- Email: [email protected]
Consumer Acceptance of Irradiated Poultry
Consumer Acceptance of Irradiated Poultry I. B. HASHIM, A.V.A. RESURRECCION,1 and K. H. MCWATTERS Center for Food Safety and Quality Enhancement, Department of Food Science and Technology, College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, University of Georgia, Georgia Station, Griffin, Georgia 30223-1797
1995 Poultry Science 74:1287-1294
and the increased purchase of a product. Bruhn et al. (1986) found that education In May 1990, the Food and Drug and information about irradiation inAdministration (FDA) approved irradia- creased conventional consumers' willingtion for the control of foodborne patho- ness to buy irradiated foods. In a review gens in poultry products (FDA, 1990). On of 14 studies, Bruhn and Schutz (1989) September 21, 1992, the USDA, Food reported that information about irradiaSafety and Inspection Service (FSIS), ap- tion improved the acceptance of irradiated proved guidelines for the use of irradia- food. Resurreccion et al. (1995) found that tion in raw packaged poultry at 1.5 to 3.0 at least 45% of consumers surveyed would kGy (USDA, 1992). buy irradiated foods, and that labeling Mclsaac et al. (1993) found a positive information that describes the benefits of association between consumer education irradiation may be helpful in increasing this number. Galvez and Resurreccion (1994) reported that with effective educational programs, consumers would accept Received for publication December 28, 1994. food irradiation. They found that the Accepted for publication April 4, 1995. a To whom correspondence should be addressed. number of consumers who bought irradiINTRODUCTION
1287
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on April 9, 2015
ABSTRACT A simulated supermarket setting (SSS) test was conducted to determine whether consumers (n = 126) would purchase irradiated poultry products, and the effects of marketing strategies on consumer purchase of irradiated poultry products. Consumer preference for irradiated poultry was likewise determined using a home-use test. A slide program was the most effective educational strategy in changing consumers' purchase behavior. The number of participants who purchased irradiated boneless, skinless breasts and irradiated thighs after the educational program increased significantly from 59.5 and 61.9% to 83.3 and 85.7% for the breasts and thighs, respectively. Using a label or poster did not increase the number of participants who bought irradiated poultry products. About 84% of the participants consider it either "somewhat necessary" or "very necessary" to irradiate raw chicken and would like all chicken that was served in restaurants or fast food places to be irradiated. Fifty-eight percent of the participants would always buy irradiated chicken if available, and an additional 27% would buy it sometimes. About 44% of the participants were willing to pay the same price for irradiated chicken as for nonirradiated. About 42% of participants were willing to pay 5% or more than what they were currently paying for nonirradiated chicken. Seventy-three percent or more of consumers who participated in the homeuse test (n = 74) gave the color, appearance, and aroma of the raw poultry products a minimum rating of 7 (= like moderately). After consumers participated in a home-use test, 84 and 88% selected irradiated thighs and breasts, respectively, over nonirradiated in a second SSS test. (Key words: poultry, irradiation, consumer acceptance, survey, marketing)
1288
HASfflM ET Ah.
ated ground beef increased significantly after viewing an educational slide program. This study was conducted to 1) determine consumer purchase and repeat purchase behavior toward irradiated poultry products; 2) investigate the effects of three marketing strategies: a slide program, a poster, or a label on consumers' purchasing behavior toward irradiated poultry products; and 3) determine consumer preferences for irradiated poultry in a home-use test.
participants were that they were the primary grocery shopper in their household, were between 18 to 74 yr of age, were available and willing to participate during the test days, purchased poultry at least twice per month and consumed poultry at least twice per week, were willing to participate in a home-use test, had not participated in a SSS test in the past 6 mo, and had not participated in a SSS test on ground beef. Consumers were selected to represent a variety of educational backgrounds, marital statuses, household incomes, and employment statuses.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Panel
Panelists were recruited from a consumer database list maintained since 1984. One hundred and seventy consumer panelists were screened by telephone from the consumer database; 126 participated in this study. Criteria for recruitment of the
2
Claxton Poultry Farm, Claxton, GA 30417. Vindicator, Inc., Mulberry, FL 33860. Nations Pride, Plant City, FL 33566.
3 4
Test Location
The tests were conducted in a simulated supermarket setting that was set up at the postharvest laboratory at the Georgia Experiment Station, Griffin, GA. A theater was used for the slide presentation and as a waiting room for the consumers. A refrigerated supermarket case, installed on one side of the room, was used to display all samples during the tests. Tables were set up for registration and for disbursal of money to consumers to purchase the poultry products. Another table was set up to one side of the display case for cashiers. Test Materials
Boneless, skinless breasts and chicken thighs were purchased from a commercial poultry processor2 and transported to a commercial food irradiation facility.3 A portion of the poultry purchased (220 kg breasts and 260 kg thighs) was irradiated by exposing it to the irradiation source (Cobalt 60) to achieve a 1.5 to 3.0 kGy dose, which was verified with dosimeters. Irradiated and nonirradiated poultry were shipped in a refrigerated truck to Griffin, GA and stored at 3.3 C until used within 4 d for tests. Irradiated and nonirradiated breasts and thighs were offered for sale at $3.50 and $1.50 per package, respectively. Irradiated samples were identified with a commercial label for irradiated poultry A Nonirradiated samples were identified with a label created to look like the commercial label. The latter label was used to minimize bias due to differences in package appearance. It did not have the irradiation logo and the
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on April 9, 2015
Simulated supermarket setting (SSS) tests were conducted on April 12 and 13, 1994. Each day, three groups of consumers participated in three different procedures to test one of three marketing strategies. The content of the three strategies was suggested in focus group sessions conducted in previous studies (Hashim et al., 1995). The marketing strategies compared were 1) an educational program consisting of a slide presentation; 2) a poster; and 3) a label. The 7-min slide presentation was designed to increase consumers' understanding of the role of irradiation and to assure them of the safety of irradiated poultry. The poster displayed the irradiation symbol and statement "treated by irradiation" and the statement of benefit "to control Salmonella and other foodborne bacteria." The label was designed by the focus groups to contain each component they desired in the size, color, and location preferred. These components were the irradiation logo, statements, and USDA seal.
CONSUMER ACCEPTANCE OF IRRADIATED POULTRY
statements "Treated by irradiation" and "to control Salmonella and other foodborne bacteria," but had similar colors, shape, and size.
Test Procedure
Home-Use Test All panelists who bought both irradiated breasts and thighs either during the first or second phase participated in the home-use test (HUT) (n = 74). The HUT was designed for consumers to evaluate raw irradiated poultry samples, cook the samples in their homes, evaluate the cooked poultry samples, and answer a home-use questionnaire. For the HUT, consumers were provided with two simple recipes for either stovetop or microwave preparation, or they were encouraged to cook the irradiated samples using their favorite recipes. The HUT was used to determine consumer preferences for irradiated poultry products. Participants were asked to rate their feelings regarding color, appearance, and aroma of the raw chicken, and color, appearance, flavor, mouthfeel, and overall acceptability of the cooked chicken. A 9-point hedonic scale, with 1 = dislike extremely and 9 = like extremely, was used for rating all the attributes. Consumers who participated in the HUT were asked to participate in a second SSS test to determine consumer repeat purchase behavior.
Exit Questionnaire Simulated Supermarket Setting Test Three test sessions were conducted each day at 1200, 1400, and 1730 h. Twenty-five to thirty participants were scheduled for each session. When participants registered, they were given $5.00 with which to buy poultry products. They were instructed to go to the supermarket case and purchase one package of breasts and one package of thighs, making a choice between irradiated and nonirradiated products. Panelists were instructed not to converse with other consumers in the group. Purchases by the panelists were presented to cashiers for payment, and purchases were recorded. Participants who did not buy both irradiated breasts and thighs viewed the educational slide program or waited in the theater until appropriate posters, labels, or samples for the second phase of the test were placed in the supermarket case. In the second phase, consumers were then given another $5.00 and instructed to purchase poultry products again.
All of the participants were asked to view the educational slide program at least once; they were given a leaflet entitled "Ten Most Commonly Asked Questions About Food Irradiation" and answered an exit questionnaire at the end of their participation. The exit questionnaire contained questions about purchase of chicken, the necessity of irradiating raw chicken, consumers' willingness to buy irradiated chicken, and the price they were willing to pay for irradiated chicken. Consumers received a $10.00 honorarium for each day of participation.
Data Analysis Frequencies, means, and chi-square values were obtained (SAS Institute, 1985). Effectiveness was calculated using the following equation: Effectiveness = a / b x 100 where a = the number of consumers who bought irradiated poultry after being ex-
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on April 9, 2015
The refrigerated supermarket case was partitioned into four sections. Irradiated breast and thigh samples were arranged in the middle sections of the supermarket case. Signs that read "Irradiated boneless skinless breasts, $3.50", and "Irradiated thighs, $1.50", were placed above the irradiated breasts and thighs, respectively. A food irradiation statement of benefit that read "Irradiated to Control Foodborne Bacteria" was likewise displayed above the irradiated samples. The nonirradiated breast and thigh samples were placed in the outer sections of the case. Signs posted over the nonirradiated products stated "Skinless boneless breasts, $3.50" and "Thighs, $1.50." On the 2nd d of testing the arrangement of the nonirradiated (control) and irradiated treatment samples in the display case was reversed to minimize position bias.
1289
1290
HASHIM ET Al.
TABLE 1. Selected demographic characteristics of participants in the simulated supermarket setting tests on irradiated poultry products (n = 126) Variable
Percentage 91.2 8.8 5.6 19.8 26.2 17.5 16.7 14.3 88.1 11.9 6.5 78.2 15.3 7.1 41.3 29.4 22.2 31.0 14.3 31.7 23.0 26.2 21.2 13.6 10.2 16.1 12.7
posed to the market strategy; and b = the total number of consumers exposed to the market strategy.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Demographic Characteristics of Participants One hundred and twenty-six consumers participated in the study. Their demographic characteristics are shown in Table 1. Because the major shopper in each household was targeted during recruitment, 91% of panelists were females. The group was composed primarily of Caucasians (88%). Married panelists made up 78% of the sample. Most of the participants had com-
Effect of the Slide Program on Consumer Purchase Behaviors Purchases of irradiated poultry products before and after viewing the educational slide program are shown in Table 2. The information about irradiation presented in the slide show influenced consumers' purchases. The number of participants who purchased irradiated poultry products after the educational program increased significantly from 59.5 and 61.9% to 83.3 and 85.7% for the irradiated boneless, skinless breasts and irradiated thighs, respectively. Similarly, Galvez and Resurreccion (1994) reported that an educational slide program increased purchase of irradiated ground beef from 52 to 71%. Effectiveness of the educational slide program was 58.8 and 62.5% for irradiated breasts and thighs, respectively (Table 2).
Effect of the Poster on Consumer Purchase Behaviors The focus group findings (Hashim et al, 1995) suggested that using a poster might influence consumers' purchase decisions to buy irradiated chicken. Results showed that the increase in the number of participants who purchased irradiated poultry products as a result of using the poster was not significant. The number of participants who bought irradiated poultry products after being exposed to the poster in the supermarket case increased from 47.2 and 61.1% to 63.9 and 66.7% for the irradiated boneless, skinless breasts and irradiated thighs, respectively. Effectiveness of the poster was lower than that of the slide program at 31.6 and 14.3% for breasts and thighs, respectively (Table 2).
Effect of the Label on Consumer Purchase Behaviors Results showed that using the irradiation label designed by the focus group had no
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on April 9, 2015
Sex Female Male Age, yr Under 25 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 to 74 Race White Black Marital status Single Married Other Educational attainment < High school Completed high school Some college College or higher Employment status Employed full time Employed part time Unemployed Other (retired, student) Household income Under $20,000 $20,000 to $29,999 $30,000 to $39,999 $40,000 to $49,999 $50,000 to $59,999 $60,000 and over
pleted high school and 51% had either attended college courses, completed college, or had a higher degree. About 31% of the participants were employed full time, and the median annual household income was between $30,000 to $39,000.
CONSUMER ACCEPTANCE OF IRRADIATED POULTRY
1291
TABLE 2. Purchases of irradiated poultry products before and after using different marketing strategies1 and their effectiveness Percentage purchasing
Product
Comparisons
Breasts
Before the slide program After the slide program Before the poster After the poster Before the label After the label Before the slide program After the slide program Before the poster After the poster
Thighs
59.5 83.3 47.2 63.9 33.3 50.0 61.9 85.7 61.1 66.7 60.4 60.4
Before the label After the label
Chi-square
Effectiveness2
5.83*
58.8
2.03
31.6
2.74
25.0
6.61*
62.5
.24
14.3 0
0
Slide program participants (n = 42), poster participants (n = 36), and label participants (n = 48). Effectiveness = a/b x 100, where a = The number of consumers who bought irradiated poultry after being exposed to the market strategy and b = The total number of consumers exposed to the market strategy. *P £ .05.
participated in the home-use test. Products were rated highly. About 82,86, and 73% of the participants rated the color, appearance, and aroma, respectively, of the raw irradiated breasts (Table 3) and thighs (Table 4) a 7 (like moderately) or higher. About 92, 93, 91,88, and 92% of the participants rated the color, appearance, flavor, mouthfeel and overall acceptability of the cooked irradiated breasts a 7 or higher, respectively (Table 3). About 88, 92, 89, 85, and 88% of the participants rated the color, appearance, flavor, mouthfeel, and overall acceptability
effect on the participants' decision to purchase irradiated thighs. The number of participants who purchased irradiated breasts after being exposed to samples carrying the new label increased from 33.3 to 50.0%, but the increase was not significant. Effectiveness of the label was 25% for irradiated chicken breasts (Table 2). Consumer Preferences for Irradiated Poultry Products
Seventy-six consumers (60.3%) who purchased both irradiated breasts and thighs
TABLE 3. Percentages and means of hedonic ratings for acceptance of raw and cooked irradiated boneless, skinless breasts (n = 74) Hedonic scores 1 Attribute
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Mean ± SD of hedonic scores
.... (°{,\ ^ o ; •••-
Raw Color Appearance Aroma Cooked Color Appearance Flavor Mouthfeel Overall acceptability
0 0 0
0 0 1.4
0 0 1.4
9.5 4.1 8.1
5.4 2.7 10.8
2.7 6.8 5.4
28.4 20.3 16.2
41.9 54.1 41.9
12.2 12.2 14.9
7.24 ± 1.40 7.54 ± 1.14 7.08 ± 1.68
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 1.4 1.4 0
0 0 0 1.4 0
1.4 1.4 1.4 0 1.4
4.1 4.1 2.7 1.4 2.7
2.7 1.4 4.1 8.1 4.1
13.5 16.2 14.9 24.3 12.2
62.5 58.1 47.3 39.2 47.3
16.2 18.9 28.4 24.3 32.4
7.80 7.82 7.84 7.65 8.00
± ± ± ± ±
.98 .98 1.24 1.29 1.04
l A 9-point hedonic scale was used with 1 = dislike extremely, 5 : neither like nor dislike, and 9 = like extremely.
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on April 9, 2015
1
1292
HASHIM ET AL. TABLE 4. Percentages and means of hedonic ratings for acceptance of raw and cooked irradiated thighs (n = 74) Hedonic scores 1
Attribute
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Mean ± SD of hedonic scores
- (%) Raw Color Appearance Aroma Cooked Color Appearance Flavor Mouthfeel Overall acceptability
0 0 0
0 1.4 2.7
0 0 1.4
6.8 5.4 5.4
4.1 2.7 13.5
6.8 5.4 2.7
25.7 25.7 23.0
44.6 44.6 40.5
12.2 14.9 10.8
7.34 ± 1.30 7.41 ± 1.37 6.97 ± 1.68
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 2.7 4.1 2.7
0 0 0 0 0
4.1 2.7 4.1 1.4 4.1
4.1 2.7 2.7 1.4 0
4.1 2.7 1.4 8.1 5.4
27.0 25.7 25.7 21.6 24.3
45.9 51.4 43.2 45.9 40.5
14.9 14.9 20.3 17.6 23.0
7.51 7.64 7.51 7.46 7.55
± ± ± ± ±
1.17 1.04 1.47 1.50 1.46
of the cooked irradiated thighs a 7 (like moderately) or higher, respectively (Table 4). The high hedonic ratings indicate that irradiation had no effect on the sensory quality of the irradiated poultry products.
Repeat Purchase Behavior Among the 74 consumers who participated in a second SSS test after participating in the HUT, about 84 and 88% of the participants bought irradiated thighs and irradiated breasts, respectively. The results indicated that most of the participants who evaluated the irradiated chicken during the home-use test were satisfied with it.
Exit Questionnaire One hundred and twenty-four participants answered the exit questionnaire. Most participants bought .45 to 2.72 kg of chicken breasts and .45 to 1.36 kg of chicken legs four to eight times per month for the two to four people in their households (Table 5). Data in Table 6 show that about 84% of the participants thought it was either "very necessary" or "somewhat necessary" to irradiate raw chicken. Only 6% of the participants responded that it is not necessary to irradiate chicken, compared to 27.1% found by Resurreccion et al. (1995). About 84% of the participants would like all chicken served in restaurants or fast food places to be irradiated. About 58% of the
like
participants would always buy irradiated chicken if it was available; an additional 27% would buy irradiated chicken sometimes. Resurreccion et al. (1995) reported that 16% of consumers stated they will not buy irradiated poultry. Results of the present study showed that 8% would not
TABLE 5. Household size and chicken purchases of participants in the simulated supermarket setting tests (n = 124) Variable Household size (persons) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Chicken bought per month Once Twice Four times Eight times Breast bought per week, kg .45 to 1.36 1.81 to 2.72 3.17 to 4.08 4.54 or more Legs bought per week, kg .45 to 1.36 1.81 to 2.72 3.17 to 4.08 4.54 or more
Percentage 8.9 32.5 23.6 25.2 8.1 .8 .8 10.5 17.7 42.8 29.0 54.0 35.5 6.5 4.0 74.1 19.4 5.6 .9
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on April 9, 2015
1 A 9-point hedonic scale was used with 1 = dislike extremely, 5 = neither like nor dislike, and 9 extremely.
1293
CONSUMER ACCEPTANCE OF IRRADIATED POULTRY
TABLE 6. Consumer responses on the necessity to irradiate raw chicken and their willingness to buy and pay for irrac iated chicken (n = 124) Choices
Percentage
Necessity to irradiate raw chicken
Not necessary Not too necessary Somewhat necessary Very necessary No Yes No/never Occasionally Sometimes Always Would not buy Less than Same as 1 to 5% more 6 to 10% more 11 to 20% more 21 to 30% more
5.6 10.5 38.7 45.2 16.4 83.6 8.1 8.1 26.6 57.6 6.5 3.2 43.5 33.1 8.9 1.6 3.2
Necessity to irradiate chicken served in restaurants or fast food places Willingness to buy irradiated raw chicken
Willingness to pay for raw irradiated chicken compared to the price of nonirradiated chicken
buy irradiated chicken. About 44% of the participants were willing to pay the same price for irradiated chicken as they were currently paying for nonirradiated chicken. However, 47% were willing to pay more for irradiated chicken. About 33% of participants were willing to pay up to 5% more than what they were currently paying for nonirradiated chicken and 9% of them were willing to pay up to 10% more. Results of this study indicate that consumer education programs regarding irradiation are the key to consumer acceptance of irradiated products. The number of participants who bought irradiated poultry products increased significantly after viewing an educational slide program. About 84% of the participants thought it was necessary to irradiate raw chicken, and they would like all chicken served in restaurants or fast food places to be irradiated. About 44% of the participants were willing to pay the same price for irradiated chicken as they were currently paying for nonirradiated chicken and 47% were willing to pay more for irradiated chicken. About 88 to 92% of the consumers who participated in the home-use test rated the overall acceptability of cooked irradiated chicken thighs and breasts a minimum of 7. About 84 to 88% of the participants who bought both irradiated breasts and thighs during a simulated supermarket setting test bought these
products again during a second simulated supermarket setting test after having cooked and consumed the irradiated chicken. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This study was supported by USDA Special Research Grant 25-21-RD319-085 and state and Hatch funds allocated to the Georgia Experiment Station. We acknowledge Laura Milius and Julia Heggie for technical assistance and Robert Eisner, James Chang, Jye-yin Liao, and Valerie Leveaux for helping during the SSS tests. REFERENCES Bruhn, C. M., and H. G. Schutz, 1989. Consumer awareness and outlook for acceptance of food irradiation. Food Technol. 43(7):93-97. Bruhn, C. M., H. G. Schutz, and R. Sommer, 1986. Attitude change toward food irradiation among conventional and alternative consumers. Food Technol. 40(l):86-90. Food and Drug Administration, 1990. Irradiation in the production, processing and handling of food. Food and Drug Administration. Fed. Reg. 55(85):18537-18544. Galvez, F.C.F., and A.V.A. Resurrection, 1994. Consumer attitudes and purchase behaviors towards irradiated beef. Page 137 in: 54th Annual Meeting, Institute of Food Technologists, Atlanta, GA. (Abstr.)
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on April 9, 2015
Question
1294
HASHIM ET AL.
Hashim, I. B., A.V.A. Resurreccion, and K. H. McWatters, 1995. Consumers' preferences and attitudes toward irradiated poultry. Page 207 in: 55th Annual Meeting, Institute of Food Technologists, Anaheim, CA. (Abstr.) Mclsaac, C, S. M. Potter, and M. M. Weigel, 1993. Effect of consumer education on the purchase of soy-containing bakery items. Cereal Foods World 38:154-156.
Resurreccion, A.V.A., F.C.F. Galvez, S. M. Fletcher, and S. K. Misra, 1995. Consumer attitudes toward irradiated food: Results of a new study. J. Food Protect. 85(2):193-196. SAS Institute, 1985. SAS® User's Guide: Statistics. Version 5 Edition. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC. USDA, 1992. Irradiation of poultry products; Final rule. Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA. Fed. Reg. 57(183):43857-43600.
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on April 9, 2015
1995 Poultry Science 74:1287-1294
and the increased purchase of a product. Bruhn et al. (1986) found that education In May 1990, the Food and Drug and information about irradiation inAdministration (FDA) approved irradia- creased conventional consumers' willingtion for the control of foodborne patho- ness to buy irradiated foods. In a review gens in poultry products (FDA, 1990). On of 14 studies, Bruhn and Schutz (1989) September 21, 1992, the USDA, Food reported that information about irradiaSafety and Inspection Service (FSIS), ap- tion improved the acceptance of irradiated proved guidelines for the use of irradia- food. Resurreccion et al. (1995) found that tion in raw packaged poultry at 1.5 to 3.0 at least 45% of consumers surveyed would kGy (USDA, 1992). buy irradiated foods, and that labeling Mclsaac et al. (1993) found a positive information that describes the benefits of association between consumer education irradiation may be helpful in increasing this number. Galvez and Resurreccion (1994) reported that with effective educational programs, consumers would accept Received for publication December 28, 1994. food irradiation. They found that the Accepted for publication April 4, 1995. a To whom correspondence should be addressed. number of consumers who bought irradiINTRODUCTION
1287
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on April 9, 2015
ABSTRACT A simulated supermarket setting (SSS) test was conducted to determine whether consumers (n = 126) would purchase irradiated poultry products, and the effects of marketing strategies on consumer purchase of irradiated poultry products. Consumer preference for irradiated poultry was likewise determined using a home-use test. A slide program was the most effective educational strategy in changing consumers' purchase behavior. The number of participants who purchased irradiated boneless, skinless breasts and irradiated thighs after the educational program increased significantly from 59.5 and 61.9% to 83.3 and 85.7% for the breasts and thighs, respectively. Using a label or poster did not increase the number of participants who bought irradiated poultry products. About 84% of the participants consider it either "somewhat necessary" or "very necessary" to irradiate raw chicken and would like all chicken that was served in restaurants or fast food places to be irradiated. Fifty-eight percent of the participants would always buy irradiated chicken if available, and an additional 27% would buy it sometimes. About 44% of the participants were willing to pay the same price for irradiated chicken as for nonirradiated. About 42% of participants were willing to pay 5% or more than what they were currently paying for nonirradiated chicken. Seventy-three percent or more of consumers who participated in the homeuse test (n = 74) gave the color, appearance, and aroma of the raw poultry products a minimum rating of 7 (= like moderately). After consumers participated in a home-use test, 84 and 88% selected irradiated thighs and breasts, respectively, over nonirradiated in a second SSS test. (Key words: poultry, irradiation, consumer acceptance, survey, marketing)
1288
HASfflM ET Ah.
ated ground beef increased significantly after viewing an educational slide program. This study was conducted to 1) determine consumer purchase and repeat purchase behavior toward irradiated poultry products; 2) investigate the effects of three marketing strategies: a slide program, a poster, or a label on consumers' purchasing behavior toward irradiated poultry products; and 3) determine consumer preferences for irradiated poultry in a home-use test.
participants were that they were the primary grocery shopper in their household, were between 18 to 74 yr of age, were available and willing to participate during the test days, purchased poultry at least twice per month and consumed poultry at least twice per week, were willing to participate in a home-use test, had not participated in a SSS test in the past 6 mo, and had not participated in a SSS test on ground beef. Consumers were selected to represent a variety of educational backgrounds, marital statuses, household incomes, and employment statuses.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Panel
Panelists were recruited from a consumer database list maintained since 1984. One hundred and seventy consumer panelists were screened by telephone from the consumer database; 126 participated in this study. Criteria for recruitment of the
2
Claxton Poultry Farm, Claxton, GA 30417. Vindicator, Inc., Mulberry, FL 33860. Nations Pride, Plant City, FL 33566.
3 4
Test Location
The tests were conducted in a simulated supermarket setting that was set up at the postharvest laboratory at the Georgia Experiment Station, Griffin, GA. A theater was used for the slide presentation and as a waiting room for the consumers. A refrigerated supermarket case, installed on one side of the room, was used to display all samples during the tests. Tables were set up for registration and for disbursal of money to consumers to purchase the poultry products. Another table was set up to one side of the display case for cashiers. Test Materials
Boneless, skinless breasts and chicken thighs were purchased from a commercial poultry processor2 and transported to a commercial food irradiation facility.3 A portion of the poultry purchased (220 kg breasts and 260 kg thighs) was irradiated by exposing it to the irradiation source (Cobalt 60) to achieve a 1.5 to 3.0 kGy dose, which was verified with dosimeters. Irradiated and nonirradiated poultry were shipped in a refrigerated truck to Griffin, GA and stored at 3.3 C until used within 4 d for tests. Irradiated and nonirradiated breasts and thighs were offered for sale at $3.50 and $1.50 per package, respectively. Irradiated samples were identified with a commercial label for irradiated poultry A Nonirradiated samples were identified with a label created to look like the commercial label. The latter label was used to minimize bias due to differences in package appearance. It did not have the irradiation logo and the
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on April 9, 2015
Simulated supermarket setting (SSS) tests were conducted on April 12 and 13, 1994. Each day, three groups of consumers participated in three different procedures to test one of three marketing strategies. The content of the three strategies was suggested in focus group sessions conducted in previous studies (Hashim et al., 1995). The marketing strategies compared were 1) an educational program consisting of a slide presentation; 2) a poster; and 3) a label. The 7-min slide presentation was designed to increase consumers' understanding of the role of irradiation and to assure them of the safety of irradiated poultry. The poster displayed the irradiation symbol and statement "treated by irradiation" and the statement of benefit "to control Salmonella and other foodborne bacteria." The label was designed by the focus groups to contain each component they desired in the size, color, and location preferred. These components were the irradiation logo, statements, and USDA seal.
CONSUMER ACCEPTANCE OF IRRADIATED POULTRY
statements "Treated by irradiation" and "to control Salmonella and other foodborne bacteria," but had similar colors, shape, and size.
Test Procedure
Home-Use Test All panelists who bought both irradiated breasts and thighs either during the first or second phase participated in the home-use test (HUT) (n = 74). The HUT was designed for consumers to evaluate raw irradiated poultry samples, cook the samples in their homes, evaluate the cooked poultry samples, and answer a home-use questionnaire. For the HUT, consumers were provided with two simple recipes for either stovetop or microwave preparation, or they were encouraged to cook the irradiated samples using their favorite recipes. The HUT was used to determine consumer preferences for irradiated poultry products. Participants were asked to rate their feelings regarding color, appearance, and aroma of the raw chicken, and color, appearance, flavor, mouthfeel, and overall acceptability of the cooked chicken. A 9-point hedonic scale, with 1 = dislike extremely and 9 = like extremely, was used for rating all the attributes. Consumers who participated in the HUT were asked to participate in a second SSS test to determine consumer repeat purchase behavior.
Exit Questionnaire Simulated Supermarket Setting Test Three test sessions were conducted each day at 1200, 1400, and 1730 h. Twenty-five to thirty participants were scheduled for each session. When participants registered, they were given $5.00 with which to buy poultry products. They were instructed to go to the supermarket case and purchase one package of breasts and one package of thighs, making a choice between irradiated and nonirradiated products. Panelists were instructed not to converse with other consumers in the group. Purchases by the panelists were presented to cashiers for payment, and purchases were recorded. Participants who did not buy both irradiated breasts and thighs viewed the educational slide program or waited in the theater until appropriate posters, labels, or samples for the second phase of the test were placed in the supermarket case. In the second phase, consumers were then given another $5.00 and instructed to purchase poultry products again.
All of the participants were asked to view the educational slide program at least once; they were given a leaflet entitled "Ten Most Commonly Asked Questions About Food Irradiation" and answered an exit questionnaire at the end of their participation. The exit questionnaire contained questions about purchase of chicken, the necessity of irradiating raw chicken, consumers' willingness to buy irradiated chicken, and the price they were willing to pay for irradiated chicken. Consumers received a $10.00 honorarium for each day of participation.
Data Analysis Frequencies, means, and chi-square values were obtained (SAS Institute, 1985). Effectiveness was calculated using the following equation: Effectiveness = a / b x 100 where a = the number of consumers who bought irradiated poultry after being ex-
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on April 9, 2015
The refrigerated supermarket case was partitioned into four sections. Irradiated breast and thigh samples were arranged in the middle sections of the supermarket case. Signs that read "Irradiated boneless skinless breasts, $3.50", and "Irradiated thighs, $1.50", were placed above the irradiated breasts and thighs, respectively. A food irradiation statement of benefit that read "Irradiated to Control Foodborne Bacteria" was likewise displayed above the irradiated samples. The nonirradiated breast and thigh samples were placed in the outer sections of the case. Signs posted over the nonirradiated products stated "Skinless boneless breasts, $3.50" and "Thighs, $1.50." On the 2nd d of testing the arrangement of the nonirradiated (control) and irradiated treatment samples in the display case was reversed to minimize position bias.
1289
1290
HASHIM ET Al.
TABLE 1. Selected demographic characteristics of participants in the simulated supermarket setting tests on irradiated poultry products (n = 126) Variable
Percentage 91.2 8.8 5.6 19.8 26.2 17.5 16.7 14.3 88.1 11.9 6.5 78.2 15.3 7.1 41.3 29.4 22.2 31.0 14.3 31.7 23.0 26.2 21.2 13.6 10.2 16.1 12.7
posed to the market strategy; and b = the total number of consumers exposed to the market strategy.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Demographic Characteristics of Participants One hundred and twenty-six consumers participated in the study. Their demographic characteristics are shown in Table 1. Because the major shopper in each household was targeted during recruitment, 91% of panelists were females. The group was composed primarily of Caucasians (88%). Married panelists made up 78% of the sample. Most of the participants had com-
Effect of the Slide Program on Consumer Purchase Behaviors Purchases of irradiated poultry products before and after viewing the educational slide program are shown in Table 2. The information about irradiation presented in the slide show influenced consumers' purchases. The number of participants who purchased irradiated poultry products after the educational program increased significantly from 59.5 and 61.9% to 83.3 and 85.7% for the irradiated boneless, skinless breasts and irradiated thighs, respectively. Similarly, Galvez and Resurreccion (1994) reported that an educational slide program increased purchase of irradiated ground beef from 52 to 71%. Effectiveness of the educational slide program was 58.8 and 62.5% for irradiated breasts and thighs, respectively (Table 2).
Effect of the Poster on Consumer Purchase Behaviors The focus group findings (Hashim et al, 1995) suggested that using a poster might influence consumers' purchase decisions to buy irradiated chicken. Results showed that the increase in the number of participants who purchased irradiated poultry products as a result of using the poster was not significant. The number of participants who bought irradiated poultry products after being exposed to the poster in the supermarket case increased from 47.2 and 61.1% to 63.9 and 66.7% for the irradiated boneless, skinless breasts and irradiated thighs, respectively. Effectiveness of the poster was lower than that of the slide program at 31.6 and 14.3% for breasts and thighs, respectively (Table 2).
Effect of the Label on Consumer Purchase Behaviors Results showed that using the irradiation label designed by the focus group had no
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on April 9, 2015
Sex Female Male Age, yr Under 25 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 to 74 Race White Black Marital status Single Married Other Educational attainment < High school Completed high school Some college College or higher Employment status Employed full time Employed part time Unemployed Other (retired, student) Household income Under $20,000 $20,000 to $29,999 $30,000 to $39,999 $40,000 to $49,999 $50,000 to $59,999 $60,000 and over
pleted high school and 51% had either attended college courses, completed college, or had a higher degree. About 31% of the participants were employed full time, and the median annual household income was between $30,000 to $39,000.
CONSUMER ACCEPTANCE OF IRRADIATED POULTRY
1291
TABLE 2. Purchases of irradiated poultry products before and after using different marketing strategies1 and their effectiveness Percentage purchasing
Product
Comparisons
Breasts
Before the slide program After the slide program Before the poster After the poster Before the label After the label Before the slide program After the slide program Before the poster After the poster
Thighs
59.5 83.3 47.2 63.9 33.3 50.0 61.9 85.7 61.1 66.7 60.4 60.4
Before the label After the label
Chi-square
Effectiveness2
5.83*
58.8
2.03
31.6
2.74
25.0
6.61*
62.5
.24
14.3 0
0
Slide program participants (n = 42), poster participants (n = 36), and label participants (n = 48). Effectiveness = a/b x 100, where a = The number of consumers who bought irradiated poultry after being exposed to the market strategy and b = The total number of consumers exposed to the market strategy. *P £ .05.
participated in the home-use test. Products were rated highly. About 82,86, and 73% of the participants rated the color, appearance, and aroma, respectively, of the raw irradiated breasts (Table 3) and thighs (Table 4) a 7 (like moderately) or higher. About 92, 93, 91,88, and 92% of the participants rated the color, appearance, flavor, mouthfeel and overall acceptability of the cooked irradiated breasts a 7 or higher, respectively (Table 3). About 88, 92, 89, 85, and 88% of the participants rated the color, appearance, flavor, mouthfeel, and overall acceptability
effect on the participants' decision to purchase irradiated thighs. The number of participants who purchased irradiated breasts after being exposed to samples carrying the new label increased from 33.3 to 50.0%, but the increase was not significant. Effectiveness of the label was 25% for irradiated chicken breasts (Table 2). Consumer Preferences for Irradiated Poultry Products
Seventy-six consumers (60.3%) who purchased both irradiated breasts and thighs
TABLE 3. Percentages and means of hedonic ratings for acceptance of raw and cooked irradiated boneless, skinless breasts (n = 74) Hedonic scores 1 Attribute
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Mean ± SD of hedonic scores
.... (°{,\ ^ o ; •••-
Raw Color Appearance Aroma Cooked Color Appearance Flavor Mouthfeel Overall acceptability
0 0 0
0 0 1.4
0 0 1.4
9.5 4.1 8.1
5.4 2.7 10.8
2.7 6.8 5.4
28.4 20.3 16.2
41.9 54.1 41.9
12.2 12.2 14.9
7.24 ± 1.40 7.54 ± 1.14 7.08 ± 1.68
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 1.4 1.4 0
0 0 0 1.4 0
1.4 1.4 1.4 0 1.4
4.1 4.1 2.7 1.4 2.7
2.7 1.4 4.1 8.1 4.1
13.5 16.2 14.9 24.3 12.2
62.5 58.1 47.3 39.2 47.3
16.2 18.9 28.4 24.3 32.4
7.80 7.82 7.84 7.65 8.00
± ± ± ± ±
.98 .98 1.24 1.29 1.04
l A 9-point hedonic scale was used with 1 = dislike extremely, 5 : neither like nor dislike, and 9 = like extremely.
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on April 9, 2015
1
1292
HASHIM ET AL. TABLE 4. Percentages and means of hedonic ratings for acceptance of raw and cooked irradiated thighs (n = 74) Hedonic scores 1
Attribute
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Mean ± SD of hedonic scores
- (%) Raw Color Appearance Aroma Cooked Color Appearance Flavor Mouthfeel Overall acceptability
0 0 0
0 1.4 2.7
0 0 1.4
6.8 5.4 5.4
4.1 2.7 13.5
6.8 5.4 2.7
25.7 25.7 23.0
44.6 44.6 40.5
12.2 14.9 10.8
7.34 ± 1.30 7.41 ± 1.37 6.97 ± 1.68
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 2.7 4.1 2.7
0 0 0 0 0
4.1 2.7 4.1 1.4 4.1
4.1 2.7 2.7 1.4 0
4.1 2.7 1.4 8.1 5.4
27.0 25.7 25.7 21.6 24.3
45.9 51.4 43.2 45.9 40.5
14.9 14.9 20.3 17.6 23.0
7.51 7.64 7.51 7.46 7.55
± ± ± ± ±
1.17 1.04 1.47 1.50 1.46
of the cooked irradiated thighs a 7 (like moderately) or higher, respectively (Table 4). The high hedonic ratings indicate that irradiation had no effect on the sensory quality of the irradiated poultry products.
Repeat Purchase Behavior Among the 74 consumers who participated in a second SSS test after participating in the HUT, about 84 and 88% of the participants bought irradiated thighs and irradiated breasts, respectively. The results indicated that most of the participants who evaluated the irradiated chicken during the home-use test were satisfied with it.
Exit Questionnaire One hundred and twenty-four participants answered the exit questionnaire. Most participants bought .45 to 2.72 kg of chicken breasts and .45 to 1.36 kg of chicken legs four to eight times per month for the two to four people in their households (Table 5). Data in Table 6 show that about 84% of the participants thought it was either "very necessary" or "somewhat necessary" to irradiate raw chicken. Only 6% of the participants responded that it is not necessary to irradiate chicken, compared to 27.1% found by Resurreccion et al. (1995). About 84% of the participants would like all chicken served in restaurants or fast food places to be irradiated. About 58% of the
like
participants would always buy irradiated chicken if it was available; an additional 27% would buy irradiated chicken sometimes. Resurreccion et al. (1995) reported that 16% of consumers stated they will not buy irradiated poultry. Results of the present study showed that 8% would not
TABLE 5. Household size and chicken purchases of participants in the simulated supermarket setting tests (n = 124) Variable Household size (persons) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Chicken bought per month Once Twice Four times Eight times Breast bought per week, kg .45 to 1.36 1.81 to 2.72 3.17 to 4.08 4.54 or more Legs bought per week, kg .45 to 1.36 1.81 to 2.72 3.17 to 4.08 4.54 or more
Percentage 8.9 32.5 23.6 25.2 8.1 .8 .8 10.5 17.7 42.8 29.0 54.0 35.5 6.5 4.0 74.1 19.4 5.6 .9
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on April 9, 2015
1 A 9-point hedonic scale was used with 1 = dislike extremely, 5 = neither like nor dislike, and 9 extremely.
1293
CONSUMER ACCEPTANCE OF IRRADIATED POULTRY
TABLE 6. Consumer responses on the necessity to irradiate raw chicken and their willingness to buy and pay for irrac iated chicken (n = 124) Choices
Percentage
Necessity to irradiate raw chicken
Not necessary Not too necessary Somewhat necessary Very necessary No Yes No/never Occasionally Sometimes Always Would not buy Less than Same as 1 to 5% more 6 to 10% more 11 to 20% more 21 to 30% more
5.6 10.5 38.7 45.2 16.4 83.6 8.1 8.1 26.6 57.6 6.5 3.2 43.5 33.1 8.9 1.6 3.2
Necessity to irradiate chicken served in restaurants or fast food places Willingness to buy irradiated raw chicken
Willingness to pay for raw irradiated chicken compared to the price of nonirradiated chicken
buy irradiated chicken. About 44% of the participants were willing to pay the same price for irradiated chicken as they were currently paying for nonirradiated chicken. However, 47% were willing to pay more for irradiated chicken. About 33% of participants were willing to pay up to 5% more than what they were currently paying for nonirradiated chicken and 9% of them were willing to pay up to 10% more. Results of this study indicate that consumer education programs regarding irradiation are the key to consumer acceptance of irradiated products. The number of participants who bought irradiated poultry products increased significantly after viewing an educational slide program. About 84% of the participants thought it was necessary to irradiate raw chicken, and they would like all chicken served in restaurants or fast food places to be irradiated. About 44% of the participants were willing to pay the same price for irradiated chicken as they were currently paying for nonirradiated chicken and 47% were willing to pay more for irradiated chicken. About 88 to 92% of the consumers who participated in the home-use test rated the overall acceptability of cooked irradiated chicken thighs and breasts a minimum of 7. About 84 to 88% of the participants who bought both irradiated breasts and thighs during a simulated supermarket setting test bought these
products again during a second simulated supermarket setting test after having cooked and consumed the irradiated chicken. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This study was supported by USDA Special Research Grant 25-21-RD319-085 and state and Hatch funds allocated to the Georgia Experiment Station. We acknowledge Laura Milius and Julia Heggie for technical assistance and Robert Eisner, James Chang, Jye-yin Liao, and Valerie Leveaux for helping during the SSS tests. REFERENCES Bruhn, C. M., and H. G. Schutz, 1989. Consumer awareness and outlook for acceptance of food irradiation. Food Technol. 43(7):93-97. Bruhn, C. M., H. G. Schutz, and R. Sommer, 1986. Attitude change toward food irradiation among conventional and alternative consumers. Food Technol. 40(l):86-90. Food and Drug Administration, 1990. Irradiation in the production, processing and handling of food. Food and Drug Administration. Fed. Reg. 55(85):18537-18544. Galvez, F.C.F., and A.V.A. Resurrection, 1994. Consumer attitudes and purchase behaviors towards irradiated beef. Page 137 in: 54th Annual Meeting, Institute of Food Technologists, Atlanta, GA. (Abstr.)
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on April 9, 2015
Question
1294
HASHIM ET AL.
Hashim, I. B., A.V.A. Resurreccion, and K. H. McWatters, 1995. Consumers' preferences and attitudes toward irradiated poultry. Page 207 in: 55th Annual Meeting, Institute of Food Technologists, Anaheim, CA. (Abstr.) Mclsaac, C, S. M. Potter, and M. M. Weigel, 1993. Effect of consumer education on the purchase of soy-containing bakery items. Cereal Foods World 38:154-156.
Resurreccion, A.V.A., F.C.F. Galvez, S. M. Fletcher, and S. K. Misra, 1995. Consumer attitudes toward irradiated food: Results of a new study. J. Food Protect. 85(2):193-196. SAS Institute, 1985. SAS® User's Guide: Statistics. Version 5 Edition. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC. USDA, 1992. Irradiation of poultry products; Final rule. Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA. Fed. Reg. 57(183):43857-43600.
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on April 9, 2015