mo al commi men s, o ins ance wi hin he amily, may no be easily econciled wi h making delibe a e and so e eign ma ke choices based on e hical conside a ions (Jacobsen and Duls ud, 2007). I is also e iden ha social, cul u al and 4 economic di isions such as hose based on educa ion and income, place o li ing, and in e es in socie al issues c ea e unequal oppo uni ies o people o ake pa in making e hical choices on he ma ke (e.g., Ca agna e al., 2014; Fe e -Fons and F aile, 2014; Michele i e al., 2012). A hi d pe spec i e on poli ical consume ism is based on he no ion ha in he age o indi idualisa ion and e osion o adi ional communi ies, pa icipa ion in consump ion pa e ns aiming a a mo e sus ainable wo ld may be a means o people o build new social ies, collec i e iden i ies and a sense o belonging in “imagined communi ies” (Long, 2010; Ande son, 1983). In la e mode n socie ies, his akes place pa icula ly h ough consump ion p ac ices and li es yles (Giddens, 1991; see also Bild gå d, 2008). This app oach asks whe he poli ical consume ism is p ima ily abou indi iduals in en ionally aiming a changing he ma ke o whe he i is be e concep ualised as la e mode n iden i y building. In he la e , endiness and pleasu e pu sui s may equal o e en o e ake sus ainabili y conce ns, as exempli ied in he ecen ise o eganism and he popula i y o egan p oduc s no only among egans bu omni o es and lexi a ians, oo (Jallinoja e al., 2018). Poli ical consump ion in e e yday pu chase p ac ices akes a a ie y o o ms: p oduc s can be boyco ed (a oided) o exp ess poli ical sen imen , o hey can be “buyco ed” ( a ou ed) o show suppo o he alues he p oduc ep esen s (Michele i and S olle, 2006). People may buy eco- labelled, o ganic, ai ade o animal- iendly p oduc s, o e ain om buying p oduc s ha a e seen as e hically p oblema ic. While buyco ing signi ies con o ming o making a di e ence h ough he ma ke , boyco ing may also ep esen a esis ance o consume is alues h ough abs aining om buying. Howe e , Neilson (2010) a gues ha buyco ing equi es mo e delibe a ion and e o han boyco ing, and ha he o me can be seen as a “ ewa ding s a egy” whe eas he la e is be e desc ibed as a “p o es s a egy.” Copeland (2014) ound ha buyco ing is associa ed wi h no ms o “engaged” and boyco ing wi h no ms o “du i ul” ci izenship. Since boyco e s end o be less us ing owa ds na ional (Koos, 2012) o poli ical ins i u ions (Copeland, 2014), boyco ing may be mo e cha ged wi h poli ical meaning han buyco ing. In addi ion, poli ical consump ion ela es no only o boyco ing and buyco ing, bu also o discu si e s a egies and li es yle poli ics (Michele i and S olle, 2012). E e yday p ac ices may be cha ac e ised by all o hese ou o ms: o ins ance, ege a ians buy ege a ian o egan p oduc s (buyco ), ejec mea p oduc s (boyco ), engage in discou ses on ege a ianism/ eganism, and y o change hei li es yles (see, e.g., de Rezende, 2014). 5 The e is a s ong adi ion o analysing buyco ing and boyco ing as a gene al ca ego y (e.g., he Eu opean Social Su ey 2002/2003, see Fe e -Fons and F aile, 2014; Neilson, 2010; Neilson and Pax on, 2010; Sando ici and Da is, 2010), a he han o pa icula p oduc ypes. Al hough he e is an ample body o esea ch on e hical and sus ainable ood consump ion, s udies on buyco ing and boyco ing ha e no ocused on ood in pa icula . We chose o ocus on ood, in o de o gain a mo e de ailed pic u e o how buyco ing and boyco ing o ood is associa ed wi h pe cep ions and p ac ices ela ing o sus ainable ood choices. Ea ing, as many o he sphe es o consump ion, is o a good pa a ou inised e e yday phenomenon and changing hese ou ines equi es e o and a suppo ing social and cul u al en i onmen (Wa de, 2016). Food and ea ing ela ed choices a e made mul iple imes each day a homes, g oce y shops, school and wo kplace can eens, ca es and es au an s, and buying, p epa ing and ea ing ood cons i u es a subs an ial pa o people’s daily hy hms and ime use (Holm e al., 2016; Pääkkönen and Hani i, 2012). Wha is pa icula ly cha ac e is ic o cu en ood ela ed discou ses and p ac ices is ha ood is a highly mo alized sphe e o consump ion and a ealm o “poli ico-e hical p oblema isa ion” (Sassa elli and Da olio, 2010, 226). Public discou ses on ood a e loaded on he one hand wi h an e hos o ee choice and enjoymen , and on he o he hand wi h public policy e o s ha encou age people o go e n hei ea ing in o de o adop heal hie and mo e sus ainable ood consump ion pa e ns (G onow, 2015; Jallinoja e al., 2016a; Sassa elli, 2004). In he p esen s udy we chose o ocus on boyco ing and buyco ing o ood, since we wan ed o explo e he daily pu chasing p ac ices, i.e., he mundane e e yday ac i i ies ha all consume s a e aced wi h equen ly. While ocusing on boyco ing and buyco ing, we ake in o accoun Julie Gu hman’s (2008) sugges ion ha con empo a y ood ac i ism in e sec s wi h neolibe al a ionali ies such as consume choice, localism, and sel -imp o emen . We aim o explo e poli ical consump ion as “eme ging in he cu en age o globaliza ion, In e ne communica ion, […] indi idualiza ion and enhanced consume choice” (S olle and Michele i, 2013, 202). Agains his backg ound, we analyse (a) o wha ex en Finnish consume s engage in buyco ing and/o boyco ing ood p oduc s o e hical, poli ical o en i onmen al easons, (b) how buyco ing and boyco ing a e linked wi h ood- ela ed p ac ices ha a e ega ded as sus ainable, and (c) how socio-economic backg ounds, poli ical o ien a ion, ea ing mo i a ions, and in pa icula opinions and us in a ious ac o s’ powe and in luence in he sus ainabili y o ood p oduc ion and consump ion a e associa ed wi h buyco ing and boyco ing. By examining a la ge numbe o po en ially ele an de e mining ac o s o boyco ing and buyco ing we a e able o assess hei ela i e impo ance. 6 In he ollowing sec ions, we i s desc ibe indings o ea lie empi ical s udies on backg ound ac o s o poli ical consump ion and hen p esen ou da a and esul s. In he discussion and conclusion, we add ess he social s a i ica ion o poli ical ood consump ion and he oles ha consume s see o a ious socie al ac o s in ad ancing sus ainabili y. In pa icula , we c i ically assess he complex ela ionship be ween buyco ing/boyco ing and a ious ood p ac ices ega ded as sus ainable, and discuss he policy implica ions o he esul s. 2 Explaining Poli ical Consump ion In Eu ope, he e a e a ia ions be ween he coun ies as ega ds le els o poli ical consump ion: i is a much mo e common p ac ice in he no he n and wes e n han in he sou he n and eas e n pa s. In he Eu opean Social Su ey (ESS) 2002/2003 (see Fe e -Fons and F aile, 2014; Koos, 2012; Michele i e al., 2012; S olle and Michele i, 2013), 23–33% o he esponden s in he No dic coun ies epo ed ha ing boyco ed a p oduc and 44–55% ha ing chosen a p oduc o poli ical, en i onmen al o e hical easons du ing he pas yea , whe eas in Sou he n Eu opean coun ies he sha e o buyco ing was 7–12% and o boyco ing well below 10%. Finns, oge he wi h o he No he n Eu opeans, Ge mans, and he Swiss, we e among he mos ac i e poli ical consume s in Eu ope: 42% o Finns epo ed ha ing buyco ed and 27% ha ing boyco ed (Fe e -Fons and F aile, 2014). Such coun y di e ences a e hypo hesized o ela e o he le el o poli ical pa icipa ion, economic de elopmen , ma ke s uc u es, a ailabili y o e hical p oduc s, ins i u ionalisa ion o labelling schemes, and consume s’ mobilisa ion in al e na i e ood mo emen s (see, e.g., Koos, 2012; S olle and Michele i, 2013; Te agni and Kjæ nes, 2005). Al hough in su eys such as hose abo e, ques ions on buyco ing and boyco ing ha e been ope a ionalised in o sepa a e i ems, he di e ences in he social backg ound ac o s explaining boyco ing and buyco ing ha e been ound o be qui e small (Koos, 2012; Sando ici and Da is, 2010). Consequen ly, in he analysis many s udies ha e used a combined a iable including bo h p ac ices. S udies ha e shown ha a numbe o socio-economic and o he ac o s a e associa ed wi h poli ical consump ion (ope a ionalised as buyco ing, boyco ing o bo h). As shown below, in some cases he esul s ha e been inconsis en , p obably due o ac o s ela ed o a ying na ional and cul u al con ex s and s udy se ings. 7 Many s udies ha e shown ha women a e mo e ac i e poli ical consume s han men (Ca agna e al., 2014; Koos, 2012; Michele i e al., 2012; Neilson and Pax on, 2010; Sando ici and Da is, 2010; S ømsnes, 2005; Tobiasen, 2005), whe eas o he s ha e epo ed no gende e ec (Be lin, 2011; Echega ay, 2015). Fu he mo e, ea lie esul s indica e almos consis en ly ha he highly educa ed a e mo e likely o be poli ical consume s han o he s (e.g., Be lin, 2011; Ca agna e al,. 2014; Fe e -Fons and F aile, 2014; Michele i and S olle, 2012; Neilson and Pax on, 2010; S ømsnes, 2005; Tobiasen, 2005). Mo eo e , people li ing in u ban en i onmen s a e mo e o en poli ical consume s (Michele i and S olle, 2005; Neilson and Pax on, 2010; S ømsnes, 2005; Zhang, 2015) compa ed o hose li ing in he coun yside. Howe e , Be lin (2011) did no ind he le el o u bani y o ha e an e ec on poli ical consump ion. S udies on he ole o age in poli ical consump ion, howe e , indica e mo e he e ogeneous esul s. On one hand, i has been sugges ed ha he young a e no as ac i e as olde gene a ions in poli ical consump ion (e.g., Michele i and S olle, 2006). On he o he hand, he young (Sando ici and Da is, 2010; Zhang, 2015) and he young and he middle-aged (Michele i and S olle, 2012; Michele i e al., 2012; S ømsnes, 2005) ha e been ound o be mo e ac i e in poli ical consump ion. Fe e -Fons and F aile (2014) showed ha in he ea ly 2000s, in some coun ies he mos ac i e g oup was he younges (15–34-yea -olds), bu in o he coun ies, such as Finland, he middle-aged (35–54-yea -olds) we e mos ac i e. Tobiasen (2005) concluded ha in Denma k age di e ences in poli ical consump ion we e diminishing, and Be lin (2011) ound no age e ec in Sweden. As ega ds ac o s ela ed o poli ical o ien a ion and solida i y, ea lie s udies ha e shown ha hose who iden i y hemsel es o he le (Be lin, 2011; Michele i and S olle, 2012; Sando ici and Da is, 2010; S ømsnes, 2005) o o he le /g een (Michele i and S olle, 2005) a e a leas somewha mo e ac i e poli ical consume s. Neilson (2010) ound ha poli ical consume s we e mo e al uis ic han non-poli ical consume s (see also S ømsnes, 2005; Tobiasen, 2005), and Baumann e al. (2015) concluded ha poli ical consump ion was associa ed wi h dona ing o cha i y. Acco ding o Michele i and S olle (2012), hose who alue “solida i y ci izenship”, i.e., show conce n o hose who a e wo se o , a e mo e likely o be ac i e in poli ical consume ism (see also Koos, 2012). 8 In he discussion o new o ms o pa icipa ion, poli ical consump ion has been associa ed wi h he decline o ci izens’ us in poli ical ins i u ions (Sassa elli, 2014; Willis and Scho , 2012). S udies in he No h and Sou h Ame ica and Eu ope ha e sugges ed ha low us in ins i u ions and poli ics (Echega ay, 2015; Neilson and Pax on, 2010; Sc uggs e al., 2011; Tobiasen, 2005; Zhang, 2015) a e associa ed wi h poli ical consump ion. In Neilson’s Eu opean-wide s udy (2010), poli ical consume s had lowe us in ins i u ions han non-poli ical consume s (see also Koos, 2012), while Be lin (2011) ound in his s udy in Sweden ha low us in “s a e pe o mance” in ad ancing sus ainabili y and high us in “go e nmen al sus ainabili y ins i u ions” (i.e., en i onmen al agencies and he consume agency) we e associa ed wi h poli ical consump ion. In con as , S ømsnes (2005) ound ha in No way, poli ical and non-poli ical consume s did no subs an ially di e om each o he in hei us in poli ical ins i u ions. Fu he mo e, ea lie esea ch indica es ha being ac i e in poli ical consump ion and in o he poli ical ac i i ies a e no mu ually exclusi e (e.g., Baumann e al., 2015; Willis and Scho , 2012). Acco ding o de Zúñiga e al. (2013), an associa ion can be ound be ween poli ical e icacy (i.e., belie ha one can in luence he go e nmen ) and poli ical consump ion. Some s udies ha e ecen ly also ocused on he ole o he in e ne in poli ical consump ion. Wa d and de V eese (2011) ound ha in he UK, socially conscious consump ion among young people was associa ed wi h online pa icipa ion, i.e., using he in e ne o pa icipa o y pu poses, and de Zúñiga e al. (2013) ound ha social media use was associa ed wi h poli ical consume ism in he US. In addi ion o he socio-economic and poli ical pa icipa ion aspec s o poli ical consump ion, in his s udy we a e in e es ed in he ways in which people’s ea ing mo i a ions a e in e linked wi h hei engagemen in ood- ela ed poli ical consump ion. Fo example, he e is some e idence ha sus ainabili y conce ns and poli ical consump ion end o go hand in hand wi h heal hiness conce ns (Jallinoja e al., 2016b; Michele i and S olle, 2012; Ni a e al., 2014; Tobiasen, 2005; Willis and Scho , 2012), sugges ing ha “sel - ega ding” and “o he - ega ding” mo i a ions a e no mu ually exclusi e. Because ood p oduc s ma ke ed as e hical o en i onmen ally iendly a e o en mo e expensi e han con en ional oods, p ice migh be a mo e impo an conce n o non-poli ical han o poli ical consume s. Finally, in Finland domes ic o igin is one o he aspec s ha consume s ega d as e y impo an in ood (e.g., Eu opean Commission, 2014a) and also ela e o he e hics o ood (Mäkiniemi e al., 2013; Uusi alo and Oksanen, 2004). 9 Based on a la ge body o ea lie esea ch i is ob ious ha poli ical, e hical, ecological and esponsible ood consump ion may include a numbe o p ac ices such as buying o ganic ood, local ood o Fai T ade p oduc s, buying di ec ly om a me s, a oiding ood was e, educing he use o animal p o ein, o adop ing a ege a ian o egan die , o name a ew (see, e.g., Beagan e al., 2010; Halkie 2018; Johns on e al., 2011; Lea & Wo sley, 2008; Toble e al., 2011). Howe e , people may engage in such p ac ices o many easons o hey may no hink o he p ac ices as delibe a ely poli ical, e hical o ecological (Ni a e al., 2014; Sope , 2008). In he s udy o poli ical ood consump ion i is hus impo an also o s udy he ways in which buyco ing and boyco ing a e associa ed wi h such p ac ices. Ou case, Finland, is a coun y cha ac e ized by ela i ely high us in he sa e y, quali y and eshness o ood and in a ious ac o s in he ood sys em, such as na ional and Eu opean ood sa e y agencies, ood manu ac u e s and shops (Eu opean Commission, 2010). Based on su ey esul s, he mos impo an ood choice c i e ia o Finnish consume s include quali y, as e and eshness, p ice, and heal hiness (Lenne näs e al., 1997) as well as domes ic o igin (Pel oniemi & Y jölä, 2012). Finns a e mo e wo ied abou a m animal wel a e han abou a ious sa e y- ela ed conce ns such as pes icide esidues o ood poisonings (Eu opean Commission, 2010). In ecen yea s sus ainabili y aspec s ha e gained g ound in Finnish public discussion and also ood ma ke s: be ween 2011 and 2015/2016, he sales o o ganic oods g ew by 67% (P o Luomu, 2017) and ha o ai ade p oduc s by 69% (Fai T ade Finland, 2016). Despi e he apid inc ease, he ma ke sha e o o ganic oods emains a 2% o o al e ail sales (P o Luomu, 2017). 3 Ma e ials and Me hods 3.1 Da a Collec ion The s udy is pa o a p ojec en i led ‘E iciency o he ood ma ke and anspa ency o ood p icing in Finland’. The da a collec ion was commissioned o a Finnish ma ke ing esea ch company Talous u kimus Oy which could p o ide an In e ne -based su ey wi h a panel based on a s a i ied sample o he Finnish popula ion1. Since 86% o he Finnish popula ion uses he in e ne (S a is ics Finland, 2014), u ilizing an In e ne panel p obably does no cause subs an ial bias in he ep esen a i eness o he esul s. 16 Table 4 Pe cen age o esponden s ag eeing wi h s a emen s on en i onmen al, e hical and animal wel a e aspec s o ood p oduc ion and consump ion among he g oups o 1) bo h buyco ing and boyco ing, 2) buyco ing no boyco ing, 3) boyco ing no buyco ing and 4) nei he buyco ing no boyco ing (% o ally o somewha ag eeing, N=1,021) % o hose bo h buyco ing and boyco ing (n=403) ag eeing % o hose buyco ing and no boyco ing (n=65) ag eeing % o hose boyco ing and no buyco ing (n=74) ag eeing % o hose nei he buyco ing no boyco ing (n=479) ag eeing % o all esponden s (N=1,021) ag eeing P- alue (Exac Sig, 2- sided) Pu chase p ac ices I o en buy Fai T ade p oduc s. 46.2 29.2 25.7 12.7 27.9 .000 I o en buy o ganic oods. 45.9 38.5 25.7 14.4 29.2 .000 I o en buy local oods. 75.2 67.7 70.3 45.1 60.2 .000 I a ou sus ainably caugh ish. 77.2 70.8 63.5 47.2 61.7 .000 I o en buy oods di ec ly om p oduce s, e.g., a ood ci cle o a a m. 21.8 13.8 14.9 7.9 14.3 .000 I a oid buying ood p oduced in a coun y he poli ics o conduc o which I don’ wan o suppo . 90.3 66.2 77.0 44.1 66.1 .000 I a oid buying p oduc s by manu ac u e s I don’ us o ac esponsibly. 90.3 78.5 78.4 46.3 68.1 .000 O he en i onmen al ood ac i i ies and iews I o en h ow ood away. 15.1 20.0 17.6 19.0 17.4 .459 I ha e cu down using mea o milk p oduc s because o en i onmen al o e hical easons. 26.1 7.7 10.8 3.8 13.3 .000 I ha e con ac ed a ood manu ac u e o a e aile o ask abou he o igin o hei p oduc s o o gi e eedback abou i . 17.4 13.8 17.6 6.7 12.1 .000 I ollow he discussion in he media on a m animal wel a e o he en i onmen al impac s o ood. 77.9 66.2 51.4 39.2 57.1 .000 I ha en’ hough much abou wha kind o ood should be a ou ed o educe en i onmen al impac s. 25.1 33.8 48.6 62.2 44.8 .000 I is di icul o make e hical ood choices. 63.0 63.1 56.8 52.2 57.5 .010 Following a egan o o he ege a ian die . 6.2 1.5 0.0 1.3 3.1 .000 4.3 Mul inomial Reg ession Analysis Resul s In he mul inomial eg ession analysis, mos unadjus ed e ec s o bo h compa isons (“bo h” s. “nei he ” and “ei he ” s. “nei he ”) we e s a is ically signi ican a he p < .05 le el (Table 5). Howe e , he unadjus ed e ec s o age g oup, li ing a ea and aluing low p ice p o ed o be la gely insigni ican . The Nagelke ke R squa e o model 1 emained ela i ely low (.073). Fo models 2 and 3 i can be conside ed easonable (.312 and .234, espec i ely). 17 In model 1 o he “bo h s. nei he ” compa ison, women and hose wi h in e media e o highe educa ion we e mo e likely o engage in bo h buyco ing and boyco ing han men and hose wi h basic educa ion. In he “ei he s. nei he ” compa ison hose wi h in e media e o high educa ion we e mo e likely han hose wi h basic educa ion and he 35–49-yea -olds we e less likely han he younges g oup o pa icipa e in ei he buyco ing o boyco ing. Model 2 did no ema kably change he esul s in Model 1 ega ding he sociodemog aphic a iables. Fo he “bo h s. nei he ” compa ison, women, hose wi h in e media e o high educa ion, dona ing o cha i y, wi h le poli ical o ien a ion, us ing in he in luence o pa icipa o y ac i i ies and consump ion choices as well as belie ing in he powe o ins i u ional ac o s and he media we e mo e likely han o he s o pa icipa e in bo h buyco ing and boyco ing. Fo he “ei he s. nei he ” compa ison, he younges age g oup (al hough he di e ence o he oldes g oup was no signi ican ), hose wi h in e media e educa ion, and hose us ing in he in luence o consump ion choices we e mo e likely han o he s o pa icipa e in ei he buyco ing o boyco ing; and hose wi h cen e poli ical o ien a ion we e less likely han o he s o do so (Table 5). In addi ion, al hough Model 2 indica ed di e ences be ween he g oups, Table 5 (column “N”) also shows ha he majo i y o all esponden s belie ed in he powe o ins i u ional and ma ke ac o s as well as he media, and us ed ha hey can in luence h ough consump ion choices. In con as , less han hal o all esponden s belie ed ha hey can in luence h ough o ing and poli ical pa ies, and an e en smalle sha e us ed ha hey can in luence h ough pa icipa o y ac i i ies, social media o by con ac ing companies. In model 3 o he “bo h s. nei he ” compa ison, he elde ly and hose wi h he lowes educa ion we e less likely han o he s o engage in bo h buyco ing and boyco ing, and hose li ing in he capi al a ea (al hough he di e ence o he coun yside, i.e., “o he municipali y” was no signi ican ), aluing domes ic o igin and e hical aspec s o oods we e mo e likely han o he s o do so. In model 3 o he “ei he s. nei he ” compa ison, he wo middle-aged g oups, hose wi h he lowes educa ion, hose li ing ou side capi al egion (al hough only he “o he ci y” di e ed signi ican ly), and hose wi h a ”cen e” poli ical o ien a ion we e less likely han o he s o engage in ei he buyco ing o boyco ing, whe eas hose ega ding heal hiness as “ a ou ing” as impo an and hose aluing he e hical aspec s o oods we e mo e likely han o he s o do so (Table 5). 18 Table 5 Resul s o mul inomial eg ession analysis o poli ical ood consump ion (odds a ios and s a is ical signi icance, N=1,021)1 Unadjus e d e ec s, odds a io Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 N Bo h s. nei he Ei he s. nei he Bo h s. nei he Ei he s. nei he Bo h s. nei he Ei he s. nei he Bo h s. nei he Ei he s. nei he Gende man 540 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 woman 481 1.841*** 1.139 1.758*** 1.090 1.466** 1.176 1.184 0.762 Age 18–34 195 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 35–49 211 0.998 0.485* 1.148 0.503* 1.001 0.430* 0.947 0.429* 50–64 323 1.100 0.706 1.261 0.734 0.775 0.535* 0.922 0.541* 65+ 292 0.747 0.851 0.901 0.906 0.658 0.756 0.619* 0.635 Educa ion basic 182 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 in e media e 562 1.700** 1.896* 1.617* 1.986* 1.610* 2.071* 1.698* 2.106* high 277 2.901*** 1.928* 2.688*** 1.895* 2.431*** 1.757A 3.369*** 2.334* Li ing a ea capi al dis ic 221 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 o he ci y > 100 000 inh. 193 0.778 0.585 0.767 0.577A 0.745 0.597 0.591* 0.479* smalle ci y 415 0.720A 0.713 0.746 0.732 0.689 A 0.693 0.631* 0.679 o he municipali y 192 0.705 0.592 0.747 0.654 0.793 0.644 0.699 0.653 Dona ing o cha i y ne e / a ely/DK 550 1 1 1 1 min. a ew imes a yea 471 2.736*** 1.252 2.246*** 1.018 Poli ical o ien a ion igh 351 1 1 1 1 cen e 327 0.896 0.472** 1.042 0.533* le 343 2.209*** 0.782 1.881** 0.739 In luencing by o ing and h ough poli ical pa ies no/li le/DK 551 1 1 1 1 qui e/ e y much 470 2.519*** 1.537* 1.067 0.935 In luencing by pa icipa o y ac i i ies no/li le/DK 739 1 1 1 1 qui e/ e y much 282 4.546*** 1.789* 2.136*** 1.204 In luencing by social media no/li le/DK 851 1 1 1 1 qui e / e y much 170 3.239*** 1.367 1.135 0.824 In luencing by con ac ing companies no/li le/DK 700 1 1 1 1 qui e / e y much 321 2.674*** 1.472A 1.369 A 1.086 In luencing by consump ion choices no/li le/DK 333 1 1 1 1 qui e / e y much 688 4.967*** 2.950** * 2.714*** 2.690** * Powe o ins i u ional ac o s no/li le/DK 347 1 1 1 1 qui e / e y much 674 3.330*** 1.995** 1.641** 1.534A Powe o he media no/li le/DK 278 1 1 1 1 qui e / e y much 743 3.341*** 1.805** 1.503* 1.192 Powe o ma ke ac o s no/li le/DK 144 1 1 1 1 qui e/ e y much 877 3.972*** 2.265** 1.462 1.441 Heal hiness as ” es ic ing” no/li le/DK 388 1 1 1 1 qui e/ e y much 633 1.238 1.641* 0.797 1.129 Heal hiness as ” a ou ing” no/li le/DK 202 1 1 1 1 qui e/ e y much 819 2.382*** 2.894** * 1.487A 1.894* Low p ice no/li le/DK 184 1 1 1 1 qui e/ e y much 837 0.738 0.820 0.738 0.827 Domes ic o igin no/li le/DK 224 1 1 1 1 qui e/ e y much 797 3.521*** 2.120** 2.051** 1.379 E hics o p oduc ion no/li le/DK 458 1 1 1 1 qui e/ e y much 563 5.152*** 3.249** * 4.491*** 3.006** * Nagelke ke R squa e .073 .312 .234 1*p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001, Ap<.10 5 Discussion Ou esul s indica ed ha one in se en esponden s epo ed ha hey o en bo h buyco ed and boyco ed ood p oduc s o e hical, poli ical o en i onmen al easons, sugges ing ha he sha e o Finns s ongly commi ed o such ac i i ies is qui e small. Howe e , ou ou o en esponden s epo ed a leas occasionally bo h buyco ing and boyco ing. The esponden s in his “bo h” g oup 19 can hus be cha ac e ized as being a leas somewha ac i e as buyco e s and boyco e s. Li le less han hal o he esponden s nei he buyco ed o boyco ed, o ming a non-ac i e g oup o consume s who did no iden i y hemsel es wi h buyco ing o boyco ing ac i i ies. The semi- ac i e g oup who ei he buyco ed o boyco ed was much smalle han he wo o he g oups (app oxima ely one in se en esponden s). Few ea lie s udies o buyco ing and boyco ing in Finland exis bu he Eu opean Social Su ey (ESS) 2002/2003 (e.g., Fe e -Fons and F aile, 2014; Koos, 2012; Michele i e al., 2012) can be used as an indica i e baseline o compa ing ou esul s wi h. Howe e , some quali ica ions should be no ed: whe eas ou ques ions ocused on he equency o buyco ing and boyco ing o ood p oduc s, he ESS o e ed only “yes” and “no” esponse op ions o he ques ions on buyco ing/boyco ing p oduc s (in gene al, no ood p oduc s in pa icula ) du ing he pas yea . The ESS ound ha 47% o Finns had ei he buyco ed o boyco ed p oduc s du ing he p e ious yea (Fe e -Fons and F aile, 2014), and in ou s udy 40% o he esponden s had a leas occasionally buyco ed and boyco ed ood p oduc s. Al hough hese numbe s a e no di ec ly compa able, hey sugges a oughly simila sha e o he popula ion o be a leas some imes making ood choices based on e hical, poli ical o en i onmen al easons. Howe e , i can also be a gued ha e en i he ESS esul s sugges ha poli ical consump ion is a ela i ely widely sha ed p ac ice in he No dic coun ies compa ed o mos o he Eu opean coun ies, ou esul s poin o qui e a modes sha e o consume s o en buyco ing and boyco ing. 5.1 How Widely A e Va ious Sus ainable Food Consump ion P ac ices Sha ed among he Ac i e, Somewha Ac i e and Non-Ac i e G oups? One p ac ice, no h owing ood away, p o ed o be widely sha ed among all g oups. Buying local ood and sus ainable ish and a oiding ood om un us wo hy sou ces we e no as widesp ead as a oiding ood was e, bu s ill a subs an ial sha e o all g oups, including he non-ac i e g oup, epo ed ca ying ou such sus ainable ac i i ies. I migh seem as a con adic ion ha some consume s epo ed no making choices based on e hical, poli ical o en i onmen al easons, bu a he same ime ag eed o buying sus ainable ish, o example. Howe e , people ca y ou sus ainable ac i i ies no only o “poli ical, e hical o en i onmen al” bu many o he easons as well, and hey may no always consciously “label” such ac i i ies in e ms o e hics, he en i onmen o poli ics. People’s ood choices a e based on mul iple conside a ions, and he poli ical, e hical and en i onmen al ones mix wi h o he conside a ions. Fo ins ance, Schoolman (2017) has no ed ha 20 buying local ood is no always associa ed wi h en i onmen al conce ns and ha people buying local ood do no “ i he mold o he ypical e hical consume ” (ibid., 1). People may buy local ood because o eshness and as iness, o ins ance, and he a oidance o p oduc s om manu ac u e s which a e no us ed o ac esponsibly may be based on conside a ions o sa e y and heal hiness a he han e hics o he en i onmen . Such ambigui ies a e an in e es ing esul as such, and me i a mo e de ailed in es iga ion in u u e analyses. In many sus ainable p ac ices, hose who bo h buyco ed and boyco ed epo ed o be mo e ac i e han o he esponden s. This was he case pa icula ly in a ou ing local ood and sus ainable ish, a oiding oods om un us wo hy coun ies o manu ac u e s, ollowing media discussion on animal wel a e and en i onmen al issues, and hinking abou how o make en i onmen ally iendly ood choices. I is also no ewo hy ha pa icula ly he “bo h” g oup and hose who buyco ed conside ed making e hical ood choices o be di icul . An explana ion o his may be ha he challenges o econciling e hical and o he ood ela ed expec a ions and he p ac ical possibili ies o doing so become a li ed expe ience only when one s a s engaging in e hical ac i i ies. In e es ingly hough, hese di icul ies do no seem o p e en poli ical ood consume s om ying o make such choices, al hough hey appa en ly wish ha i would be easie . Buying di ec ly om a me s, cu ing down on mea o milk use, ollowing ege a ian o egan die and con ac ing a company o in o ma ion o he o igin o hei p oduc s p o ed o be he leas a ou ed p ac ices among all consume g oups. Indeed, hese a e mo e demanding han he mo e popula p ac ices: hey equi e p ac ical e o , use o ime, o changing he accus omed ood habi s. Ea lie esea ch has shown ha pa icula ly he educ ion o mea consump ion is conside ed challenging, and no many people in he No dic coun ies, including Finland, a e willing o ea less mea (Ni a e al., 2014; see also Jallinoja e al., 2016b). Mea enjoys a alued posi ion in he Wes e n ood cul u es bo h in e e yday and es i e occasions, and changing he accus omed ways o cooking, ea ing, and socializing a ound ood, and b eaking he es ablished no ms o wha is conside ed “p ope ood”, is demanding (Jallinoja e al., 2016b; Macdia mid e al., 2016). Buying di ec ly om a me s is inc easingly popula (Eh ns öm-Fuen es and Leipämaa-Leskinen, 2016), bu i emains a ma ginal p ac ice compa ed o easily accessible supe ma ke s and hype ma ke s. In addi ion, since mos ood p oduc s con ain o igin labels, mos people p obably do no conside i necessa y o con ac he manu ac u e s o mo e de ails on he p oduc s. The gene al us ulness o Finns owa ds ood and ood manu ac u e s (Eu opean Commission, 2010) p obably u he educes hei el need o ecei e mo e de ailed o igin in o ma ion. 21 5.2 Who A e he Buyco ing and Boyco ing Consume s? The adjus ed models in he mul inomial eg ession analysis indica ed ha being ac i e in bo h buyco ing and boyco ing was mos likely o women (excep in Model 3; sugges ing ha women and men would no di e in bo h buyco ing and boyco ing i hei ea ing mo i a ions we e simila ), hose wi h in e media e o highe educa ion; wi h le is poli ical o ien a ion; who dona ed o cha i y; us ed in he in luence by ci izens h ough pa icipa o y ac i i ies and consump ion choices; belie ed ha ins i u ional ac o s and he media ha e powe in ad ancing sus ainabili y; and hose whose ea ing was mo i a ed by domes ic o igin and he e hics o ood p oduc ion. In addi ion, in Model 3 he oldes age g oup was less likely o be ac i e han he o he age g oups, sugges ing ha he e may be di e ences in he ea ing mo i a ions be ween he age g oups. Those li ing in he capi al dis ic seemed somewha mo e likely han o he s o be ac i e, bu he di e ence o hose li ing in he coun yside was no s a is ically signi ican . This indica es ha ac i e buyco ing and boyco ing o ood is on one hand a p ac ice mos p e alen in he mos u banised a eas, bu also sugges ing ha people li ing in he coun yside may ha e be e possibili ies o, e.g., buy di ec ly om a me s. The ac o s associa ed wi h being engaged in ei he buyco ing o boyco ing (compa ed o doing nei he ) sha ed some simila ea u es o hose abo e bu he e we e also some di e ences showing ha many explana o y a iables a e mo e s ongly linked o being ac i e in bo h buyco ing and boyco ing han in engaging in only one o hem. He e, he younges g oup and hose wi h high o in e media e educa ion seemed mos likely o be ac i e, bu he e we e no gende di e ences, and he poli ical le and igh did no di e om each o he . The capi al dis ic seems mos likely o be ac i e in ei he buyco ing o boyco ing, bu he s a is ical di e ence is signi ican only o o he la ge ci ies. Heal hiness as “ a ou ing” and he e hics o p oduc ion we e associa ed, bu domes ic o igin was no associa ed wi h pa icipa ing in ei he buyco ing o boyco ing. These esul s a e simila o many ea lie s udies as ega ds gende (e.g., Koos, 2012; Neilson and Pax on, 2010; Tobiasen, 2005), educa ion (e.g., Be lin, 2011; Fe e -Fons and F aile, 2014; Michele i e al., 2012; Neilson, 2010; S ømsnes, 2005), li ing a ea (e.g., Sando ici and Da is, 2010; S ømsnes, 2005), poli ical o ien a ion (e.g., Michele i and S olle, 2012; Sando ici and Da is, 2010; S ømsnes, 2005), and dona ing (S ømsnes, 2005; Tobiasen, 2005), and co obo a e 22 ea lie indings by sugges ing ha e hical conce ns (Sc uggs e al., 2011) play a ole in poli ical consump ion. Acco ding o Fe e -Fons and F aile (2014), class di e ences in poli ical consump ion a e la ges in coun ies wi h he highes GDP pe capi a, pa icula ly so in Finland and Swi ze land. O he s ha e cha ac e ised e hical consume s as people wi h cul u al capi al who “enac a se o ecologically o ien ed high-s a us as es ha a e cen al o hei iden i y p ojec s and s a egies o claiming s a us and dis inc ion” (Ca agna e al., 2014, p. 160). Baumann e al. (2015) ha e a gued ha poli ical consump ion may ac as a “bounda y ma ke ” o hose wi h su icien cul u al and economic capi al. Also ou esul s showed ha he highly educa ed we e mos engaged in poli ical ood consump ion, sugges ing ha an exclusi e elemen may be in ol ed in poli ical ood consump ion. The highly educa ed may also be be e in o med and/o mo e conce ned abou en i onmen al issues han o he s (Eu opean Commission, 2014; Kou o, 2003). I poli ical consump ion is an in e es mainly o he uppe o middle class, i may e en ually con ibu e o s eng hening exis ing social hie a chies and excluding hose o whom e hical consump ion is no possible because o lacking economic o cul u al esou ces. Compa ed o ea lie esea ch, ou esul s b ing a mo e nuanced pic u e o some issues. Fi s , ea lie s udies ha e ound ha heal h conce ns (Ni a e al., 2014; Willis and Scho , 2012) a e associa ed wi h sus ainable o socially conscious consump ion. Ou esul s in oduce a new pe spec i e by sugges ing ha boyco ing and boyco ing a e speci ically associa ed wi h “ a ou ing” heal hy oods, bu no wi h “ es ic ing” unheal hy oods. This sugges s ha poli ical ood consump ion may be a ype o p ac ice implying a mo e gene al ocus on “posi i e ea ing”, i.e., a ou ing oods ha a e conside ed as good, bene icial o i uous om bo h heal h (“sel - ega ding”) and e hical (“o he - ega ding”) pe spec i es. O he s, oo, ha e ecognized ha ce ain o ms o sus ainable ood consump ion, such as plan -based ea ing, may be connec ed o heal hism, especially among he middle class, o whom ea ing o ganic salad mix has been “in some sense pe o ma i e o an eli e sensibili y” (Gu hman, 2003, 53; Jallinoja e al., 2018). Howe e , since he “ a ou ing” seemed mo e p e alen in he “ei he ” han he “bo h” g oup compa ed o he nei he g oup, his aspec needs o be s udied u he in u u e analyses. Second, we ound ha aluing domes ic o igin was associa ed wi h being engaged in bo h buyco ing and boyco ing. In Finland, ood was a e he second wo ld wa s ongly a ques ion o ag icul u al poli ics ha ocused on suppo ing he subsis ence o small amily a ms (Kokko and 23 Räsänen, 1997), and e en in he p esen day, ood is in he media ypically amed no only in e ms o heal h and li es yles bu also as a ques ion o he li elihood o he coun yside and he p omo ion o na ional and local ood cul u es (see also Bos öm and Klin man, 2009). In his ame, he a ou ing o domes ic ood is ela ed o bo h suppo ing he na ional economy and local a me s, and o he idea ha especially Finnish ood is pu e and ecological (c . Bech-La sen e al., 2016 on he image o he New No dic Cuisine). Ou da a, howe e , does no allow disen angling he oles ha a ious na ionalis ic, economic, ecological o o he mo i a ions play in he alua ion o domes ic ood. Thi d, he esul s sugges ha being ac i e in poli ical consump ion and o he poli ical ac i i ies a e no mu ually exclusi e. This esul is suppo ed by ea lie esea ch (e.g., Baumann e al., 2015; Willis and Scho , 2012). Those esponden s who hough ha people can in luence h ough a ious means a ailable o hem as bo h ci izens and consume s we e mo e likely o engage in bo h buyco ing and boyco ing. Such ac i i ies included consump ion choices and wha we e med “pa icipa o y ac i i ies”: ci izens’ ini ia i es; hea ings, elec onic ci izen o ums and public mee ings; and NGOs. In con as , us ing in ci izens’ in luence on ood p oduc ion and consump ion h ough poli ical pa ies and o ing did no di e en ia e be ween poli ical and non- poli ical consume s, no did he belie in he powe o social media (c . Wa d and de V eese, 2011; de Zúñiga e al., 2014). The esul s indica ed ha he majo i y o all esponden s belie ed in he powe o ins i u ional and ma ke ac o s as well as he media. A majo i y also us ed ha hey can in luence h ough consump ion choices, while a smalle sha e belie ed in in luencing h ough o ing and poli ical pa ies, o by pa icipa o y ac i i ies, social media o con ac ing companies. These esul s sugges ha Finns do see a ole o hemsel es pa icula ly as consume s – mo e so han as ci izens – in ad ancing sus ainabili y, while hey also hink ha o he ac o s ha e a ole o play, oo. 5.3 Limi a ions Some limi a ions o ou s udy a e o be no ed. Fi s , he esponse a e o ou web-based ques ionnai e was qui e low (p obably pa ly explained by he ease o igno ing e-mail in i a ions), and i migh be ha hose who had low in e es in ood did no espond. The ac ha a g ea majo i y o Finns ha e access o In e ne a home (S a is ics Finland, 2014) suppo s he da a collec ion me hod, al hough he middle-aged and he elde ly and hose wi h high educa ion we e somewha o e - ep esen ed. Second, we ha e looked a consume g oups de ined by only wo 24 ques ions on buyco ing and boyco ing. These ques ions ha e he bene i o unc ioning in ca ego ising consume s in o ela i ely clea ly de ined g oups and enabling compa ison wi h ea lie s udies. I is howe e ob ious ha he possibili ies o compa ison wi h ano he kinds o ope a ionalisa ions o poli ical ood consump ion (see, e.g., Halkie & Holm, 2008) o wi h s udies ocusing on poli ical ood consump ion om a li es yle pe spec i e a e limi ed (S olle & Michele i, 2013, 42). In o de o gain a mo e nuanced pic u e o poli ical ood consump ion p ac ices ac oss di e en consume g oups bo h quan i a i e and quali a i e esea ch is needed. The social, cul u al and economic condi ions o ansi ion in o mo e sus ainable ood consump ion should be explo ed, including he s udy o a ious ood p ac ices (e.g., ea ing animal- and plan -based oods, gene a ion o ood was e) and how hey ake shape in in e ac ion wi h o he p ac ices o e e yday li e and socio echnical changes in socie y. Finally, esea ch is needed on consume s’ us in expe s and ins i u ional a angemen s in he ealm o sus ainabili y as well as on how his us is associa ed wi h ood p ac ices and a i udes. 6 Conclusion Ou esul s ha e shown signi ican social di isions and inequali ies, pa icula ly as ega ds educa ion, in e ms o how people in a No dic wel a e s a e a e engaged in sus ainable consump ion p ac ices (c . Fe e -Fons and F aile, 2014). Ou esul s also indica e ha some o he p ac ices ha poli ical ood consume s endo se a e sha ed by many o hose who only seldom o ne e buyco o boyco oods o e hical, poli ical o en i onmen al easons, sugges ing ha people do no necessa ily concep ualise hei e e yday p ac ices as “e hical, poli ical o en i onmen al”. I is also possible ha some en i onmen al and e hical p ac ices many ha e become ou inized and habi ualized in o li es yles o he ex en ha many people ha e s opped ac i ely ca ego izing hem as “poli ical”. I can hus be a gued ha poli ical ood consump ion as buyco ing and/o boyco ing ep esen s oo na ow a pe spec i e on wha can be e med as “socially conscious consump ion” (A kinson, 2012). Al e na i ely, i may be ha he pa icipa ion in such p ac ices is mo i a ed a he by heal h o as e han by e hical o en i onmen al conside a ions, o i may be a combina ion o a ious sel - ega ding and o he - ega ding ac o s which a e di icul o sepa a e in e e yday li e. O he s ha e no ed ha consume s may be d i en by bo h al uis ic and sel -in e es ed conce ns a he same ime 25 and ge pleasu e om commi ing o mo e socially and en i onmen ally sus ainable consump ion (Gab iel & Lang, 2015) o o ‘al e na i e hedonism’, e e ing o a ‘mo al o m o sel -pleasu ing’ (Sope , 2008, 571). F om his pe spec i e, new sus ainable ou ines may well es ablish e en wi hou consume s e lec i ely de eloping hem, p o ided ha hey a e easily accessible and possible o in eg a e in o ea ing pa e ns wi hou labo ious changes in e e yday p ac ices. Making such ou ines easy and ensu ing ha sus ainable and a o dable al e na i es can en e and emain on he ma ke equi es ac i e pa icipa ion om ma ke ac o s and public au ho i ies alike as well as a sha ed agenda o sus ainable ood in which all ac o s can pa icipa e on equal e ms. On a poli ical le el, i is impo an o pay a en ion o he c edibili y o he policies so ha consume s can eel ha no only hemsel es bu also o he ac o s in socie y, including bo h companies and public policy ac o s, make an e o o ad ance sus ainable ansi ions. To conclude, he esul s lend suppo o he idea ha he ansi ion owa ds mo e “sus ainable culina y cul u es” (Mäkelä and Ni a, 2016) may p oceed h ough se e al ou es. The ansi ion may include conscious and e lexi e choices wi h a icula ed sus ainable agendas in ol ing delibe a e buyco ing o boyco ing e o s, bu also a g adual adop ion o sus ainable habi s due o cul u al changes in social no ms and social se ings. Especially he la e p ocess may be enhanced, o ins ance, by egula i e measu es and axa ion ocusing on ood p oduc ion and consump ion. Media ep esen a ions o ood and sus ainable li es yles ha e an impac on bo h p ocesses, and a e c ucial in po ayals o sus ainable culina y cul u e as ei he dull, as eless and una ac i e, o a he in e es ing, delicious and e sa ile. Acknowledgemen s This wo k was suppo ed by he Finnish Minis y o Ag icul u e and Fo es y (g an 1857/212/2012). Re e ences Ande son, B. (1983). Imagined communi ies. Re lec ions on he o igin and sp ead o na ionalism. London: Ve so Edi ions and NLB. 32 Pääkkönen, H., & Hani i, R. (2012). Time use changes in Finland h ough he 2000s. Helsinki: S a is ics Finland. de Rezende, D. C. (2014). Poli ics in Food Ma ke s: al e na i e modes o quali ica ion and engaging. Re is a de Economia a Sociologia Ru al, 52, 387–400. Sando ici, M. E., & Da is, T. (2010). Ac i ism gone shopping: An empi ical explo a ion o indi idual-le el de e minan s o poli ical consume ism and dona ing. Compa a i e Sociology, 9, 328–356. Sassa elli, R. (2004). The poli ical mo ali y o ood: discou ses, con es a ion and al e na i e consump ion. In M. Ha ey, A. McMeekin, A., & A. Wa de (Eds.), Quali ies o ood (pp. 176–191). Manches e : Manches e Uni e si y P ess. Sassa elli, R., & Da olio, F. (2010). Consump ion, pleasu e and poli ics. Slow ood and he poli ico-aes he ic p oblema iza ion o ood. Jou nal o Consume Cul u e, 10, 202–232. Sassa elli, R. (2014). Poli ics o consump ion, poli ics o jus ice: The poli ical in es men o he consume . In: N. Ma hu (Ed.), Consume cul u e, mode ni y and iden i y (pp. 297–317). London: SAGE. Schoolman, E. D. (2017). Building communi y, bene i ing neighbo s: “Buying local” by people who do no i he mold o “e hical consume s”. Jou nal o Consume Cul u e, published online, DOI: 10.1177/1469540517717776. Sc uggs, L., He el, S., Bes , S. J., & Je o ds, C. (2011). In o ma ion, choice and poli ical consump ion: Human igh s in he checkou lane. Human Righ s Qua e ly, 33, 1092–1121. Sope , K. (2008). Al e na i e hedonism, cul u al heo y and he ole o aes he ic e isioning. Cul u al S udies, 22, 567–587. S a is ics Finland (2014). Väes ön ie o- ja ies in ä ekniikan käy ö 2014. [The use o in o ma ion and communica ion echnologies in he popula ion. In Finnish.] A ailable a : h p:// ilas okeskus. i/ il/su i i/2014/su i i_2014_2014-11-06_ i.pd (26.9. 2016). 33 S ep oe, A., Polla d, T. M., & Wa dle, J. (1995) De elopmen o a measu e o he mo i es unde lying he selec ion o ood: The Food Choice Ques ionnai e. Appe i e, 25, 267–284. S olle, D., & Michele i, M. (2013). Poli ical consume ism. Global esponsibili y in ac ion. Camb idge Books Online, a ailable a : h p://ebooks.camb idge.o g/. S olle, D., Michele i, M., & C épaul (2013). Mapping poli ical consume ism in wes e n democ acies. In D. S olle & M. Michele i (2013). Poli ical consume ism. Global esponsibili y in ac ion (pp. 95–134). Camb idge Books Online, a ailable a : h p://ebooks.camb idge.o g/. S ømsnes, K. (2005). Poli ical consump ion in No way: Who, why – and does i ha e any e ec ? In M. Bos öm, A. Føllesdal, M. Klin man, M. Michele i, & M. P. Sø ensen (Eds.), Poli ical consume ism: I s mo i a ions, powe , and condi ions in he No dic coun ies and elsewhe e (pp. 165–181). TemaNo d 2005:517. Copenhagen: No dic Council o Minis e s. Te agni, L., & Kjæ nes, U, (2005). E hical consump ion in No way: why is i so low? In M. Bos öm, A. Føllesdal, M. Klin man, M. Michele i, & M. P. Sø ensen (Eds.), Poli ical consume ism: I s mo i a ions, powe , and condi ions in he No dic coun ies and elsewhe e (pp. 472–485). TemaNo d 2005:517. Copenhagen: No dic Council o Minis e s. Tobiasen, M. (2005). Poli ical consume ism in Denma k. In M. Bos öm, A. Føllesdal, M. Klin man, M. Michele i, & M. P. Sø ensen (Eds.), Poli ical consume ism: I s mo i a ions, powe , and condi ions in he No dic coun ies and elsewhe e (pp. 113–144). TemaNo d 2005:517. Copenhagen: No dic Council o Minis e s. Toble , C., Vissche s, V.H.M., Sieg is , M. (2011). Ea ing g een. Consume s' willingness o adop ecological ood consump ion beha io s. Appe i e, 57, 674–682. Uusi alo, O., & Oksanen, R. (2004). E hical consume ism: a iew om Finland. In e na ional Jou nal o Consume S udies, 28, 214–221. Wa d, J., & de V eese, C. (2011). Poli ical consume ism, young ci izens and he In e ne . Media, Cul u e & Socie y, 33, 399–413. 34 Wa de, A. (2016). The p ac ice o ea ing. Camb idge: Poli y P ess. Willis, M. M., & Scho , J. B. (2012). Does changing a ligh bulb lead o changing he wo ld? Poli ical ac ion and he conscious consume . The Annals AAPSS (The Ame ican Academy o Poli ical and Social Science), 644, 160–190. Zhang, X. (2015). ‘Vo ing wi h dolla s’: a c oss-poli y and mul ile el analysis o poli ical consume ism. In e na ional Jou nal o Consume S udies, 39, 422–436. de Zúñiga, H. G., Copeland, L., & Bimbe , B. (2014). Poli ical consume ism: Ci ic engagemen and he social media connec ion. New Media & Socie y, 16, 488–506. 1 All panel membe s a e ec ui ed o line, i.e., hey ha e been pe sonally in i ed o he panel by phone, le e , o ace- o ace. The panel s uc u e is based on a na ionwide andom sampling o he Finnish 15–79-yea -old popula ion. The panel is used o opinion polls and ma ke ing esea ch pu poses. On a e age a panelis pa icipa ed a su ey 0.5 imes pe mon h in 2014. A he ime o he da a collec ion, he e we e no di ec ewa ds bu a modes p ize d aw among he pa icipan s. 2 Ins ead o quo a sampling, he agency esponsible o he da a collec ion (Talous u kimus Oy) used s a i ied sampling due o sho e da a collec ion ime and in o de o a oid bu dening he panel membe s by sending hem in i a ions which hey e en ually canno answe because hei quo a may be al eady ull. 3 The di e ence be ween he numbe o sen in i a ions (5,341) and ecei ed in i a ions (4,986) was caused by 1) ou - o -da e con ac in o ma ion o some panel membe s and 2) au oma ic ‘ou o o ice’ no ices. 4 The Eu opean Social Su ey 2002/2003 asked he ollowing ques ions: “Du ing he las 12 mon hs, ha e you done any o he ollowing? (a) delibe a ely bough ce ain p oduc s o poli ical, e hical o en i onmen al easons, and (b) boyco ed ce ain p oduc s, wi h esponse op ions yes/no. Koos (2012) no es ha he limi a ion o his o mula ion is ha he equency o ’delibe a ely buying’ o ’boyco ing’ is no is no asked abou . In his s udy, we speci ically asked abou he equency, and a ge ed he ques ions on ood p oduc s ins ead o p oduc s as a gene al ca ego y.