Consumer acceptance of irradiated food: theory and reality

Pergamon

PII:

Radic~iar.Pltys. Chem. Vol. 52, Nos I 6, pp. 129 133. 1998 7” 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved Printed in Great Brmm SO969-806X(98)00088-7 0969-806X/98 Sl9.00 + 0 00

CONSUMER ACCEPTANCE OF IRRADIATED FOOD: THEORY AND REALITY CHRISTINE M. BRUHN Director, Center for Consumer Research,University of California, Davis, California ABSTRACT For years most consumers have expressed less concern about food irradiation than other food processing technologies. Attitude studies have demonstrated that when given science-basedinformation, from 60% to 90% of consumers prefer the advantages irradiation processing provides. When information is accompanied by samples, acceptance may increase to 99%. Information on irradiation should include product benefits, safety and wholesomeness, address environmental safety issues, and include endorsements by recognized health authorities. Educational and marketing programs should now be directed toward retailers and processors. Given the opportunity, consumers will buy high quality, safety-enhanced irradiated food. KEY WORDS Food irradiation, consumer attitudes, consumer behavior INTRODUCTION

For years most consumers have expressed less concern about food irradiation than other food processing technologies. Attitude studies have demonstrated that when given science-based information 60%-90% prefer irradiated foods. CONSUMER

CONCERNS

Frequently consumer attitude are measured by recording the number of persons who view a particular situation with major, minor, or no concern. The mere process of asking about an area will cause some to express concern. For example, when nutrition or food safety concerns are specifically identified, the number of persons expressing concern is two to three times higher than in open-ended questions (Opinion Research, 1995). Therefore surveys are more accurately interpreted by comparing change over time, contrasting attitudes toward one area with those of another within the same sample. Concern about irradiation among United States consumers is less than concern about other food processing technologies. When specifically asked, 29% considered irradiation a potential serious health hazard compared to 77% who identified bacteria as a serious hazard and 66% who classified pesticides as serious (Abt Associates, 1996). The percentage classifying irradiation as serious is comparable to those viewing nitrites as serious. A relative rating of food processing methods surveyed by the Gallup Organization found that irradiation, food preservatives, and use of chlorination generated a similar concern rating (Gallup et al, 1993). Consumers were asked to rate as “1” areas about which they had little concern and “lo” areas with significant concern. Concern for use of chlorinated water 7.4, irradiation, 7.3, and food preservatives, 7.1 were not statistically different. Pasteurization generated less concern with a rating of 5.8 and canning was rated as 5.6. These findings illustrate that consumers will always express some level of concern, even about processes in wide use and generally recognized as safe. 129

130

Christine M. Bruhn

The percentage of consumers concerned about irradiation has decreased significantly over time. In the late 1980’s between 42%-43% classified irradiation as a serious concern (Abt Associates, 1996). Those expressing concern decreased in 1992 to 35% and in 1996 to 29%. When consumers are given the opportunity to volunteer food safety concerns, microbiological hazards and spoilage are mentioned most frequently (Abt Associates, 1996). Less than one percent of consumers volunteer food irradiation. It is noteworthy that irradiation addresses the food safety area when concern is greatest. Similar findings were noted among over four hundred Georgian consumers. Concerns for pesticides, animal drug residues, growth hormones, food additives, and bacteria were significantly higher than concern for food irradiation (Resurrection et al, 1995). Concern ratings for irradiation and naturally occurring toxins was comparable. More persons believed irradiation was “no problem,” 20%, than other potential food safety issues such as food additives, 11%; growth hormones, 8%; animal drugs, 7%; and pesticides, 7%. EFFECTS OF EDUCATION

When asked about irradiation, people have questions about product safety, nutritional quality, potential harm to employees, and potential danger from living near an irradiation facility. Consumers have indicated in focus groups discussions that the most important information is irradiated foods record of safety and wholesomeness, the process destroys bacteria and protects against food borne illness, and irradiation is endorsed for safety by health authorities (Gallup Organization et al., 1993). Consumer studies consistently demonstrate that when provided with science-based information, a high percentage of consumers prefer irradiated foods (Bruhn 1995; Gallup Organization et. al., 1993). The effect of information and product samples on consumer attitudes was documented in a Purdue University study (Pohlman, et. al., 1994). A video tape was prepared which include a description cf the irradiation process, effects of irradiation on food safety and wholesomeness, description of the regulation process, and identification of foods which can be irradiated in the United States. The tape was shown as part of an educational program to many groups in Indiana. Initially about half of the sample of 178 were willing to buy irradiated foods. AtIer viewing the eight minute video tape, The Future of Food Preservation, Food Irradiation, subjects knowledge and willingness to buy irradiated food increased to 90%. Willingness to buy increased to 99% among those who both saw the video tape and sampled irradiated strawberries. This video tape has been evaluated among other audiences. The Future of Food Preservation, Food Irradiation and other educational pieces were shown to military personal (Schutz, 1994). In followup interviews, the percentage of soldiers who expressed major concern in the control group (received no educational intervention) decreased from 33% to 29% and those expressing no concern increased f?om 8% to 27%. This change may have resulted from repeat exposure to the concept of irradiation. Among those soldiers viewing the video tape, the percentage expressing major concern decreased from 33% to 17%. Those expressing no concern increased from 6% initially to 38% after the video. Those soldiers likely to select irradiated food in the military dinning commons increased from 21% initially to 61% after viewing the video tape. Over 80% indicated they were likely to choose irradiated field rations. A USDA funded project in California and Indiana used the video tape to evaluated the impact of a brief educational program on community leader’s attitude and knowledge of food irradiation (Bruhn and Mason, 1996). After a brief introduction, The Future of Food Preservation, Food Irradiation was shown, followed by a question and answer period and summary of the &ect of irradiation on food. Consumers gained knowledge of specific food irradiation facts and their interest in purchasing irradiated foods increased. After participating in this program, consumer’s concern about the safety of irradiated foods decreased from 19% to 11%. Confidence in the safety of irradiated food increased with those likely or very likely to try irradiated food increasing from 57% to 83%. There was no difference in attitudes or knowledge between California and Indiana consumers.

10th International

Meeting on Radiation Processing

131

Attitude studies indicate consumer intention and do not necessarily reflect actual marketplace behavior. In a simulated market study conducted in Georgia, initially 44% indicated they would purchase irradiated ground beef. After receiving information on the process, 71% actually selected beef labeled irradiated including half of those who were uncertain and 62% of those originally stating they would not purchase irradiated food (Gallup Organization et. al., 1993). MARKET

EXPERIENCES:

THE REALITY

Irradiation offers significant consumer advantages in food safety, quality, and convenience. Actual marketing experience in several parts of the United States demonstrates that consumers will purchase irradiated conventional and tropical fruit and poultry. Persons opposed to scientific and technological innovations find irradiation unacceptable. These persons have been estimated as 5-10% of the population (Brand Group, 1986). Consumer response to labeled irradiated food has been positive. Irradiated mangoes sold well in Florida in 1986. In March 1987, irradiated Hawaiian papayas available as a one day trial at two markets in Southern California outsold the identically priced non irradiated counterpart by greater than ten to one (Bruhn and Noel, 1987). Irradiated apples marketed in Missouri were favorably received (Terry and Tabor, 1987; Terry and Tabor, 1990). A record amount of irradiated strawberries were sold in a Florida in 1992 (Marcotte, 1992). Thereafter numerous irradiated produce items have been marketed in the Chicago area, and irradiated products typically outsell non-irradiated by a 20 to one ratio (Corrigan, 1996; Pszczola, 1992). Since the fall of 1995 tropical Iiuit ti-om Hawaii has been sold at Carrot Top (Chicago) and several Midwest markets in collaboration with a study to determine quarantine treatment. From 1995 through October, 1996, eleven shipments of fruit consisting of papaya (10,020 pounds), atemoya (7,302 pounds), rambutan (1,168 pounds), lychee (3,080 pounds), startiuit (2,264 pounds), banana (380 pounds), Chinese taro (30 pounds), and oranges (200 pounds) were shipped to Isomedix plant near Chicago for irradiation between 0.25 Kg and 1.0 Kg (Wong, 1996). In late 1996 fruit was also marketed in ethnic markets in San Francisco and Los Angeles. Fruit was well received by consumers, however one Midwest retailer withdrew due to threats from an activist organization. The market response to irradiated poultry was tested in Kansas. In 1995 labeled irradiated poultry captured 60% of the market share when priced 10% less than store brand, 39% when priced equally, and 30% when priced 10% higher (Anonymous, 1995b). In 1996 market share increased to 63% when the irradiated product was priced 10% less than the store brand, 47% when priced equally, and 18% and 17% when priced 10% or 20% higher (Fox, 1996). The irradiated product sold better in the more up-scale store, capturing 73% of the market when priced 10% lower, 58% when priced equally, and 3 1% and 30% when priced 10% or 20% higher. This is consistent with other attitude surveys and marketplace data that indicate irradiation is more accepted in up-scale markets. Chicken irradiated to destroy bacterial contamination is being used for employee and patient food service in some Florida health care facilities (Anonymous, 1995a). Lawyers have noted that there is a greater risks to a food company to not use irradiation than to use it (Robeck, 1996). CONCLUSION

Consumers want information on the effect of long term consumption of irradiated food, the nutritional value of irradiated food, the use in other countries, and the impact of the facility on the community. Educational messages should stress the benefits of irradiation. Worker and community safety should not be omitted from the discussion. Endorsement by health authorities is an important component cf any safety discussion. Irradiation is endorsed by the American Medical Association, the American Dietetic Association, the American Veterinary Medical Association, the Institute of Food Technologists, World Health Association, US Food and Drug Association, US Department CE Agriculture, Codex, and others.

132

Christine M. Bruhn

An interesting shift has occurred in consumer perception of responsibility for safe food. The Food Marketing Institute survey asks on whom consumers rely to ensure the products they bought in the supermarket were safe. In 1986 most consumers, 48%, responded “yourself as an individual” (Abt Associates, 1996). The government received the second most frequent response with 33%. Over time consumer reliance has shifted. In 1996, fewer consumers relied on themselves, only 25%, and fewer counted on the government, 21%. An increased number of consumers look to manufacturers and food processors, up from 8% in 1986 to 21% in 1996, and food stores, up from 2% in I986 to 16% in 1996. This shift may be related to media coverage which suggests that someone unfairly exposed the consumer to substandard “contaminated” or “tainted” food. Producers must find new methods to improve the microbiological quality of meat and poultry products. Irradiation can effectively fill this need. It does not destroy toxins or viruses nor does it replace safe food handling, but it is an effective cap-stone process of the hazard analysis critical control point (HACCP) process. Opportunities for irradiation may increase as a result of increased government emphasis on food safety. In January 1997 HACCP became mandatory for the meat industry and President Clinton announced a National Food Safety Initiative. The US FDA is expected to approve a petition for use of a sterilizing dose of irradiation on a variety of fresh and frozen meat products. To increase the availability of irradiated foods in the market-place educational and marketing programs should next be directed toward retailers and processors. Given the opportunity, consumers will buy high quality, safety-enhanced irradiated food. REFERENCES Abt Associates Inc. Food Industry & Agribusiness Consulting Practice. (1996) Trends in the United States, Consumer attitudes and the supermarket, 1996 Food Marketing Institute, Washington, DC. Anonymous. (1995a) Anonymous. (1995b) Brand Group (1986) Report. Chicago,

Florida hospitals make irradiated chicken buy. Food Service Director 8(2), 1. The irradiation Option. Food Safety Consortium 5(3), 1, 5. Irradiated seafood product. A position paper for the seafood industry. Final IL.

Bruhn, C.M. (1995) Consumer attitudes and market response to irradiated food. Journal of Food Protection B(2), 175- 18 1. Bruhn C.M. and Mason A. (1996) Science and Society: A public information program on food innovations. Final Report USDA FY 1994 Special Projects, Project no 94-EFSQ-l-4141. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. Bruhn C.M. and Noel J.W. (1987) Consumer in-store response to irradiated papayas. Food Technology 41(9), 83. Corrigan J. (1996) Personal communication. Carrot Top, Illinois. Fox J.A. (1996) Personal communication. University, Manhattan, Kansas.

Department of Agricultural Economics, Kansas State

Gallup Organization, ABT Associates, Center for Food Safety and Quality Enhancement, University CE Georgia. (1993) Consumer awareness, knowledge and acceptance of food irradiation. American Meat Institute Foundation, Arlington, Virginia. Marcotte M. (1992) Irradiated strawberries enter the US market. Food Technology 46(S), 80. Opinion Research. (1987-1995) Trends. Consumer attitudes and the super-market. Food Marketing Institute, Washington, D.C.

10th International

Meeting

on Radiation

Processing

133

Pohlman A.J., Wood O.B., Mason A.C. (1994) Influence of audiovisuals and food samples on consumer acceptance of food irradiation. Food Technology 48(12), 46-49. Pszczola D.E. (1992) Irradiated produce reaches Midwest market. Food Technology 46(5), 89. Resurrection A.V.A., Galvez F.C.F., Fletcher SM., and Misra S.K. (1995) Consumer attitudes toward irradiated food: Results of a new study. Journal of Food Protection 58(2), 193-196. Robeck M.R. (1996) Product liability issues related to food irradiation. Food Technology 50(2), 7% 82. Schutz H.G. (1994) Consumer/Soldier acceptance of irradiated food. U.S. Army Natick Research, Development and Engineering Center, Contract number DAAL03-9 l-C-0034. Natick, Mass. Terry D.E. and Tabor R.L. (1987) Consumer acceptance of irradiated produce: A value added approach. 1988 Produce Marketing Association Yearbook, p. 42-47. Terry D.E. and Tabor R.L. (1990) Consumers’ perceptions and willingness to pay for food irradiation. Proceedings of the Second International

Conference on Research in the Consumer Interest,

August 1990. Wong L. (1996) Personal communications. Department of Agriculture, State of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii.