Food Protection Trends - November/December 2023 - 453

" It's just like organic. I mean, you know that you're going to
pay in some cases a dollar or two more.... But my personal
opinion...is that it's more about the shelf life...so they don't
have to throw out as opposed to what's really better for us. "
The other two identified themes related to barriers were
higher price and chub packaging, and these were identified
through thematic analysis of the virtual ground beef
shopping scenarios. The lower-price ground beef product
was almost always chosen over the higher-price ground
beef product, regardless of whether it was irradiated. When
presented with options in which the irradiated ground beef
cost less and the packaging was the same, most participants
would choose the cheaper irradiated ground beef. However,
some participants still were not willing to take on the
perceived risk of consuming irradiated ground beef. Similarly,
in scenarios in which the irradiated ground beef cost more
and the packaging was the same, most participants indicated
that they would purchase the cheaper nonirradiated ground
beef, expressing that the potential benefits of irradiation were
not worth the higher price. One participant stated, " I will
go with the lower price. Because I just don't know enough
about the other one to really pay more for it. " However, a
few participants throughout the groups stated they would be
willing to pay more for irradiated ground beef-if the price
was " reasonable " -for the guarantee of safety. One of these
participants stated, " Just having that peace of mind...I can
put that in my cart-because we buy grass-fed beef and pay
an extra price for it, when you know, there's regular beef. So,
to me, that would be the equivalent of that. "
Most participants preferred tray packaging for ground
beef compared with chub, or tube, packaging, citing reasons
such as lack of familiarity with chub packaging and not
being able to see the color or assess the freshness of the
meat. One participant stated a preference for tray packaging
because " You can actually see the product and know whether
it's fresh or not. Whereas, in the-in the rolled thing, you
can't tell what it looks like to see if maybe it's gone bad or
something like that. " In scenarios in which irradiated ground
beef was in tray packaging and nonirradiated ground beef
was in chub packaging, most participants would choose the
irradiated ground beef in tray packaging. This was also true
for participants who said they would not normally choose
the irradiated option. One participant stated, " I've never
really eaten meat from a tube, so I guess the packaging for
me was a little bit-you know. I guess I feel like it's fresher. "
In scenarios in which the irradiated ground beef was in
chub packaging and the nonirradiated ground beef was in
a tray, most participants would choose the nonirradiated
ground beef. In all scenarios in which participants indicated
they would choose the ground beef packaged in a chub, it
was from a familiarity with the packaging, often citing past
purchases. One participant stated, " I have bought [chubpacked
meat] plenty of times. It's just, they can weigh the
same pounds. But...the roll is cheaper than the other pack. "
When participants were presented with irradiated and
nonirradiated ground beef that had both the same cost and
the same packaging, most participants would choose the
nonirradiated option, citing familiarity with the product and
concerns previously mentioned.
Facilitators. Four additional themes related to facilitators
were identified through discussion outside of the shopping
scenarios. They were a general protection from foodborne
illness, reduced risk from certain foods, support from
public health agencies, and positive anecdotes and evidence
demonstrating safety and benefits of irradiated foods. Two
themes related to facilitators to purchasing irradiated ground
beef were identified through the virtual shopping scenarios:
lower price and familiar packaging (tray packaging).
Several participants identified protection against
foodborne illness, for themselves, their children, or their
family, as a benefit of irradiation. One participant stated, " I
don't like to have to worry about foodborne illnesses.... So
to know that there was an extra step to make sure that any
kind of germ that could make the meat bad was irradiated out
of it...that doesn't scare me. " Some participants pointed out
that there are certain foods, such as leafy greens and ground
beef, that they feel are more likely to carry foodborne germs
and are more difficult to prepare in a way that eliminates
the risk of illness, making these foods more appealing to
purchase irradiated. One participant stated, " Lettuce. Those
leafy greens that have caused a lot of foodborne illnesses.
I definitely would prefer it irradiated. " Another added,
" Ground beef is a real scary purchase for me because they
say when we buy commercial hamburger in the market, that
may be from 100 cows all mixed together.... So, especially for
something like ground beef-that would really cut the risk. "
Support for irradiation from public health agencies, such as
the CDC, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA),
the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the World
Health Organization (WHO), and positive anecdotes from
friends, family, and the public demonstrating the safety and
benefits of irradiated foods were also identified as facilitators
for purchasing irradiated foods. One participant stated, " If it
is something that the CDC is backing, I'll lean a little more
that way. "
DISCUSSION
Irradiation is a food safety technology that is safe, is
effective, and has a large potential public health impact (29).
Despite this, food irradiation remains largely underutilized
in the United States compared with its use in other countries
(3), with consumer acceptance often described as a large
barrier for adoption (6, 22). Overall, we identified barriers
and facilitators for purchasing irradiated foods generally
and for ground beef specifically. General barriers included
general safety concerns about irradiation, a lack of familiarity
with irradiated foods, the perception that irradiation is
unnecessary, a general distrust of food technology, higher
November/December Food Protection Trends 453
Food Protection Trends - November/December 2023

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Food Protection Trends - November/December 2023
