Food Protection Trends - November/December 2023 - 454

price, and chub packaging (for ground beef specifically).
Facilitators included lower price, general protection from
foodborne illness, reduced risk from certain foods, support
from public health agencies, positive anecdotes and evidence
demonstrating safety and benefits of irradiated foods,
and familiar tray packaging (for ground beef specifically).
The results from these focus groups provided insight into
consumers' knowledge, awareness, and practices toward
irradiation as a food safety technology.
Consumer knowledge and awareness
Participants in these focus groups were generally unaware
of what irradiation is and how it is used, which is consistent
with past research (6, 14). However, education on what food
irradiation is and its benefits can lead to significant increases
in consumer acceptance by improving consumer knowledge
and awareness (1, 4, 12, 15). Two specific studies have
demonstrated significant increases in consumer acceptance
of irradiated food after educational interventions. A shopping
study conducted in 1993 found that the proportion of
consumers choosing irradiated over nonirradiated ground
beef when there was no price difference rose from 52% to
71% after viewing a short audiovisual educational program
(1). Another study showed that consumer acceptance
of irradiated food could be increased up to 99% when
information about irradiated foods was provided with
food samples (2). Such research suggests that educational
campaigns could help increase consumer acceptance of
irradiated foods.
Facilitators for purchasing
Facilitators for purchasing irradiated foods identified
during these focus groups included general protection
from foodborne illness, reduced risk of foodborne illness
for certain foods, and support from public health agencies.
Participants discussed how " peace of mind " from foodborne
illness, especially for certain foods such as ground meats and
leafy greens that are consumed raw, could be a reason they
would purchase irradiated products. This suggests that education
around the primary benefit of irradiation-pathogen
reduction-could help create a market for irradiated foods
for consumers who prioritize food safety. This could include
consumers who are at higher risk for severe foodborne
illness, such as older adults, women who are pregnant, and
children aged 0-5 years (8); those who are concerned about
and eat foods frequently linked to outbreaks; and consumers
who prefer to eat foods like ground beef undercooked or raw.
Dialogue on irradiation among food safety professionals has
suggested that discussion about the technology should shift
from focusing on possible risks of irradiation to focusing
on protecting against foodborne illness (11, 16). With
multistate foodborne outbreaks on the rise (24), increasing
public discourse about ways to reduce risk of foodborne
illness could help educate consumers about how foods can
454 Food Protection Trends November/December
become contaminated, improve consumers' knowledge of
types of interventions to improve food safety, and increase
consumer demand for irradiated foods. Focus group participants
stated that support from public health agencies could
encourage consumers to purchase irradiated foods. Multiple
public health agencies, including the CDC, WHO, FDA, and
USDA, have endorsed the safety and use of food irradiation
(34), although there has not been a recent concentrated
effort to increase knowledge about irradiation in the United
States. This project suggests that these agencies may play a
key role in facilitating consumer purchasing decisions when
considering irradiated foods for purchase.
Barriers for purchasing
Aside from a lack of knowledge and general safety
concerns about irradiation identified among focus group
participants, product price, packaging, and a general distrust
of food technology were identified as potential barriers
when deciding to purchase irradiated foods. Price has been
well documented as a primary factor of influence when
purchasing food in a store (19). This is important because
irradiating foods adds an additional processing step, which
could increase the cost of production. Although some
participants stated they would pay extra for the added food
safety benefit, if this cost is passed to the consumer, our
findings suggest it is likely that many consumers would
choose nonirradiated products.
Like the findings regarding price, findings from these focus
groups suggests that packaging of irradiated products could
play a role in consumer purchasing decisions. Focus group
participants chose polystyrene (e.g., Styrofoam) tray packaging
over chub packaging for ground beef, regardless of whether
the ground beef was irradiated. Many food processors package
their product before it is irradiated to reduce postirradiation
contamination. When certain packaging materials are irradiated,
the packaging can become impaired, resulting in an
insufficient microbial and chemical barrier for transportation
and sale. Polystyrene is not included on the list of approved
packaging materials for food irradiation (33). Because ground
beef is commonly packaged in a polystyrene foam tray and
covered with cling film, it may create a barrier for manufacturers
who consider irradiating their ground beef or could result
in manufacturers irradiating beef packaged in other types of
packaging, like chub packaging, which may be less preferable
for consumers. Irradiated ground beef isn't widely available,
and products that are offered are usually in chub packaging.
Additional packaging options for irradiated ground beef and
other irradiated products that could both be irradiated and are
acceptable to consumers should be developed.
Lastly, a general distrust of food technology was identified
as a potential barrier for consumers when deciding whether
to purchase irradiated foods. Some participants who expressed
this distrust referenced organic foods, suggesting that
less food processing is healthier. Under current regulation, ir
Food Protection Trends - November/December 2023

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