Food Protection Trends - January/February 2015 - 26

"cultural, emotional, symbolic, or even religious" because
it is incorporated into the being of an individual (7).
For these reasons, even if chemicals can preserve the
quality, safety, or freshness of food, they may be viewed
negatively by consumers, many of whom perceive them to
be unnecessary.
Based on these observations, this initial roundtable
with subject matter experts generated several conclusions,
including the following: (a) consumers are not irrational,
but rather respond to chemical risks based on their level of
knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs; (b) new communication
objectives should be developed to match the level of
consumer understanding; and (c) misinformation on
the Internet should be monitored and mitigated to avoid
propagation (7).
To accomplish these goals, IFIC initiated a twophase research strategy. In phase one, qualitative focus
groups were developed to foster broader participant
understanding of chemical perceptions of risks and
benefits associated with food production and food
safety. In phase two, descriptive and generalizable data
were collected to gather a representative understanding
of chemical perceptions. Next, IFIC generated more
comprehensive, current, user-friendly, and accurate risk
and benefit messages designed to assist consumers with
making decisions about food purchases and consumption.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
This study employed a two-pronged approach to data
collection. Phase one of the study used small group
discussions (focus groups) to generate basic knowledge of
how participants perceive food, food risks, and eventually
chemicals. We used this background information on
consumer perspective to guide phase two, in which we used
a quantitative online survey to assess perceptions about
specific chemicals in food.
Phase one: Focus groups
To gauge existing consumer sentiment, in phase one
we encouraged participants to speak openly about food,
and more generally about how they understand food
safety. Using a discussion guide, focus groups aimed to
identify issues most salient to mothers. Mothers aged
18-54 were selected because of their influence in the food
decision-making process and the high likelihood that
they are responsible for the health and well being of their
children. In September 2011, IFIC convened eight small
focus groups (n = 4 participants per group) in four U.S.
cities (two focus groups per city; n = 32 total): Chicago,
IL (C. Focus Group); Baltimore, MD (Ba. Focus Group);
Birmingham, AL (Bi. Focus Group); and San Diego, CA
(S. Focus Group). These cities represent four diverse U.S.
geographic regions: central, east coast, southeast, and west
coast, respectively. One focus group in each city recruited

Food Protection Trends

January/February

mothers who harbored "middle-of-the-road" health values
(low-to-moderate health literacy) and the other groups in
each city consisted of "high health value" (proficient health
literacy) mothers.
High health value participants possess characteristics
that make them more aware of health issues than average or
"middle-of-the road" mothers. Mothers with self-described
higher "health values" tended to express increased awareness of chronic, or long-term, illness. Participants' occupations often predicted high-to-moderate levels of literacy.
For example, participants who worked in a health field (e.g.,
nursing) were likely to fall within the high health value
group. However, those with the greatest health awareness
were not always those associated with higher education or
professional experience. For example, focus group participants were asked (as were survey respondents in the later
stage of this study), "Do you or a family member in your
household who lives with you have any of the following:
high blood pressure, high cholesterol, asthma or other respiratory disease, food allergy, ADHD/ADD, diabetes, lactose
intolerance, heart disease, immunodeficiency disease, cancer, celiac disease, Crohn's disease, any other condition that
requires restricted diets, [or] none of the above." Typically,
if participants informally identified themselves as caretakers, they tended to have higher health literacy.
The moderator used a five-page, semi-structured
discussion guide to collect participant data. All focus
groups used the same discussion guide. The guide's four
macro-structure sections consisted of an introduction, food
purchasing habits and feelings, positive aspects regarding
food, and negative aspects regarding food. The guide was
also used to facilitate discussion about chemicals and
additives, including both positive and negative aspects
of chemicals. The focus group discussions were video
recorded. Transcripts were generated and coded for themes,
topic frequency, and negative and positive associations to
food. Major themes and discussions from the qualitative
data were subsequently used to generate the survey
employed in phase two.
Phase two: Survey
Phase two, which began in January 2012, used a
questionnaire that consisted of multiple choice and
open-ended questions. Instructions were included with
the questions. The questionnaire was designed to assess
consumer sentiment in six areas: (a) consumer perceptions
of "chemicals in food" and influence of these on purchasing
behavior; (b) motivating elements for specific attitudes
about chemicals in food; (c) health questions related to
chemical exposure; (d) communication strategies that
may reduce concerns for specific chemicals; (e) significant
factors that affect the decision-making process about food,
and (f) the development and testing of messages about
chemicals in food. Prior to full data collection, a small pilot

Food Protection Trends - January/February 2015

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Food Protection Trends - January/February 2015