Raleigh, NC - General Population

Section Links: Group Description | Food Safety Perceptions | Food Safety Knowledge | Thermometer Use | Concept Testing for Character | Concept Testing for Slogans | Fight BAC! Awareness

Food Thermometer Campaign Consumer Focus Groups

I. Group Description

Ten persons, aged 21 to 60, participated in the general population focus group. All were primary food preparers in their home or shared responsibility for preparing meals. All participants had more than 12 years of education. Three participants were of Hispanic origin, two were African American, and the remaining five were Caucasian. Some participants had children at home. One participant’s wife was pregnant and had other children at home. One respondent prepared meals for an elderly woman in her home. Specific demographic information is shown below.

II. Food Safety Perceptions

Participants were asked what comes to mind when they think of food safety. Participants mentioned hamburger because of E. coli, botulism from canned foods, and checking dates on dairy and meat products. Some participants were very concerned about foodborne illness, especially because of recent media coverage of foodborne illness. One person said he was more concerned with how food is handled before he buys it, citing concerns about the overall freshness of food and how it gets to the grocery store. Two participants were concerned about fruits and vegetables being unclean or infested with insects.

Some participants felt they were fairly knowledgeable about food safety. One person said he could rely on his eyes and nose more than anything else. When asked where they get information on food safety, participants mentioned food labels, the media, their mothers, Health Alert on the Internet, and magazines.

Potential causes of foodborne illness cited by participants include not keeping food cold enough, food getting hot and then being cooled down again, leaving food out for extended periods of time, not cooking foods properly, not washing foods, and the age of foods. Foods the participants considered more likely to cause foodborne illness include meats, dairy products, seafood, and mayonnaise.

Participants believed that infants, children, persons with weakened immune systems, pregnant women, and senior citizens were at greater risk for foodborne illness. One person said the mentally challenged were also at greater risk because they may not have the mental capacity to know how to properly handle and cook foods.

III. Food Safety Knowledge

Most participants were familiar with the safe food handling label on raw meat and poultry products. Most recalled that the label provides information on how to handle the product, to what temperature to cook the product, and to wash hands and cutting surfaces after handling meat. One person thought that chicken should be rinsed before being cooked, although the safe handling label does not say this. Another participant said she read on the Internet that it is not necessary to do so because cooking is sufficient to kill bacteria.

Participants described “cook thoroughly” as cooking until the meat is well done but not burnt and until the juices of the meat run clear. They thought “cook to proper temperatures” meant the internal temperature and cooking to a temperature that kills bacteria.

Most participants looked at expiration dates when purchasing meat and poultry products. Some used the product by the sell-by date even though they knew that meant the last day the store could sell the product. One person tries to use the product within a day or two of the sell-by date. Another participant said he looks for the product with the latest sell-by date in order to buy the freshest product.

Most participants used paper towels to clean up. Several stated that they use soap or spray cleaner with paper towels. One person recently switched from cloth towels to paper towels and cleaner. Another uses just a paper towel without soap while one person uses a sponge and soap. Most said they do not reuse paper towels.

IV. Thermometer Use

Participants identified a variety of measures for protecting their families from foodborne illness. Some participants check dates and are careful about how long they leave food out. Others refrigerate leftovers immediately and throw out leftovers not eaten within two days. Participants are careful to handle and cook vegetables and meats separately, and one person stores all meats separately. Participants smell foods to ensure freshness, cook meats until they are well done, keep counters clean, and use acrylic cutting boards. One person cuts meat on a plate (rather than on a cutting board) and washes the plate immediately after contact with the meat.

Five participants own food thermometers, but only three use a thermometer when cooking large cuts of meat (i.e., roasts and turkeys). In addition to using food thermometers with large cuts of meat, one person uses her thermometer to ensure that meat has thawed to the center after being defrosted in the refrigerator. No one used a thermometer for cooking small pieces of meat such as hamburgers. When asked how they know meat is done without using a thermometer, participants said they look at the juices or they feel the meat. Another participant who prepares soups and stews often thinks that because it cooks so long it must be well done.

One woman does not use a thermometer because her mother never did. Another thinks she should use a thermometer because she often overcooks meat but assumed that if she cooks it long enough it will get to a safe temperature.

V. Concept Testing For Character

The character exhibits and the rating form completed by participants are included in
the Focus Group Materials section of this notebook.

EXHIBIT 1: Plain Thermometers

The group preferred the round thermometer (shown on the left) to the bell-shaped thermometer because its digital display was easier to read. Several participants were confused by the red dot and said the dot should be green, should go off when a certain temperature was reached, or should be explained on the thermometer’s package. Participants did not think the character would be as effective without the numbers or with zeros on the display.

EXHIBIT 2: Dressed Thermometers

After some discussion, the group agreed they preferred the round thermometer (shown on the right) to the bell-shaped thermometer. Some participants thought the numbers were easier to read, and that the thermometer looked happier and more realistic. Two people expressed concern that the character would detract from the seriousness of food safety, but most agreed that with a slogan emphasizing safety, the dressed character would be effective.

The participants liked the hat and sweat beads but some thought the character’s face should be redder to indicate it was hot. One person liked the thermometer’s finger pointing to the temperature. Several did not like the scarf while one person did not like the characters at all. She preferred the plain thermometers.

When asked what type of cooking came to mind when looking at the characters, participants mentioned Thanksgiving, Italian, baking, and grilling. All participants thought the character was male, although one person suggested making the hat pink to indicate it is female. Participants thought the character would be effective with children, and all agreed it would be effective with men and women even if the character was male.

Participants offered the names Tommy Thermometer, Mr. Safety Probe, Peter Probe, Temp Set, Sammy Safe Meat, Temperman, and Terry Thermometer. Most liked Thermie but did not like Tempy. One person stated he would prefer a name that was tied to the thermometer’s use.

Participant Rating Of Characters

Participants preferred Characters E, C, and A. The results of the rating are shown below.

When asked why they liked E, one person said it looked more like a thermometer and she liked the smile. One person who preferred A did so because she felt if the character was going to be a cartoon it should look more like a cartoon.

EXHIBIT 3: Thermometers In Hamburgers

Participants preferred the thermometer inserted in the top of the hamburger saying it looked more realistic. Another participant thought it would be easy to burn oneself if inserting the thermometer into the side of the hamburger because the thermometer would be so close to the heat source.

EXHIBIT 4: Thermometers In Roast/Chicken

One participant thought the thermometer was not inserted far enough into the turkey because it appeared just behind the leg and not in the thickness of the meat. Another participant thought it might be more effective to use the graphic with the ham because most people use pop-up thermometers in turkeys.

EXHIBIT 5: Thermometer In Leftover Stew

Participants did not identify the food shown in Exhibit 5 as leftovers. They said the leftovers should appear in a plastic storage dish or with a microwave because that is how most people reheat leftovers.

VI. Concept Testing For Slogans

Before completing the slogan rating form, the group brainstormed for possible slogans to go with the thermometer character. Suggested slogans were written on a flipchart for better viewing:

·         Cook right - keep your thermometer in sight

·         Cook it to here to avoid any fear

·         When it gets hot, the food is right

·         When it’s done, it’s time for fun

·         Cook the meat to the right temperature before you eat

·         Don’t eat late if you know it’s safe

·         says… I can’t wait ‘til we eat this well-prepared meat

·         Is it really HOT, HOT, HOT?

·         When the temperature is right, it’s okay to bite!

Participant Rating Of Slogans

The rating form used by participants is included in the Focus Group Materials section of this notebook. Participants were encouraged to “write in” slogans suggested by the group. Although there was no group consensus about which slogan was preferred, a few slogans received multiple votes. The results of the rating are shown below.

Participants who chose “Use a Thermometer…it’s a Safe Measure” (G) did so because the statement was to the point and emphasized the words “thermometer” and “safe.” Participants who chose “Is it Safe Yet?” (H) did so because it seemed catchy and it made them think of safety and using a thermometer. One person liked the phrase “Cook to the T’s” because it made him want to know what the ‘T’ was and how it related to the slogan.

Some participants did not think it was necessary to include the character’s name in the slogan and suggested writing the name on its hat or shirt. One person, however, thought it was important for the character to have a name to help people remember it.

One participant suggested it would be most effective to emphasize the issue of the color of the meat in the slogan. Others agreed it was important to mention this in the campaign but did not think it had to be part of the slogan. Another participant was concerned that the campaign would have to “unthink” the mentality of today’s cook whose mother had cooked the same way for years without killing anyone. He thought the campaign should emphasize the color issue because the new research findings on color may change this way of thinking.

Another participant said the slogan should emphasize the ease of using a thermometer because there is no guesswork involved. He uses a thermometer because it is easy to know when the meat is done, not because of food safety concerns.

Most participants wrote in a slogan that was mentioned by the group. Most of the write-in votes were for different slogans. However, two people liked “Cook it to Here to Avoid any Fear.”

VII. Fight BAC! Awareness

None of the participants were familiar with the Fight BAC! character. However, they thought it would be effective in a food safety promotion campaign when paired with the thermometer character in a good guy/bad guy situation.