Perceived consumer concerns about food miles actually carried little sway in the buying patterns of United Kingdom shoppers, according to a University of Otago study.
But other academics are warning New Zealand food producers may not get away so easily with shopper concerns about carbon footprinting and environmental stewardship.
The Otago University survey of 251 shoppers at four different UK supermarkets found just 5.6% nominated country-of-origin as one of the reasons for their purchases.
Just 3.6% said they had consciously chosen British products because they felt it was "less harmful for the environment".
The study's lead author, Associate Prof John Knight, said the most common reason for purchase was price (25%), then brand or variety (23.5%).
Other main influences were portion size (12%), freshness (10.4%) and the only option (9.6%).
But when people were surveyed on the UK's High Streets about their purchasing preferences, there was a different reaction.
Prof Knight said that survey of 250 people revealed 21.5% felt food miles would stop them buying New Zealand products, because of "the long distance it travels".
These contrasting findings showed that what people said and actually did in relation to food miles could be quite different, he said.
"This may be due to a social desirability bias being at play when people answer questions about their purchasing preferences.
"When surveyed, people's opinions tend to give greater weight to societal issues than is reflected in their observed behaviour," he said.
But the director of Lincoln University's Agribusiness and Economics Research Unit, Prof Caroline Saunders, said while the food miles issue had been debunked, the same could not be said for concerns about the carbon footprint of food.
She told Federated Farmers' national conference last month that carbon footprinting was being used as shorthand for other consumer concerns such as food health and sustainability.
In 2007, Tesco announced its intention to carbon footprint 70,000 products.
So far, the company has done six product lines covering about 100 products, but Prof Saunders said its intention was clear.
The results may not always be what was intended.
A UK study showed an imported sausage in a UK store would have to have travelled 227,727km to have the same carbon footprint as one grown and produced locally, due to production differences.
She said there were marketing advantages for food producers from promoting the fact industries were reducing greenhouse gas emissions or taking steps to protect native bush or wildlife.
This could counter pressure on meat and dairy products from vegetarian and wildlife groups promoting meat-free days or reduced meat in diets, concerns about water use and at a time supermarkets were increasingly concerned at the large number of products on their shelves.
Prof Saunders said food producers needed to invest on analysis of consumer behaviour and in marketing, backed up with tangible examples of how consumer concerns were being addressed.