Be Food Safe Label Efficacy Test Final Report. February 27, PDF Free Download

Agenda Background 3 Sample/Method 4 Labels Tested 5 Conclusions & Recommendations 6 Detailed Findings 11 2

Background PFSE wants to determine whether it possible to improve upon the effectiveness of the USDA s current consumer safe handling statements by adding the Be Food Safe icons. Key research objectives include: Test effectiveness of current food safety labels for meat products. How aware are consumers of the current label and what do they understand to be the purpose and message of the label information on an unaided basis? Do consumers perceive that the label has an impact on their food handling behavior? Identify whether the proposed label improves upon the messaging and impact of the current labels. Is it more likely to be noticed? What is the consumer perceived impact of the new label on food handling behavior? How important is it for the new label to be printed in color vs. black and white? What does the new label communicate about the safety and overall quality of the product and the product manufacturer (for branded meat products)? 3

Method An online survey was conducted among the e-rewards online panel, n=601. All respondents met the following criteria: Age 21-64 1/3 male, 2/3 female 1/3 minority (non-white) Responsible for at least half of household grocery shopping and food preparation Live in household of two or more (including self) The sample was split in half, with 301 seeing the current USDA label and 300 seeing the proposed label with the Be Food Safe icons. The two samples were comparable across gender, age, ethnicity and number of children at home, providing assurance than any differences observed between labels are not due to demographic disparities. 2009 PFSE Label Test Sample Profile For complete profile, see Appendix. 4

Labels Tested Each label underwent extensive questioning among half the total sample (~n=300), including open-ended questions on main idea, likes and dislikes. All 600 respondents were asked to give a 1-7 rating for both labels on how effective each is at reminding them to exercise safe food handling practices. Likewise, all 600 were shown the proposed label on a food package and probed for attitudes about the product and its manufacturer. Current USDA Label Proposed Label Proposed Label on Food Package 5

Key Findings The proposed label outperforms the current USDA label in several key areas: Efficacy in reminding respondents about safe food handling practices Spontaneous mention of Be Food Safe icons as something they find appealing or eye-catching Delivery of specific keep meat and produce separate messaging 7

Conclusions Q: How aware are consumers of the current label and what do they understand to be the purpose and message of the label information on an unaided basis? A: Yes, most consumers (80%) say they have seen the current label before, and most correctly identify the main idea as either a general message about safe food handling or a more specific message about specific food handling practices. Q: Do consumers perceive that the current label has an impact on their food handling behavior? A: Roughly half of respondents think the current label is very effective at reminding them about safe food handling practices. This suggests there is considerable room to improve the current label s efficacy. Q: Is the proposed label (with Be Food Safe icons) more likely to be noticed? A: Yes! Roughly 40% of respondent spontaneously mention the Be Food Safe icons as something they like about the proposed label (compared to ~30% with the current label), and nearly 10% specifically say the icons are eye-catching or universally recognized, as compared to less than 2% with the current label. Q: What is the consumer perceived impact of the new label on food handling behavior? A: Regardless of which label they were shown, 90% of respondents consider practicing safe food handling very important. When asked how they might specifically change their behavior, the proposed label outperforms or ties the current label in all areas. 8

Conclusions Q: What do the new labels communicate about the safety and overall quality of the product and the product manufacturer (for branded meat products)? A: After seeing the proposed label on a product, more than half (60%) of respondents give above neutral agreement ratings (5/7 or higher) for these statements: -Seeing this label makes me think the product/manufacturer is more trustworthy -Seeing this label makes me think the product/manufacturer is more responsible -Seeing this label make me think the product is higher quality -Seeing this label makes me think the manufacturer is more caring Q: How important is it for the new label to be printed in color vs. black/white? A: Color has a significant impact on label efficacy, with 20% of respondents mentioning (unprompted) that the color version on the meat package is more eye-catching or noticeable than either black/white label. 9

Recommendations The proposed label with Be Food Safe icons is significantly more appealing and more effective at delivering the intended safe food handling messaging than the current USDA label and should be embraced. Food manufacturers are likely to benefit by including the new label on packaging, as it makes a majority of consumers think they are more trustworthy, responsible and caring. There is some evidence to suggest that a color version of the proposed label is more likely to be noticed than either the current black/white label or the proposed black/label. Manufacturers should carefully weigh the cost of color printing against this benefit. Although points of confusion are few and far between with the proposed label, consider making these minor adjustments adjustments: Provide specific directions about how to sanitize hands and work surface. Provide specific instructions about how to thoroughly cook raw meats (How long? To what internal temperature?) 10

Detailed Findings 11

Shopping and Food Prep Behavior Not surprisingly, female respondents are significantly more likely than male respondents to be solely responsible for both food shopping and preparation. ~70% purchase a majority of their food at a grocery store/supermarket, with another ~15% purchasing from a warehouse club. Food Shopping Responsibility by Gender Food Preparation Responsibility by Gender 12

Safe Food Handling Procedure Awareness The vast majority of respondents say they have seen information about safe food handling procedures in the last year. Food packaging is the most likely place to have seen this information, with ~70% of women and ~65% of men reporting seeing it there. Men are more likely than women to report having seen food handling information on the Web. 13

Aided Label Awareness Although aided awareness of the current USDA label is high (81%), there is considerable false awareness of the proposed label (63%). This suggests that from the consumer s prospective, the labels may be more similar than different. Food packaging is the most commonly mentioned place where both labels are reported to have been seen. Nearly 30% claim to have seen the proposed label in stores, compared to only 18% with the current label. 14

Labels Compared: Main Idea A majority of respondents understand the main idea of both labels, with a third recalling (unaided) the main idea to be general safe food handling practices. ~20% take away a specific message about avoiding illness/bacteria/food poisoning. Respondents who viewed the current USDA label were more likely to take a way a specific message about cooking meat thoroughly. 15

Labels Compared: Effectiveness The proposed label is considerably more effective at reminding respondents to exercise safe food handling practices, with roughly 3/4 of respondents giving a top two box rating. More than 40% gave the proposed label the highest effectiveness rating, 7/7, as compared to only 27% with the current USDA label. Not at all effective Extremely effective 16

Labels Compared: Likes Although the icons are the most often mentioned like for both labels, a greater percentage (43% vs. 32%) mention them for the proposed label. For the proposed label, 9% specifically mention that the icons are eye-catching or universally recognizable, as compared to a negligible 2% with the current label. 17

Labels Compared: Points of Confusion Points of confusion for both labels are few and far between. The biggest complaint with the current label is that the text is too small or jumbled, making the message hard to read. 18

Labels Compared: Impact on Consumer Behavior After viewing each label, respondents were asked to select the ways they were likely to change their food handling behavior. The labels perform comparably on every measure except Keep meat separate from other foods in the grocery cart and refrigerator, where the proposed label outperforms by a margin of 10%. 19

Sara Lee Turkey: Top of Mind Thoughts After seeing the proposed label on the Sara Lee Turkey package, nearly 20% spontaneously mention that the color version of the label is more eye-catching and easier to read. Approximately 7% spontaneously say the label makes them think the manufacturer cares about consumer safety. 20

Sara Lee Turkey: Product Perceptions After seeing the Sara Lee turkey product package, the vast majority (86%) correctly identify that the product needs to be fully cooked, as it it were raw. More than 75% say that is very important to have this picture appear on raw meats, with another 16% saying it is Somewhat important. 21

Proposed Label: Product/Manufacturer Attitudes A majority strongly agree that the label makes both the product itself and the manufacturer appear more responsible, with 60% giving top two box ratings. Agreement ratings for higher quality, more trustworthy and more caring are lower, but still high, with ~60% or more giving above neutral (5/7 or higher) ratings. Product Attitudes Manufacturer Attitudes 22

Sample Profile cont d 24

Be Food Safe Label Efficacy Test Final Report. February 27, 2009