Food Protection Trends - January/February 2015 - 32

the article did for acrylamide, as 80% of respondents found it
understandable and 72% labeled the writing as convincing.
Respondents were asked to identify portions of the
experimental article they favored and to simultaneously
record information and wording they did not understand
or like. Respondents rejected statements that failed to offer
certainty. Respondents also frequently rejected sentences
that contained heavily scientific information or technical
jargon such as "probable human carcinogen," "known
toxicity," and "epoxy resins." Finally, respondents preferred
that material about potential chemical risk be grounded
outside a discussion of technical risk alone. Rather, they
preferred the chemical be placed in a context that is
understandable and that clearly illustrates a particular level
of human risk or harm to them, and that is connected to the
well being of their family or themselves.
Respondents' remarks also demonstrate a desire for factbased evidence from credible sources that are perceived
positively (such as the FDA and other government
agencies). Furthermore, words that are familiar and simple
to understand were appreciated. Written descriptions
of actions occurring in response to potential chemical
exposures and hazards (research and ongoing monitoring)
were selected as desirable. Finally, instructive and
prescriptive information to guide individual decision
making comprises the final component of desirable food
safety messaging. See Fig. 1 for specific positive and negative
associations for Q & A articles.
Phase two: Decision influencers
Respondents listed numerous factors that influence their
food-purchasing decisions, the most important of which were
taste, freshness, cost, and trust in branded products (Table 1).
Respondents note that they are influenced most by credible
experts, including medical professionals and government
agencies (Fig. 3). Notable television and media personalities
were viewed as influential, both negatively and positively.
This finding also corresponds with preference for precise,
fact-based language as opposed to ambiguous statements.
Interestingly, consumers also disclosed that they occasionally
use marketing cues to make decisions about products
that contain chemicals. Products that claim to be "free" of
chemicals (e.g., "no nitrates") on the label are favored over
products that list no such claim. While mothers may not
understand what the chemicals are, food labeling is ultimately
used as a warning map for issues about which they should be
aware in making their purchasing decisions.
Phase two: Message preferences
Consumers prefer effective messages that use short
explanations, are intuitively understood, and contain
declarative language about risk, with credible content.
Mothers tell us that statements like "discard worn or

Food Protection Trends

January/February

scratched" and definitive statements like "there is currently
no reason" or "past and present studies confirm" are most
helpful. Respondents want to know more about the food
they eat and serve to their families. However, they need
information that is understandable, clear, and concise.
Respondents identified content, topics, and words they
liked and disliked when reading the responses to the
chemical news articles. Specific phrases in the Q & A fact
sheets for BPA and acrylamide are depicted, along with
respondent preferences, in Figures 1 and 2.
DISCUSSION
Findings in phase one of the project imply that those
who have lower health literacy are generally more fearful
of chemicals in the food supply than are those with higher
health literacy. The lower literacy group described a general
distrust of chemicals regardless of whether they were used
intentionally for flavoring or preservation, or had made their
way into the food supply unintentionally. Conversely, those
with higher health literacy appeared to be able to appreciate
both the benefits and potential risks of chemicals in food. The
term "natural" was consistently identified as a safe alternative to
chemicals in the lower literacy group, although the participants
were not able to provide a consistent definition of the term. In
fact, the term was used in the lower literacy group to describe
foods participants ate as children, in addition to categories of
food (e.g., organic products). The higher literacy group was
more discriminating in its use of the term "natural" and was
more likely to use specific terms to relay their feelings and
opinions toward food (e.g., they also listed antioxidants, fiber,
low sugar, calcium, low-calorie, fat-free or low fat, and organic
as being positive characteristics of food).
Higher health literacy participants discussed topics
that were largely absent from the discussions of the lower
literacy group. For example, the higher literacy group
was concerned about selecting foods based on nutrition,
weight control, sugar content, and sodium, factors that
they themselves perceived as possibly contributing to a
number of long-term health hazards. The link between these
dimensions of the food supply and disease management or
prevention appeared considerably less often in the lower
literacy group. Therefore, the preoccupation with chemicals
in the food supply shown by the lower literacy group may
actually distract such individuals from making choices that
could address immediate concerns related to blood sugar,
weight gain, and blood pressure.
Those with lower literacy levels expressed a broad array of
misconceptions regarding chemical content without a full
appreciation of how food choices affect immediate health
threats such as obesity, diabetes, and high blood pressure. As
a result, the long-term fear of the potential for adverse health
effects of chemical ingredients can and should be balanced with
a realistic understanding of how poor nutrition can have more
immediate and scientifically verifiable health consequences.

Food Protection Trends - January/February 2015

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