ward fresh vegetables are not reflected in behavior and consumers pur-
chased less vegetables than desired. In these examples, the product is
defined as an aggregate “vegetables” and inferences based on the re-
ported perceived adequacy of eating vegetables may be poor predictors
of purchases of specific kind of vegetables. However, the general in-
formation may still be used in choosing marketing strategies and short-
term management decisions such as implementation of generic
promotional campaigns stressing the accessibility of fresh vegetables.
The importance of fresh produce purchases seems to be increasing
because of the steadily intensifying messages stressing the positive role
of produce to maintain human health. These messages may shape pref-
erences and change attitudes by increasing consumer emotional in-
volvement in the selection, purchase, and consumption frequency of
Market Valuation of Quality 239Rank Based
on Percent
Purchasing
Often or Very
Often
U.S. Farm Value
Rank Vegetable (mln $, 1989) Atlanta Berlin
1 Tomatoes 1,824 1 2
2 Lettuce 950 8 4
3 Onions 538 2 1
4 Sweet corn 468 — 6
5 Carrots 297 3 3
6 Broccoli 276 9 5
7 Snap beans 228 5 7
8 Cauliflower 205 6 11
9 Cucumbers 203 4 9
10 Leeks 7 —
Brussels sprouts 10 13
Asparagus 11 12
Green peas 12 10
Mushrooms 13 8Table 12.1 Farm Value of Selected Vegetables and the Reported
Purchase Frequency by Consumers in Atlanta and Berlin.Sources:For Atlanta—Dept. of Agricultural and Applied Economics, The University of Georgia, Col-
lege of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Griffin Campus, Griffin, U.S. For Berlin—Institut fur
Gemüse und Zierpflanzenbau, Grossbeeren, Brandenburg, The Federal Republic of Germany.