Effect of an Educational Program on Attitudes of California Consumers Toward Food Irradiation

Transcription

1 ARTICLES Food Protection Trends, Vol. 27, No. 10, Pages Copyright 2007, International Association for Food Protection 6200 Aurora Ave., Suite 200W, Des Moines, IA Effect of an Educational Program on Attitudes of California Consumers Toward Food Irradiation Natnicha Bhumiratana, 1 Lorna K. Belden, 2 and Christine M. Bruhn 3* 1 250/3 Sukumvit 55/8, Bangkok Thailand; 2 Dietician (retired), Davis, CA 95616, USA; 3 Dept. Food Science and Technology, University of California, Davis, CA , USA SUMMARY The risk of foodborne illness can be reduced significantly by irradiation of ground beef and poultry. Response to irradiated food among California consumers was measured after opponents to the process had been active in the state legislature. Three-hundred consumers participated in an educational program consisting of viewing an eight-minute video on food safety and irradiation followed by a question-and-answer period. Consumers were surveyed about their general knowledge and attitudes toward food safety and irradiation before and after participating in the program. This program increased awareness of harmful bacteria and the risk of foodborne illnesses. Despite attention to irradiation in the legislature, over half of the respondents had not heard of it prior to the program, and those against irradiation reported that they knew little about it. This indicates that the initial negative attitudes may be due to lack of information. After the program, only 3% opposed offering irradiated food in the supermarket, over 60% stated that they would choose irradiated products, and almost 40% said that they would pay 10% more for irradiated meat. Although the video tape provided important information, people wanted details as to how the FDA assessed safety and the nutritional value of irradiated food. Introduction Non-conventional technologies, such as food irradiation, high-pressure processing, pulse electric fields, ohmic heating, and others, have been developed to enable processors to meet consumer demands for convenient, safe, healthful, and high-quality products (4). A pasteurization treatment, such as that obtained when meats or poultry are irradiated at a level sufficient to obtain a 5-log reduction of common pathogens, can significantly reduce illness and death from foodborne illness (17). More consumers express concerns about microbial safety and chemical residues than about irradiation (3, 9). Consumer interest in the safety benefits of irradiated meat has increased from 38% in 2000 to 53% in 2002, and 57% in 2004 (14, 15). Johnson et al. (9) documented a shift in consumer attitudes from 1993 to Consumers expressed only slight concern about irradiation in 1993, 2.8 based on a 5-point scale, a concern that decreased in 2004 to 2.4, while concern about microbial safety and pesticides remained unchanged during that time period. Interest in purchasing irradiated A peer-reviewed article *Author for correspondence: ; Fax: cmbruhn@ucdavis.edu 744 FOOD PROTECTION TRENDS OCTOBER 2007

2 Table 1. Mean level of concern towards harmful bacteria and foodborne illness (N=300) Concerns towards: Mean level of concerns* Significance Level Harmful bacteria Before After 1.34 Foodborne Illness Before 1.58 After *1 = very concerned; 2 = somewhat concerned; 3 = not concerned Table 2. Self-reported knowledge about food irradiation (N=300) Knowledge level how knowledgeable are you about food irradiation? (%) Little to none 70 Some 28 A lot 2 meat also increased. Approximately 76% and 68% of consumers indicated they were willing to buy irradiated meat/poultry and pork in 2003, compared to 69% and 29% in The benefit of irradiation appears to have been acted upon by some consumers. When a nationwide survey asked participants what they were doing for health purposes, 4% of consumers volunteered that they were selecting irradiated meat (3). This is an astounding number, considering the limited market availability of this product. A survey conducted for the Foodborne Disease Active Surveillance Network found that about half of the consumers at FoodNet sites said they would buy irradiated ground beef or chicken, and a fourth would pay a premium (8). Attitude surveys and simulated market trials associated with educational programs report acceptance levels for irradiated meat and poultry at 70% to 90% or more (1, 5-7, 11, 12, 20). A 2003 study conducted in Texas found that 70 90% expressed a willingness to pay more for irradiated products (1). Actual marketplace behavior has supported the idea of increased acceptance of labeled irradiated meat and fruit (2, 10, 18). Supermarkets in the Midwest and East have successfully marketed ground beef in recent years. However, the availability of irradiated products is limited, and lay consumers are not widely informed about the process technology. Because some consumers know little about this technology, they may be misled by inaccurate or incomplete information received from special interest organizations. Opponents to irradiation were active in the state, lobbying the state legislature and sending to school board members and others information that described irradiation as dangerous (19). The purpose of this research project was to assess familiarity with irradiation among California consumers and evaluate the effect of an educational intervention that used a video tape and discussion on consumer attitudes toward the availability of irradiated meat and produce in the supermarket. Methods Three-hundred California consumers participated in a program that consisted of viewing an eight-minute video, Food Irradiation: Behind the Headlines, produced by Purdue University (13), followed by a question-and-answer period. Educational programs were conducted in 2004 in Carmichael, Vacaville, Auburn, Roseville, Placerville, Sacramento, Woodland, and San Bernardino, CA. The targeted participants were those who make food purchases for the households, including parents with young children, college students, individuals who participated in food safety or nutrition programs, and seniors. Diversity in age and ethnicity was sought to represent the diverse California food purchasers. Volunteers were informed that their organization would receive a small financial contribution for each completed survey. For the convenience of volunteers, this educational program was conducted at the groups meeting site. At most sessions, at least two of the three authors were present. At the beginning of the session, the study was described; then the research subject Bill of Rights and research subject consent form were read aloud to the volunteers. Volunteers signed the consent forms before the survey and the educational program began. All procedures for University of California human subject research were followed. A three-page questionnaire was constructed to measure awareness of harmful microorganisms and risks of foodborne illnesses, knowledge and attitude toward food irradiation and irradiated products, attitudes toward the educational video, and general demographic information. The questionnaire was administered before and after participating in the program to measure the short-term impact of this program. Participants were encouraged to respond on the basis of their personal view and told that there were no right or wrong answers. The data were analyzed, using SPSS program version 11 (16). All sessions followed the same format: filling out the first page of questionnaire, which included general questions OCTOBER 2007 FOOD PROTECTION TRENDS 745

3 Table 3. Attitude toward the availability of irradiated foods in the supermarket prior to and after participating in the educational program (N=300) Before After Level of support % % Strongly support 7 36 Support Neutral Oppose 4 3 Strongly oppose 4 4 Table 4. Belief that irradiation is an effective method of killing bacteria after participating in the educational program (N=300) Level of support on participant knowledge and attitudes toward food safety and food irradiation, viewing the eight-minute educational video, discussing questions about irradiation, and finally completing the questionnaire. If no questions were asked after the video, the moderator would initiate the discussion with questions such as, How do you feel about the video?, What do you think about irradiation?, or How do you think irradiation will affect food safety? These questions sparked discussion and encouraged participants to share their questions and opinions. The discussion continued for minutes, until no more questions were asked. In total, the sessions lasted between 30 and 50 minutes. Sessions were not audio recorded; however, researchers wrote down the type of questions asked and comments offered. An effective method of killing bacteria Results After Strongly support 33.3 Support 50.3 Neutral 10.3 Oppose 4.3 Strongly oppose 1.7 A total of 300 respondents completed surveys on food irradiation; 72% were females. The age of volunteers ranged from 18 to 80 years old. Most participants were non-hispanic Whites (66.7%), and the rest were Hispanic Whites (11.3%), Asian (7.3%), Native-American (3.3%), African-American (2.3%), and 9% who described themselves as others. Gender and ethnicity did not significantly differ for any of the attitudinal factors measured. Participating in the educational program significantly increased consumers concerns about the presence of harmful bacteria and foodborne illnesses (Table 1). The percentage of respondents reported to be very concerned about harmful bacteria rose from 64% before the program to 69% after the program, and those very concerned about foodborne illnesses rose from 54% prior to the program to 64% after the program. Although 49% of respondents had heard of food irradiation, most (70%) reported that they had little or no knowledge about the process (Table 2). Prior to the educational program, slightly over 22% of respondents were supportive, 70% indicated a neutral attitude toward food irradiation, and 8% were opposed to it (Table 3). After participating in the program, over 80% of respondents agreed with the statement that irradiation is an effective method to destroy harmful bacteria in food and supported the availability of irradiated food at the supermarket (Table 4). Only 6% did not want irradiated products available in the supermarket. Intent to purchase irradiated meat and fruits increased significantly as a result of participating in the program (Table 5). Initially, 13% of participants said they would buy irradiated fruit, while after participating in the program, 59% said they would purchase it. This response reflects interest in high quality tropical fruits or extended freshness of perishables such as strawberries. The potential for enhanced microbiological safety of produce through irradiation was not discussed. Interest in the food safety benefit of irradiation was measured in the response to irradiated meat. Initially only 18% of the respondents indicated that they would buy irradiated meat products, while after the program, 64% said they would buy these products. Furthermore, 36% of total respondents specified that they would be willing to pay a 10% premium for irradiated meat. Almost 70% of the participants concurred that information on food irradiation is not yet widely available. Respondents endorsed using several sources for food safety and food irradiation (Table 6). The most preferred sources are community education programs (84%), TV news (79%), the supermarket (79%) and food/cooking magazines (75%). Consumer perspectives on the educational video The educational video was well received by most participants, with almost 60% believing that the information presented is based mostly on facts (Table 7). A few participants wanted to hear disad- 746 FOOD PROTECTION TRENDS OCTOBER 2007

4 Table 5. Mean level of purchase intent of irradiated meat and fruit after participating in an educational program (N=300) Purchase intent for: Mean level of concerns* Significance Level Irradiated meat Before After 1.48 Irradiated fruit Before 2.03 After *1 = very likely; 2 = somewhat likely; 3 = not likely Table 6. Consumer preferences for sources of information on food irradiation (N=300) Comm. TV Supermarket Food/cooking TV Consumer The Radio Friends ed. news magazine cooking magazines Web program shows Prefer Table 7. Attitude of consumers toward the information received from the educational video tape (N=300) Percentage of responses M mostly facts 59 Some facts, some opinions 33 Few facts, lots of opinions 2 Almost no facts, mostly opinion 1 Don t know 5 vantages of the process, and therefore felt the video was somewhat one-sided. Although the video provided information on food safety and foodborne illness, questions were raised about the Food and Drug Administration regulatory process and the effect of irradiation on food safety and nutritional value. Some wanted to know what approach the FDA used to evaluate safety. Respondents also asked if irradiation created free-radical or radioactive residues or toxins that could increase susceptibility to cancer. Some asked how the process was controlled in the irradiation facility and what agency provided oversight. Others asked if irradiation was an effective strategy to increase the safety of lightly cooked products. The program stimulated discussion on how to better practice safe handling in order to avoid cross contamination of foods. Discussion The educational program appeared to promote awareness of the presence of harmful bacteria and the potential risks of foodborne illnesses. Initially, most consumers were already concerned, but after seeing the video and participating in the discussion, concern increased significantly. This video encouraged consumers to prac- tice safe-food handling and to pay closer attention to the food they buy, prepare, and consume. Many participants expressed the belief that irradiation sounded like radiation and could easily be misunderstood. One person declared, Irradiation has a very lousy connotation on people s minds. Another suggested that the word irradiation should be replaced with another term that clearly communicates to the public that irradiation is equivalent to modern-day pasteurization. Several agreed that using pasteurization to explain the irradiation process was a good idea. OCTOBER 2007 FOOD PROTECTION TRENDS 747

5 Those who initially opposed the irradiation process classified their knowledge of irradiation as little to no knowledge or some knowledge. This suggests that among some people, opposition to irradiation may be due to lack of information or misperception generated by the term irradiation. After the program, from 6% to 8% of respondents remained opposed to the technology. This result suggested that providing science-based information about irradiation increases acceptance among most consumers. The majority of respondents would choose irradiated products over non-irradiated products, in contrast to only 18% who would buy prior to the program. Almost 40% of the respondents even stated that they would pay extra for irradiated meat. This confirms that the educational video increased consumer recognition of the value of the technology and clarified the questions some consumers might have prior to the program. This study confirms the hypothesis that a clear understanding of the effects of irradiation on food quality and safety, as well as on the environment and on people, will increase consumer acceptance. Making consumers aware that scientific and health groups endorse the safety of irradiated products further enhances trust. Because most participants had little knowledge of irradiation, it was relatively easy to deliver the message that irradiation is beneficial. While this educational program did not include information from those opposed to the process, concerns raised by opponents were discussed by the authors if not mentioned by participants. The video tape or subsequent discussion should describe the safety data FDA requires prior to approval and includes the effect of irradiation on nutritional value. Conclusion Sharing information about topics and issues the consumers find important is likely to increase consumer acceptance of new processing technologies. The name of the process technology and the perceived effect of the process on quality, safety, and the environment are the major factors that impact consumer responses. Most consumers were neutral toward irradiation initially, and some were opposed to the process. After receiving accurate and credible information on irradiation and food safety, consumers were significantly more accepting of the value of this technology to enhance safety. A majority indicated they would purchase irradiated products if these were available in the market. This response indicates that most consumers are neutral or undecided about this technology. People are open to information about the process. When provided with accurate, supportive information, most people accept that irradiated foods are wholesome and offer benefits. Consumers sought an explanation on how the technology works, how it enhances safety and maintain nutritional values, and what procedures are used to verify safety. Irradiated food is currently in the market in several states. Supermarket executives reluctant to offer the choice of irradiated meat may consider contacting state food safety educators for assistance in reaching the public. The video tape from Purdue University, Food Irradiation: Behind the Headlines, supplemented with a discussion responsive to consumer questions, effectively lays the groundwork for an informed public and could increase the selection of safety-enhanced irradiated products. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This research was funded by the USDA as a food safety educational grant (USDA CSREES grant number ). The authors gratefully acknowledge the assistance of University of California Cooperative Extension Advisors Yvonne Nicolson and Constant Garrett for help identifying consumer participates. REFERENCES 1. Aiew, W., R. M. Nayga, Jr., and J. P. Nicols The promise of food irradiation: Will consumers accept it? Choices 18: Bruhn, C., and J. Noel Consumer in-store response to irradiated papayas. Food Technol. 41: Food Marketing Institute US grocery shopper trends. Washington, D.C. 4. Food Science Australia nd Innovative Foods Centre Conference on Non-thermal Food Processing Technologies. Sydney, Australia. 5. Fox, J., and D. Olson Market trials of irradiated chicken. Radiation Phys. and Chem. 52: Fox, J. A Targeted data may combat irradiation negativity. MeatNews.com Newsletter. cfs?article= Fox, J. A Influences on purchase of irradiated foods. Food Technol. 56: Frenzen, P., D. A. Majchrowicz, J. C. Buzby, and B. Imhoff Consumer acceptance of irradiated meat and poultry products. Issues in Food Safety Econ. 757: Johnson, A. M., A. E. Reynolds, J. Chen, and A. V. A Resurreccion Consumer attitudes toward irradiated food: 2003 vs Food Prot. Trends 24: Marcotte, M Irradiated strawberries enter the US market. Food Technol. 46: Martin, T., and J. A. Albrecht Meat irradiation education program. J. Am. Dietet. Assoc. 103: A Pohlman, A., O. Wood, and A. Mason Influence of audiovisuals and food samples on consumer acceptance of food irradiation. Food Technol. 48: Purdue Extension Consumer and Family Sciences. nd. Food Irradiation: Behind the Headlines. Purdue University. 14. Research Institute Trends Consumer Attitudes and the Supermarket. Washington, D.C. Food Marketing Institute. 15. Research International Trends Consumer Attitudes and the Supermarket. Washington, D.C. Food Marketing Institute. 16. SPSS. nd. SPSS Statistical Data Analysis. 11 ed: SPSS, Inc Chicago, IL. 17. Tauxe, R Food safety and irradiation: protecting the public from foodborne infection. Emerging Infect. Dis. 7: Terry, D., and R. Tabor Consumers perceptions and willingness to pay for food irradiation. Second International Conference on Research in the Consumer Interest. Snowbird, UT. American Council for Consumer Interest. 19. Worth, M., and P. Jenkins Hidden Harm. Washington, D.C. Public Citizen and the Center for Food Safety. 20. Zienkewicz, L. S. H., and K. P. Penner Consumers perceptions of irradiated ground beef after education and product exposure. Food Prot. Trends. 24: FOOD PROTECTION TRENDS OCTOBER 2007