Consumer Perceptions: The Irradiation Project April 16, 2002 Overview – Approach and Key Findings.

Consumer Perceptions:Consumer Perceptions:The Irradiation ProjectThe Irradiation Project

April 16, 2002April 16, 2002

Overview Overview –– Approach and Key Findings Approach and Key Findings

Background/ObjectivesBackground/Objectives

Page 3Project Objectives

PalatabilityPalatability

Measure palatability of ground beef at low dose of irradiation

Consumer AcceptanceConsumer AcceptanceMeasure consumer acceptance of irradiated ground beefDefine consumer attitude segments regarding beef irradiation

Consumer EducationConsumer EducationDetermine optimal way to communicate value proposition …

• Language, educational materials

Page 4

475 post-use interviews among consumers that ate hamburger in-home

Non-Irradiated & Irradiated

323Households

Study Design

Follow-UpFollow-UpFocus GroupsFocus Groups

Follow-UpFollow-UpFocus GroupsFocus Groups

QuantitativeQuantitativeStudyStudy

QuantitativeQuantitativeStudyStudy

Six focus groups928 pre-recruitment(Denver and Atlanta)

582 placement interviewsconsumers

Non-Irradiated & Placebo

152 Households

– Denver and Atlanta

Discuss communication options and probe on food safety, introduction strategies, etc.

In-home trial

Insights: PalatabilityInsights: Palatability

Page 6Color Impacts Preference

With antioxidant addition in Atlanta, irradiated burger was preferred over the With antioxidant addition in Atlanta, irradiated burger was preferred over the non-irradiatednon-irradiated

34%

44%

22%

44%

25%31% 30%

34% 36%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Overall Consumer Preference- Post-Use -

A - Prefer Irradiated (117) B - Prefer Non-Irradiated (453)C - Prefer Placebo (909) D - No Preference

A B DA B D B C D

Denver Test Atlanta Test Control Cell(received placebo)

Page 7Using Antioxidants a Solution

In Atlanta, irradiated burger outperformed non-irradiatedIn Atlanta, irradiated burger outperformed non-irradiated

Also tested comparably to the placebo patty

6.8

6.9

6.5

6.9

6.8

6.5

0 2 4 6 8 10

Atlanta 909

Burger Attribute Ratings: Overall Satisfaction with BurgerBurger Attribute Ratings: Overall Satisfaction with Burger- - Post-UsePost-Use - -

Denver 453 (Non-Irradiated)

Atlanta 453 (Non-Irradiated)

Atlanta 909 (Placebo)

Denver 909 (Placebo)

Atlanta 117 (Irradiated)

Denver 117 (Irradiated)

Page 8Hedonic Scores

Scores discussed on previous page are illustrated belowScores discussed on previous page are illustrated below

Hedonic ScoresHedonic Scores- Post Use -

Irradiated Non-irradiated Placebo

6.66.7

6.9

5.95.3

5.7

6.46.6

6.8

6.56.7

6.85.6

5.85.9

6.56.66.7

0 2 4 6 8 10

Aroma

Juicy

Flavor

Beef Flavor Amount

Leanness of Burger

Overall Satisfaction

+.2 (Atlanta)

+.2 (Atlanta)

+.2 (Atlanta)

+.3 (Atlanta)

+.2 (Atlanta)

+.2 (Atlanta)

Insights: Customer Insights: Customer SegmentationSegmentation

Page 10

Rejectors hated everything about irradiationRejectors hated everything about irradiation

Not concerned about food safety … thus irradiation has no benefit

See lots of downsides … long-term health risk concerns

Do not trust endorsers of irradiation

• One respondent hypothesized that the “irradiated beef council” would go to Washington and pay off the USDA

• Another might buy “If I had a friend that worked in an irradiation plant for along time, who could explain the process to me, and tell me that it was safe”.

Rejectors

Rejectors

Post Project Update:

Porter-Novelli Telephone Survey2

Because of the threat of bioterrorism, the government should require irradiation to help ensure a safe food supply

Disagreed … 22%

Don’t Know …26%

Agreed …52%

(15% of study households)1

Page 11

Doubters were not strongly against irradiation … it just did not provide Doubters were not strongly against irradiation … it just did not provide benefit, thus, any concern was a reason to rejectbenefit, thus, any concern was a reason to reject

Food safety concerns are not overly high

Kept asking for more and more information about the “process” …were never satisfied

Definitely do not want to pay more

Are interested in irradiated ground beef in restaurants where they are notAre interested in irradiated ground beef in restaurants where they are notin control of sanitation and cooking processesin control of sanitation and cooking processes

Doubters

Doubters(24% of study households)

Page 12

The Interested group just needs a bit of reassurance about irradiationThe Interested group just needs a bit of reassurance about irradiation

Need to know taste will not be impacted

Endorsements by government and public health authorities add credibility

Much milder level of concern about food safetyMuch milder level of concern about food safety

Interesteds

Interested

(34% of study households)

Page 131Taste Reinforcement

Interesteds want confirmation that taste will not be impactedInteresteds want confirmation that taste will not be impacted

21% 21%

27% 23%

60% 9%

45% 14%

IGB Rejectors

IGB Doubters

IGB Interested

Strong IGB Buyers

Less Concerned More Concerned

Q46d

Change in Irradiation Concerns:Change in Irradiation Concerns:Irradiation Does Not Change the Texture or Taste of Ground BeefIrradiation Does Not Change the Texture or Taste of Ground Beef

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 20%0 40% 60% 80% 100%

Page 14

Doubters

Interested

Strong Buyers

Customer Segmentation

Strong Buyers see irradiated beef as a superior product … taste, value, safetyStrong Buyers see irradiated beef as a superior product … taste, value, safety

Very motivated to buy irradiated ground beef

Least Favorable Most Favorable

Beef Irradiation

(27% of study households)Rejectors

(15+% of study households)

(24%)(34%)

Note 1: This group represented 15% of the study households. An additional 7% refused to participate during the initial recruit because “the study was about beef irradiation.” Among those who agreed initially to participate and then dropped out of the study, one can hypothesize that refusal may have been due to a second adult in the household that was a Rejector.

Page 15

Strong Buyers motivated by premise that irradiated ground beef will Strong Buyers motivated by premise that irradiated ground beef will safeguard healthsafeguard health

Believe that the product tastes betterBelieve that the product tastes better

Strong trust in government and public health organizationsStrong trust in government and public health organizations

Strong food safety concernsStrong food safety concerns

Strong Buyers

Strong Buyers

Insights: Mind Over MatterInsights: Mind Over Matter

Page 17Perceptions and the Placebo

The most striking result in the study was the variation in palatability scores The most striking result in the study was the variation in palatability scores based on assigned segmentsbased on assigned segments

Lower scores given the placebo product by “Doubters” and “Rejectors”

Higher score given by “Strong Buyers”

6.8

6.7

6.9

6.5

0 2 4 6 8 10

Strong IGB

IGB Interested

IGB Doubters

IGB Rejectors

Q 16

O vera ll S atis fac tio n : N o nO vera ll S atis fac tio n : N o n -- Irrad ia ted B u rg erIrrad ia ted B u rg er-- P o stP o st --U se U se --

N ot S atis fiedat all

V ery S atis fied

Overall Score:

6.7

5.3

6.3

7.1

7.7

0 2 4 6 8 10

Strong IGB

IGB Interested

IGB Doubters

IGB Rejectors

Q 16

O vera ll S atis fac tio n : P laceb oO vera ll S atis fac tio n : P laceb o-- P o stP o st --U se U se --

N ot S atis fiedat all

V ery S atis fied

Overall Score:

6.9

Page 18Irradiation Attitudes Play a Role in Palatability Reaction

Identical pattern was seen for the irradiated product that was sampledIdentical pattern was seen for the irradiated product that was sampled

Overall Satisfaction: Irradiated BurgerOverall Satisfaction: Irradiated Burger- Post-Use -- Post-Use -

Overall Score:6.6 (1)

Overall Satisfaction: PlaceboOverall Satisfaction: Placebo- Post-Use -- Post-Use -

Overall Score:

6.9

Note 1: Atlanta score was 6.8Note 1: Atlanta score was 6.8

Implications for Grocery Implications for Grocery and Foodservice:and Foodservice:

Willingness to PayWillingness to PayInterest and Store LoyaltyInterest and Store Loyalty

Purchase FrequencyPurchase Frequency

Page 20

IGB Rejectors

IGB Doubters

IGB Interested

Strong IGB Buyers

Strongly Disagree Somewhat Disagree Somewhat Agree Strongly AgreeQ39d

Would Like My Store to Offer IGBWould Like My Store to Offer IGB-- PostPost--Use Use --

Disagree

36%

2%

54%

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 20%0 40% 60% 80% 100%

Agree

44%

4

13

19%

22%

96%

49%

52%

2%

5%

85% 98%

35%

3

50% 65%

26%87%5%

33%

Segments and Grocery Distribution

Three of the four segments agree that irradiated ground beef should be offeredThree of the four segments agree that irradiated ground beef should be offeredas a “choice”as a “choice”

Page 21Segments and Grocery Distribution

Two of the four segments agreed that availability of IGB would stimulateTwo of the four segments agreed that availability of IGB would stimulateadditional purchasesadditional purchases

IGB Rejectors

IGB Doubters

IGB Interested

Strong IGB Buyers

Strongly Disagree Somewhat Disagree Somewhat Agree Strongly AgreeQ39a

Would Buy MORE Beef if Grocery Carried IGBWould Buy MORE Beef if Grocery Carried IGB-- PostPost--Use Use --

Disagree

4%

21%

93%

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 20%0 40% 60% 80% 100%

Agree

19%

4

29%

43%

16%

67%

49%

48%

11%

5%

60% 89%

18%

50%

10

3

50% 28%

26%32%62% 12%

Page 22Segments and Foodservice

““Doubters” suddenly interested in IGB if offered in restaurantsDoubters” suddenly interested in IGB if offered in restaurants

Qualitatively, we heard greater concerns about “cleanliness” and perceived“loss of control”

IGB Rejectors

IGB Doubters

IGB Interested

Strong IGB Buyers

Definitely Not Probably Not Probably Definitely

Q44

Willing to Order IGB at RestaurantWilling to Order IGB at Restaurant-- PostPost--Use Use --

Definitely/Probably Not

21%

6%

79%

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 20%0 40% 60% 80% 100%

Probably/Definitely

27%

4

39%

35% 21%

50%

92%

49%

65%

2%

5%

60% 99%

26%

44%

6

3

35%26% 62%37% 12%

EducationEducation

• Information DesiredInformation Desired

Page 24Education

Food safety statements deemed most important in explaining the benefit of Food safety statements deemed most important in explaining the benefit of irradiationirradiation

Better tasting

More consistent quality

Higher quality beef product

More practical, lasts longer

Worth more money

Preferable; due to health concerns

Much safer to buy

Strongly disagree Somewhat Disagree Somewhat Agree Strongly Agree

Q38

IGB Attributes: TotalIGB Attributes: Total-- PostPost --Use Use --

Disagree

41%

48%33%

25%

100% 80% 60% 40% 20%

28 % 24 % 18 %

80% 100%

Agree

24%

39%

13%

16%

18%

58%

31%

25%

8%

5% 80%

28%

39%45% 84%7%

17%25%8%

17%39%14%

19%6

13%

33%16%5

42%44%

46%

21%

38% 56%

17%

60%40%20%0

4

Health Benefit

Example of Time Series Using multiple barsExample of Time Series Using multiple bars

8.0

8.5

8.6

8.9

9.0

9.1

9.1

9.2

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Reduces e-coli

Reduces risk of sickness

Safer for children

Safer for older consumers

Safer preparation

Approved by USDA

Safer to eat

Already used in food

Q14

Beef Irradiation StudyBeef Irradiation StudyPerceived Importance of Irradiation StatementsPerceived Importance of Irradiation Statements

- Placement -- Placement -

1

Moving ForwardMoving Forward

Page 27The Upside

Strong Buyers, and to a lesser extent, Interesteds report a potential for Strong Buyers, and to a lesser extent, Interesteds report a potential for increasing their purchases of ground beef if IGB is introducedincreasing their purchases of ground beef if IGB is introduced

Strong Buyers also see IGB as a statement that the beef industryStrong Buyers also see IGB as a statement that the beef industry“cares about their safety”“cares about their safety”

Strong Buyers will be relatively quick to adopt and are willing to payStrong Buyers will be relatively quick to adopt and are willing to paymore for IGBmore for IGB

Interesteds will be fairly quick to adopt, once they are reassuredInteresteds will be fairly quick to adopt, once they are reassuredabout taste issues and understand the processabout taste issues and understand the process

Strong Buyers, Interesteds and Doubters are all interested in IGB in the Strong Buyers, Interesteds and Doubters are all interested in IGB in the foodservice industry. Doubters do not want to pay additional money for IGBfoodservice industry. Doubters do not want to pay additional money for IGB

Page 28Continue the Drive for Support

Need a broad base of support to introduceNeed a broad base of support to introduce

Beef Industry

+

Government Bodies

3rd Party Independent

Groups

+

Some segments thought beef industry too “biased” to be source of information … might “profit” from introduction

Doubters did not fully trust government agencies vouching for irradiation

Public health authorities seen as least biased

Page 29Language

Try to change the nameTry to change the name

In one focus group, the entire tone changed when the name “irradiated” was replaced with “cold pasteurization”

• Instead of questioning every point made by the moderator, it was suddenly “all right”

Consumers may hear “irradiation” but they think “radiation”

• Morbid statements follow – “will I glow,” an “evil experiment,” “I started to get hives when I tasted the meat,” “I really started to feel sick”

Food safety is the primary benefitFood safety is the primary benefit

Specifically, talking about e-coli reduction was not a turn-off

Stress this as another “layer” of protection, with cooking to an adequate Stress this as another “layer” of protection, with cooking to an adequate temperature as the ultimate protectiontemperature as the ultimate protection

Otherwise, some consumers start to trade off risks – “Since irradiation makes it safer,I can cook it less.”