Food Protection Trends - January/February 2015 - 28

Participants readily shared what "natural" means to them.
A Birmingham mother described the trait as being related
to an "historical romance," that makes her think "about a
time... people grew most of their food." Other attributes,
like "quality," were also connected to purity or naturalness.
A Chicago participant described quality food as being
desirable, yet she linked quality to "organic" and natural
foods with "not a lot of preservatives." Product selection
is also related to natural and pure foods, as mothers
described fruits and vegetables as highly desirable items
to buy because they are unaltered and natural (S. Focus
Group). These fresh and natural foods are perceived to
yield the most beneficial end results (health, more energy,
happiness), which is what encourages participants to
purchase them (Ba. Focus Group). These themes resonated
with mothers in all focus groups.
Participants equate "positive" characteristics of food with
familiarity. This certainty is provided by their experiences
(foods with which they grew up), their knowledge about
the food (no words on the packaging that are confusing
or intimidating), and their confidence that the food will
produce health benefits (fruits and vegetables are linked
to healthful outcomes). In addition, participants discussed
barriers that impede information seeking. When time
and budgetary constraints are considered in the decisionmaking process, mothers say that little time and effort is
spent investigating new foods, especially those that contain
artificial ingredients or additives. A participant shared that
she "always [has] a million things to do," and additionally,
she doesn't "like grocery shopping" (Ba. Focus Group).
These factors contribute to her relying on familiar foods,
rather than considering new food options that might
require additional time, energy, and thought (which many
participants would prefer to spend elsewhere).
Negativity and rejection of foods stemmed from
perceptions of artificiality. All focus groups articulated
clearly their belief that artificial or man-made additions
to products yield negative outcomes. For example, a
Baltimore participant noted that she avoided sugar, artificial
sweeteners, and anything processed. When asked why, the
participant responded she did so because it is "not natural.
They don't grow around us" and "our bodies aren't made to
process them because they're not made from food." A San
Diego participant also expressed confusion about products
that contain "a plethora of like 30 or 40 things" when they
are "all chemicals." Further, this mother stated that these
products contain "names of some things [she] can't even
pronounce. Like, why is this in here?" While participants
linked pure foods to positive health outcomes, they also
linked foods with added ingredients to negative health
outcomes. Among the outcomes of consuming man-made
products, participants mentioned cancer, high blood
pressure, heart disease, addiction, early onset of puberty,
and obesity.

Food Protection Trends

January/February

Added chemicals were worrisome to participants. One
mother noted, "a lot of it is the unknown, you are putting
this chemical in your body and you do not know what is
happening, it could affect you tomorrow, five years from
now or fifty years from now, you just do not know and
that is a problem" (Bi. Focus Group). Participants were
unsure of the functionality of certain food ingredients. This
uncertainty left some mothers feeling "terrible" because
they are not assured that the products they have selected
to feed themselves and their families are safe (Bi. Focus
Group). Even when no threat was identified, discussion
uncovered instances in which mothers simply worried if
they were not serving natural products to their families
(example: feeding infants formula instead of breast milk)
(C. Focus Group).
Phase one of focus groups: Moderate-to-high health
value mothers
Four mothers in each of the four geographic areas (n
= 16 total) were moderate-to-high health value mothers.
These mothers, identified as being more cognizant of health
issues, are similar to "middle-of-the-road mothers" in that
the idea of natural or pure foods is important to them.
However, these participants articulated this concept with
more precise language. For example, instead of defining
"natural" with experiences or memories of their childhood,
high health value mothers' explanations were more likely
to be tangible and diverse. When asked what she looks for
in food, a participant in Birmingham responded that she
wants foods that are both fresh and natural. Explaining
further, she articulated that this means avoiding "sugars,
high fat content, trans-fat" (linked to high cholesterol, high
blood pressure, heart disease), artificial flavors (like "KoolAde") and "sodium, cholesterol, MSG, limit red meat." In
Baltimore, participants listed antioxidants, fiber, low sugar,
calcium, low-calorie, fat-free or low fat, organic, and natural
as being positive characteristics of food. However, organic
and natural were also discussed as "a marketing thing" that
did not necessarily hold meaning in and of itself (Ba. Focus
Group). In total, high health value mothers mentioned
"natural" 51 times, only slightly over half as often as our
lower-to-moderate health value participants.
High health value participants recognized the physiological benefits of eating healthful foods in moderation. A San
Diego participant discussed food qualities important to her,
explaining that "foods that are high in nutrition will help
[her family] live longer, provide long-lasting energy" and
contribute to "a constant burning metabolism." Mothers
also listed seeking out foods that specifically alleviate
certain conditions. A Chicago participant noted that she
proactively searches for and buys low-sugar foods to diminish her family's odds of developing diabetes. Other mothers
expressed beliefs abut the detrimental side effects of eating
poorly, stating that outcomes of poor diet include diabetes,

Food Protection Trends - January/February 2015

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