Understanding the Effectiveness of Food Safety Messages on Consumer Behaviors: An Integrated Approach

Theoretical Background and research questions/hypothesis:

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has identified contributing factors to foodborne illness: food from unsafe sources; improper holding/time and temperature; inadequate cooking; poor personal hygiene; and contaminated equipment/prevention of contamination. Risks associated with inadequate cooking, focusing on the use of a food thermometer when preparing raw meat and poultry products, has been described in the literature, but little is known about how consumers carry out this task when observed. Each study focused on different behaviors, food and food preparation tasks, and food safety communication products to determine whether food safety messaging affects behavior.

Methods:

A sample of 383 participants were recruited from various North Carolina communities, and were asked to prepare raw turkey burgers in a simulated home kitchen. One-half of participants viewed an educational video on food thermometer use before meal preparation (intervention group); the other half served as a control group. Videos of each participant’s preparation events were recorded and coded following completion of the preparation steps. Food handling behaviors were coded and compared to self-reported actions and attitudes towards food safety, collected via written surveys and in-depth interviews.

Results:

Over 60% of participants self-reported owning and using a food thermometer when cooking raw meat and poultry products; however, only 35% of unprompted participants measured final internal temperature with a food thermometer. Among participants that used a food thermometer, those exposed to the educational video intervention were more likely to place the thermometer in the correct location and were more likely to measure the temperature of both turkey patties. Differences between self-reported and observed food safety behaviors were seen across both participant groups. Lack of sufficient handwashing leading to bacterial cross-contamination was a notable secondary outcome.

Conclusions:

Data collected through direct observation more accurately reflects consumer food handling behaviors than data collected through self-reported surveys and allows for more targeted message development. Though the primary outcome of this study was to explore observed food thermometer usage and the effect of a food safety education and messaging intervention on this behavior, inadequate handwashing was an important secondary finding. This emphasizes the importance of comprehensive food safety messaging to influence safe food handling for consumers in the home.

Implications for research and/or practice:

If food safety professionals are to aid in changing consumer behaviors to reduce food safety risks, it is necessary to not only understand and characterize the public health burden of specific consumer practices, but to also have a deep qualitative and quantitative understanding of the mechanics of those practices and the motivation of individuals. More knowledge is not the key to changing consumer behavior. Consumers need compelling reasons and actionable skills to follow food safety practices (e.g., how to integrate practices into busy mealtime routine). Findings from this observational research should be used to update food safety messaging and newsworthy findings can be shared with the media and consumers to promote safe food handling to consumers.