March 22, 2002 

Consumer Research on Food Safety 

Labeling Features for the Development of 

Responsive Labeling Policy

Volume 1 

Final Report 

Contract No. 53-3A94-98-03, 

Delivery Order 19

Prepared for 

Robert C. Post, Ph.D. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Food Safety and Inspection Service 

Labeling and Additives Policy Division 

300 12th Street SW 

Washington, DC 20250-3700 

Prepared by 

Sheryl C. Cates 

Connie Cignetti 

Katherine M. Kosa 

RTI 

Health, Social, and Economics Research 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 

RTI Project Number 07182.019 
 RTI Project Number 

 07182.019 

Consumer Research on Food Safety 

Labeling Features for the Development of 

Responsive Labeling Policy

Volume 1 

Final Report 

Contract No. 53-3A94-98-03, 

Delivery Order 19

March 22, 2002

Prepared for 

Robert C. Post, Ph.D. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Food Safety and Inspection Service 

Labeling and Additives Policy Division 

300 12th Street SW 

Washington, DC 20250-3700 

Prepared by 

Sheryl C. Cates 

Connie Cignetti 

Katherine M. Kosa 

RTI 

Health, Social, and Economics Research 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 
Contents 

 Executive Summary ES-1 

 1. Introduction 1-1 

 2. Background 2-1 

 3. Methods 3-1 

3.1 Focus Group Methodology.................................................3-1

3.2 Study Design......................................................................3-2

3.3 Moderator Guide and Prediscussion Questionnaire ..........3-3

 4. Participant Demographics 4-1

 5. Results 5-1 

5.1 Nutrition Facts Panel..........................................................5-1

5.2 Handling Statements..........................................................5-2

5.3 Safe Handling Instructions .................................................5-3

5.4 Preparation Instructions .....................................................5-4

5.4.1 Use of Preparation Instructions..............................5-4

5.4.2 Attitudes toward Uniform Guidelines......................5-7

5.5 Labeling of NRTE Products................................................5-8

5.5.1 Preferences for Cooking Statements and 

Logos......................................................................5-8

5.5.2 Attitudes toward Mandatory Preparation 

Instructions.............................................................5-9

5.6 Food Product Dating ..........................................................5-9

5.6.1 Use of Product Dates ...........................................5-10

5.6.2 Understanding of Product Dates ..........................5-11

iii 
5.6.3 Attitudes toward Mandatory Product Dating.........5-13

5.7 Labeling of Irradiated Meat and Poultry Products............5-14

5.8 Labeling of Products with Possible Allergens ..................5-17

5.8.1 Use of Ingredients Statements.............................5-18

5.8.2 Preferences for Allergen Labeling........................5-18

 6. Conclusion and Recommendations 6-1

 References R-1

 Appendices 

A Screening Questionnaire .................................................. A-1 

B Moderator Guide ............................................................... B-1 

C Prediscussion Questionnaire ............................................ C-1 

D Focus Group Summaries .................................................. D-1 

iv 
Figures 

Figure 5-1 Percentage of Participants Who Use Preparation 

Instructions on Meat, Poultry, and Egg Product Labeling...........5-5 

Figure 5-2 Percentage of Participants Who Use Sell-By and/or UseBy Dates on Meat, Poultry, and Egg Product Labeling.............5-11

Figure 5-3 Percentage of Participants Who Are Aware of and Have 

Seen Irradiated Meat and Poultry Products..............................5-15

v 
Tables 

Table 3-1 Focus Group Populations and Locations....................................3-2 

Table 3-2 Moderator Guide Summary.........................................................3-5 

 Table 4-1 Participant Demographics—Summary........................................4-1 

Table 4-2 Participant Demographics, by Group..........................................4-2 

Table 5-1 Participants’ Opinions on the Usefulness of Preparation 

Instructions for Meat, Poultry, and Egg Products........................5-6 

Table 5-2 Participants’ Opinions on the Usefulness of Product Dates 

for Meat, Poultry, and Egg Products.........................................5-11 

vi 
 

 Executive Summary 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection 

Service (USDA, FSIS) needs data on consumers’ use and 

understanding of different labeling features and whether 

consumers desire that certain labeling features be mandatory for 

some meat, poultry, and egg products. FSIS contracted with RTI 

to conduct focus group discussions with household grocery 

shoppers and food preparers. FSIS can use the findings from the 

focus groups to guide labeling policy development. 

RTI conducted six focus groups—two groups in each of three 

locations (Raleigh, North Carolina; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; 

and St. Louis, Missouri). In each location, we conducted one 

focus group with individuals who have a high school education or 

less and one focus group with individuals who have a college 

education. We conducted two focus groups with individuals in 

each of the following age groups: 18 to 30 years old, 35 to 55 

years old, and 60 years old or older. 

The purpose of the focus groups was to collect information on 

consumers’ 

Z use and understanding of the Nutrition Facts panel, 

handling statements, and the Safe Handling Instructions 

(SHI) label; 

Z use of preparation (cooking and heating) instructions and 

their attitudes toward uniform guidelines; 

Z preferences for labeling features (i.e., cooking statements 

and logos) on not-ready-to-eat (NRTE) products and 

attitudes toward mandatory preparation instructions; 

ES-1 
Consumer Research on Food Safety Labeling Features for the Development of Responsive Labeling Policy

Z use and understanding of product dates and their attitudes 

toward mandatory product dating; 

Z preferences for labeling of irradiated meat and poultry 

products; and 

Z use of ingredients statements and preferences for labeling 

of food products with possible allergens. 

Prior to the focus group discussions, participants completed a 

13-item questionnaire that collected information on their use of 

product dates and preparation instructions, their awareness of 

irradiated meat and poultry products, and demographics (e.g., 

education, age, race). The moderator then led participants in a 

discussion to unveil participants’ usage and understanding of 

different labeling features—the Nutrition Facts panel, handling 

statements, the SHI label, preparation instructions, product dating, 

and ingredient statements. In addition, participants discussed 

their preferences for labeling of NRTE products, irradiated meat 

and poultry products, and products with possible allergens. 

Finally, participants discussed whether they thought it was 

necessary for the FSIS to require preparation instructions for all 

NRTE meat, poultry, and egg products and product dating for all 

meat, poultry, and egg products. 

 E.1 KEY FINDINGS 

The key findings from the focus group discussions are 

summarized below. 

Participants find the 

Nutrition Facts panel, 

handling statements, and 

the SHI label to be useful 

and necessary labeling 

features. 

Nutrition Facts Panel 

Z Most participants read the Nutrition Facts panel when 

shopping for meat, poultry, and egg products. They 

understand this information and find it useful in making 

purchase decisions. 

Handling Statements 

Z Nearly all participants have seen handling statements and 

generally follow the instructions provided. Although most 

participants describe handling statements as “common 

sense,” they think they are necessary and critical pieces of 

information. 

Safe Handling Instructions 

Z Most participants have seen the SHI label and associate it 

with raw meat and poultry. Although they consider these 

ES-2 
Executive Summary 

instructions to be common sense, they think it serves as a 

good reminder to handle raw meat and poultry safely. 

Z Some participants think the SHI label is helpful in 

determining whether a product requires cooking. Others 

do not rely on the SHI label for determining whether a 

product requires cooking; instead, they rely on their 

cooking experience. 

Preparation Instructions 

Z About half of the participants look for preparation 

instructions when shopping for meat, poultry, and egg 

products. Most participants refer to preparation 

instructions to determine the cooking method (e.g., bake or 

microwave) and cooking time. 

Some participants like the 

idea of uniform guidelines 

for preparation 

instructions, while others 

think such guidelines are 

unnecessary. 

The focus group findings 

suggest that consumers 

desire additional labeling 

features for NRTE 

products. Most 

participants like the use of 

cooking statements (e.g., 

“Cook Thoroughly”) in 

conjunction with cooking 

logos or symbols. 

Z Many participants refer to preparation instructions when 

preparing meat, poultry, and egg products, especially 

when preparing a product for the first time. 

Z Participants find preparation instructions most useful for 

frozen and refrigerated entrees/dinners, dehydrated 

products, and egg products. 

Z Some participants like the idea of uniform guidelines for 

preparation instructions. Uniform guidelines would specify 

that certain information (e.g., cooking time, temperature, 

and method) be provided in a specific format. Other 

participants do not think such guidelines are necessary; 

they think it should be up to individual companies to decide 

what information to provide and in what format. 

Labeling of NRTE Products 

Z Most participants like the use of cooking statements (e.g., 

“Cook Thoroughly”) in conjunction with cooking logos or 

symbols on NRTE product labeling. They believe such 

labeling would be useful in identifying products that require 

cooking for safety. These findings are consistent with the 

findings from the previous focus group study we conducted 

for FSIS on labeling of NRTE products (Cates, CarterYoung, and Gledhill, 2001). 

Z Many participants support regulations requiring preparation 

instructions on the labeling for all NRTE meat, poultry, and 

egg products so consumers safely prepare the product. 

Participants who do not support mandatory preparation 

instructions believe that it is manufacturers’ responsibility, 

not the government’s, to provide preparation instructions. 

ES-3 
Consumer Research on Food Safety Labeling Features for the Development of Responsive Labeling Policy

Food Product Dating 

Z Most participants check product dates before purchasing 

meat, poultry, or egg products to ensure product freshness 

and safety. Many participants check the date again before 

cooking or preparing the product. 

The focus group findings 

suggest there is some 

confusion among 

consumers regarding 

product dating. 

Participants suggest that a 

universal dating system be 

adopted in which products 

display the same date, 

preferably a use-by date. 

Participants think it is 

misleading to label 

irradiated meat and poultry 

products as “pasteurized.” 

Some participants support 

special allergen labeling, 

while others believe it is 

consumers’ responsibility 

to select products they can 

safely consume. 

Z Participants think product dates are most useful for 

refrigerated entrees/dinners, processed products, raw 

meat and poultry, and egg products. 

Z Although many participants rely on product dates, most 

find the use of different dates confusing (because some 

products have a use-by date and others have a sell bydate). Participants would like to see a universal dating 

system adopted in which products display the same date, 

preferably a use-by date. 

Z Some participants do not understand how product dates 

are determined and are unsure whether product dates are 

verified for accuracy. 

Z Most participants support mandatory product dating for all 

meat, poultry, and egg products to ensure product safety. 

Several participants are opposed to mandatory product 

dating; they think it should be up to manufacturers to 

provide this information. 

Labeling of Irradiated Meat and Poultry Products 

Z Many participants are unaware of irradiated meat and 

poultry products and are unsure of the safety of irradiated 

products given their limited knowledge. 

Z Participants like the following statements for irradiated 

meat and poultry products: 

X “Irradiated to Decrease Harmful Bacteria” 

X “Irradiated for Your Safety” 

X “Treated by Irradiation” 

Z Participants consider irradiation and pasteurization to be 

two different processes; hence, they consider it misleading 

to label irradiated meat and poultry products as 

“pasteurized.” 

Labeling of Products with Possible Allergens 

Z About half of the participants read the ingredients 

statement on product labeling. Some participants always 

read this information, and many only read it when trying a 

product for the first time. 

Z Only some participants think all of the ingredients are listed 

in a product’s ingredients statement. Some participants 

find the ingredients statement confusing because they are 

unfamiliar with the names of many ingredients. 

ES-4 
Executive Summary 

Z Most participants would like to see the source of the 

ingredient listed next to the ingredient itself in the 

ingredients statement (e.g., whey [milk]) and semolina 

[wheat]). They think this information would be useful to 

consumers with food allergies. 

Z About half of the participants support mandatory allergen 

statements on product packaging (e.g., “May Contain 

Allergens”). Some participants do not support mandatory 

allergen statements; they think it is consumers’ 

responsibility to read the ingredients statement and check 

for possible allergens. Some doubt the usefulness of such 

generic statements. 

Z Participants are apathetic about a toll-free telephone 

number or web site consumers could access for allergen 

information. 

 E.2 RECOMMENDATIONS 

Although consumer focus group findings should not be 

generalized to the general population of consumers in any 

statistical sense, the findings can be used to help guide policy 

decisions. Our suggested recommendations based on the focus 

group findings are summarized below. 

Z Focus group participants from the current study and the 

previous study we conducted for FSIS agree that cooking 

statements/logos would be a useful labeling feature for 

NRTE products. Consistent with our recommendations 

from the previous study, we again recommend that FSIS 

consider the costs and merits of requiring cooking 

statements/logos on NRTE products to convey that 

cooking for safety is required. 

Z Although some participants support mandatory preparation 

instructions for all NRTE meat, poultry, and egg products, 

others do not. Hence, there is no concensus among 

participants regarding FSIS’s role in this matter. 

Z The focus group findings suggest that there is some 

confusion among consumers regarding product dating. 

Participants suggest that product labeling display one date 

that provides guidance as to when consumers should use 

the product. We recommend that FSIS consider the costs 

and merits of requiring product dating for all meat, poultry, 

and egg products, preferably a use-by date. 

Z We also recommend that FSIS consider implementing a 

consumer education campaign through the general media 

on product dating. We suggest that FSIS educate 

consumers on how product dates are determined and how 

they can use product dates in making storage decisions at 

home. 

ES-5 
Consumer Research on Food Safety Labeling Features for the Development of Responsive Labeling Policy

Z Participants consider irradiation and pasteurization to be 

two different processes; hence, they consider it misleading 

to label irradiated meat and poultry products as 

“pasteurized.” This finding is consistent with FSIS’ current 

belief that the labeling of irradiated meat and poultry 

products as “pasteurized” has the potential for creating 

consumer confusion. 

Z Some participants support special allergen labeling, while 

others believe it is consumers’ responsibility to select 

products they can safely consume. Hence, there is no 

concensus among participants regarding FSIS’s role in 

allergen labeling. Participants prefer source labeling to the 

use of allergen statements. 

ES-6 
 1 Introduction 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection 

Service (USDA, FSIS) needs data on consumers’ use and 

understanding of different labeling features and whether 

consumers desire that certain labeling features be mandatory for 

some meat, poultry, and egg products. FSIS contracted with RTI 

to conduct focus group discussions with household grocery 

shoppers and food preparers. FSIS can use the findings from the 

focus groups to guide labeling policy development. 

RTI conducted six focus groups—two groups in each of three 

locations (Raleigh, North Carolina; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; 

and St. Louis, Missouri). The purpose of the focus groups was to 

collect information on consumers’ 

Z use and understanding of the Nutrition Facts panel, 

handling statements, and the Safe Handling Instructions 

(SHI) label; 

Z use of preparation (cooking and heating) instructions and 

their attitudes toward uniform guidelines; 

Z preferences for labeling features (i.e., cooking statements 

and logos) on not-ready-to-eat (NRTE) products and 

attitudes toward mandatory preparation instructions; 

Z use and understanding of product dates and their attitudes 

toward mandatory product dating; 

Z preferences for labeling of irradiated meat and poultry 

products; and 

Z use of ingredients statements and preferences for labeling 

of food products with possible allergens. 

This report discusses the design of the focus group study and 

presents the key findings from the focus group discussions and 

1-1 
Consumer Research on Food Safety Labeling Features for the Development of Responsive Labeling Policy

the questionnaire administered to participants prior to the 

discussion. The report is organized as follows: Section 2 

provides a background on the Agency’s need for consumer 

research on food safety labeling features; Section 3 describes the 

study design; Section 4 presents information on participants’ 

demographics; Section 5 presents the findings from the focus 

group discussions and the prediscussion questionnaire; and 

Section 6 concludes the report with our recommendations. 

1-2 
 2 Background 

In April 2001, RTI completed consumer research for FSIS on 

consumer perceptions of NRTE meat and poultry labeling 

terminology following the implementation of FSIS Notice 23-99, 

“Instructions for Verifying Listeria monocytogenes (Lm) 

Reassessment” (Cates, Carter-Young, and Gledhill, 2001). This 

notice provided instructions to program employees to verify that 

establishments have conducted a reassessment of their Hazard 

Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) plans for controlling 

Lm in ready-to-eat (RTE) products. As a result of this notice, 

some manufacturers have recategorized their RTE products to 

NRTE products. Thus, it was hypothesized that two similar food 

products within a processing category with different preparation 

instructions (e.g., a hot dog, which is required by federal 

regulations to be fully cooked and RTE), would result in consumer 

confusion when some brands include “heating” instructions for 

quality and other brands provide “cooking” instructions for safety. 

The focus group research conducted by RTI showed that 

consumers consider the information and directions provided on a 

product label as the key factor in determining whether a product is 

RTE or NRTE. Consumers associate “heating instructions” with 

RTE products and “cooking instructions” with NRTE products. 

Consequently, when cooking instructions are provided on 

products traditionally regarded as RTE, consumers are confused 

about how to prepare the product. Of particular interest was the 

finding that consumers do not rely on product name qualifying 

terms (i.e., baked, fried) to determine whether a product is fully 

cooked. The research also revealed that the focus group 

2-1 
Consumer Research on Food Safety Labeling Features for the Development of Responsive Labeling Policy

participants generally support the idea of NRTE product labels 

displaying a logo and statement (e.g., “Cook Thoroughly”) to 

inform consumers that the product is not ready to eat and requires 

cooking for safety. 

This research showed that there is a need to clearly differentiate 

RTE and NRTE products for the consumer. It also identified 

additional areas of research need. Informing consumers on how 

to properly prepare NRTE foods to destroy pathogens, a critical 

part of the farm-to-table concept, is important in controlling 

foodborne illness. Use-by/sell-by dates may also help inform 

consumers on how long a product can be stored before the quality 

and safety of the product become questionable. In light of these 

food safety concerns, the Agency needs data on whether 

consumers believe preparation instructions and use-by/sell-by 

dates are useful and whether these features should be required 

on all meat, poultry, and egg products. 

In addition, FSIS needs consumer research on other timely food 

safety labeling issues for future policy considerations. Those 

issues include the labeling of irradiated meat and poultry products 

and allergen labeling. FSIS also desires information on 

consumers’ use and understanding of other labeling features (i.e., 

Nutrition Facts panel, handling statements, and SHI) required on 

some meat, poultry, and egg products.

2-2 
 3 Methods 

In this section, we describe the focus group methodology, present 

the study design, and discuss the development of the moderator 

guide and prediscussion questionnaire. 

3.1 FOCUS GROUP METHODOLOGY 

Market researchers often use qualitative research methods to 

learn more about consumers’ preferences and attitudes. Focus 

groups are one of the most frequently used methods of qualitative 

research (Greenbaum, 1988). A focus group discussion generally 

consists of 8 to 10 individuals who discuss selected topics with a 

skilled moderator for approximately 1 to 2 hours. Recruiters 

prescreen participants to ensure that they meet certain criteria. 

Participants generally receive a monetary incentive for their 

participation. 

The moderator uses a moderator guide to serve as an outline that 

provides structure for the focus group discussion. The moderator 

encourages interaction among group members and follows 

through on responses to ensure that the discussion centers on the 

main topics. According to Greenbaum (1988), the dynamics of the 

group process result in the generation of more useful information, 

on a cost-efficient basis, than would otherwise be available. 

Focus groups are a 

valuable tool for collecting 

information on consumers’ 

preferences and attitudes. 

Although the results 

should not be generalized 

to a larger population in 

any statistical sense, they 

can be useful in guiding 

policy decisions. Focus groups help researchers gain an understanding of the 

“why” behind consumers’ attitudes and behavior (Greenbaum, 

2000). Although the results of focus group discussions should not 

be generalized to a larger population in any statistical sense, 

(Kruger, 1988; Fern, 1982), they can be useful in guiding policy 

3-1 
Consumer Research on Food Safety Labeling Features for the Development of Responsive Labeling Policy

decisions. For example, the Agency used focus groups in 

developing the SHI label for raw meat and poultry packaging 

(Teague and Anderson, 1995). 

 3.2 STUDY DESIGN 

RTI conducted a total of six focus groups—two groups in each of 

three locations (Raleigh, North Carolina; Philadelphia, 

Pennsylvania; and St. Louis, Missouri). We selected the sites to 

provide geographic diversity. In each location, we conducted one 

focus group with individuals who have a high school education or 

less and one focus group with individuals who have a college 

education. We conducted two groups with individuals between 

the ages of 18 and 30, two groups with individuals between the 

ages of 35 and 55, and two groups with individuals 60 years of 

age or older. Table 3-1 shows the population and location for the 

six focus groups. 

Table 3-1. Focus Group 

Populations and Locations Group Age Educationa Location 

1 60+ C Raleigh, NC 

2 18 – 30 HS Raleigh, NC 

3 35 – 55 HS Philadelphia, PA 

4 18 – 30 C Philadelphia, PA 

5 60+ HS St. Louis, MO 

6 35 – 55 C St. Louis, MO 

aHS = High school education or less; C = College education. 

Each focus group included eight participants, for a total of 48 

participants. Each group included four males and four females 

and reflected the racial diversity of the area in which the group 

was conducted. In addition to the population characteristics 

specified above, participants met the following additional criteria: 

Z have primary responsibility or share responsibility for 

shopping for groceries in the household; 

Z have primary responsibility or share responsibility for 

cooking in the household; 

Z are not vegetarian; 

3-2 
Section 3 — Methods 

Z prepare food and cook at home at least three times a 

week; 

Z have prepared frozen, prepackaged meat/poultry/egg 

products (e.g., frozen dinners or entrees) in the past week; 

Z have prepared hot dogs, luncheon/deli meats, or egg 

products in the past week; 

Z have not participated in a focus group in the past 6 

months; and 

Z have no family member (including participant) employed by 

the federal government; the food industry; the health care 

industry; or a marketing research, advertising, or public 

relations company currently or within the past 5 years. 

In addition, we attempted to recruit at least three individuals for 

each group that have or have members in their household with 

food allergies. 

Appendix A provides a copy of the questionnaire used to screen 

and recruit participants. Participants received a monetary 

incentive of $50 in Raleigh and $60 for Philadelphia and St. Louis. 

 3.3 MODERATOR GUIDE AND PREDISCUSSION 

QUESTIONNAIRE 

The moderator guide serves as an outline that provides structure 

for the focus group discussion. Working with FSIS, RTI developed 

a draft moderator guide that we pretested by conducting a focus 

group with household cooks and grocery shoppers in Bethesda, 

Maryland. We revised the moderator guide based on the pretest 

findings. 

The moderator guide was designed to collect information on 

participants’ 

Z use and understanding of the Nutrition Facts panel, 

handling statements, and the SHI label; 

Z use of preparation (cooking and heating) instructions and 

their attitudes toward uniform guidelines; 

Z preferences for labeling features (i.e., cooking statements 

and logos) on NRTE products and attitudes toward 

mandatory preparation instructions; 

Z use and understanding of product dates and their attitudes 

toward mandatory product dating; 

Z preferences for labeling of irradiated meat and poultry 

products; and 

3-3 
Consumer Research on Food Safety Labeling Features for the Development of Responsive Labeling Policy

Z use of ingredients statements and preferences for labeling 

of food products with possible allergens. 

Appendix B presents the final moderator guide and the handouts 

distributed during the group discussion. Table 3-2 provides a brief 

summary of each section in the moderator guide. We asked 

participants to limit their discussion to meat, poultry, and egg 

products. We presented participants with the product categories 

shown below and often referred to these categories throughout 

the discussion: 

Z frozen entrees and dinners 

Z refrigerated entrees and dinners 

Z processed products 

Z canned products 

Z dehydrated products 

Z raw meat and poultry 

Z egg products 

Prior to the focus group discussions, participants completed a 

13-item questionnaire that collected information on their use of 

product dates and preparation instructions, their awareness of 

irradiated meat and poultry products, and demographics (e.g., 

education, age, race). Appendix C provides a copy of the 

prediscussion questionnaire. 

We conducted the focus groups between December 6, 2001, and 

December 12, 2001. Each focus group lasted about 90 minutes 

and was audiotaped and videotaped. Volume 2 of this report 

provides the transcripts from each focus group discussion. 

3-4 
Section 3 — Methods 

Table 3-2. Moderator Guide Summary 

Section Purpose 

Introduction Moderators described the purpose of the discussion and how it 

would be conducted; participants introduced themselves. 

Nutrition Facts Panel, Handling 

Statements, and Safe Handling 

Instructions 

Participants discussed their use and understanding of the Nutrition 

Facts panel, handling statements, and the SHI label. 

Preparation Instructions and 

Labeling of NRTE Products 

Participants discussed their use of preparation (cooking or heating) 

instructions and their attitudes toward uniform guidelines for 

preparation instructions. Participants also discussed their 

preferences for cooking logos and statements for NRTE products 

and their attitudes toward mandatory preparation instructions for all 

NRTE products. 

Food Product Dating Participants discussed how they determine product storage time, 

their use and understanding of product dates, and their knowledge 

of how product dates are determined and validated. Participants 

also discussed their attitudes toward mandating product dating. 

Labeling of Irradiated Meat and 

Poultry Products 

Participants discussed their awareness and understanding of 

irradiation and pasteurization. Participants evaluated alternative 

labeling statements for irradiated products and discussed whether it 

was appropriate to label irradiated meat and poultry products as 

“pasteurized.” 

Labeling of Products with 

Possible Allergens 

Participants discussed their use of ingredients statements. 

Participants who for shop for individuals with food allergies 

discussed how they identify products with possible allergens. 

Participants discussed alternative features for allergen labeling 

(including the source of the allergen in the product’s ingredients 

statement, requiring mandatory allergen statements, and providing 

an 800 number or web site that consumers could access for allergen 

information). 

Conclusion Participants shared any final comments. 

3-5 

Table 4-1. Participant 

Demographics—Summary 

 Participant 4 Demographics 

4-1 

A total of 48 individuals ages 18 to over 70 participated in the six 

focus groups. All participants have primary or shared responsibility 

for cooking and grocery shopping in their households; prepare food 

and cook in the home at least three times a week; and regularly 

prepare prepackaged meat, poultry, and/or egg products. Table 4-1 

summarizes demographic information for the focus group 

participants. Table 4-2 provides demographic information by group 

as reported in the prediscussion questionnaire. 

Gender 

 Male: 50% 

 Female: 50% 

Race/Ethnicity 

 Caucasian: 69% 

 African American: 25% 

 Asian/Pacific Islander: 2% 

 Other race/multiracial: 2% 

 No response: 2% 

Hispanic or Spanish origin: 8% 

Average income

 All participants: $49,353 

 High school education groups: $41,310 

 College education groups: $57,396 
4-2 

Table 4-2. Participant Demographics, by Group 

Number of Participants 

Question 

Group 1

(n = 8) 

Group 2

(n = 8) 

Group 3

(n = 8) 

Group 4

(n = 8) 

Group 5

(n = 8) 

Group 6

(n = 8) 

Tota

(n = 48

Gender 

Male 4 4 4 4 4 4 24 Female 4 4 4 4 4 4 24 

Age

18–24 0 3 0 3 0 0 6 25–30 0 5 0 4 0 0 9 31–34 0 0 0 1a 0 0 1 35–39 0 0 3 0 0 1 4 40–44 0 0 3 0 0 3 6 45–49 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 50–55 0 0 1 0 0 3 4 56–59 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60+ 8 0 0 0 8 1a 17 

Hispanic or Spanish origin 1 1 1 0 1 0 4 Race/ethnicity 

White/Caucasian 5 5 4 6 6 7 33 Black/African American 2 3 3 2 1 1 12 Native American/Alaskan Native 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Asian/Pacific Islander 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Another race or multiracial 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 No answer 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 

Note: Group 1 = Raleigh, ages 60+, college education Group 4 = Philadelphia, ages 18–30, college education 

Group 2 = Raleigh, ages 18–30, high school education Group 5 = St. Louis, ages 60+, high school education Group 3 = Philadelphia, ages 35–55, high school education Group 6 = St. Louis, ages 35–55, college education 
4-3 

Number of Participants 

Question 

Group 1

(n = 8) 

Group 2

(n = 8) 

Group 3

(n = 8) 

Group 4

(n = 8) 

Group 5

(n = 8) 

Group 6

(n = 8) 

Tota

(n = 48

Education 

11th grade or less 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 High school graduate or GED 0 7 7 0 7 0 21 Some college 0 0 1a 1a 0 0 2 College graduate 5 0 0 6 0 4 15 Postgraduate 3 0 0 1 0 4 8 No answer 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 

Total household income before taxes 

$9,999 or less 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 $10,000 – $14,999 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $15,000 – $19,999 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $20,000 – $24,999 1 1 1 0 0 1 4 $25,000 – $34,999 0 1 3 1 3 1 9 $35,000 – $49,999 2 2 1 2 1 1 9 $50,000 – $74,999 3 2 3 2 2 4 16 More than $75,000 2 1 0 3 0 1 7 No answer 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 

Participant or household member 

has food allergiesb

3 2 4 2 4 4 19 

Note: Group 1 = Raleigh, ages 60+, college education Group 4 = Philadelphia, ages 18–30, college education 

Group 2 = Raleigh, ages 18–30, high school education Group 5 = St. Louis, ages 60+, high school education Group 3 = Philadelphia, ages 35–55, high school education Group 6 = St. Louis, ages 35–55, college education 

aAs part of the recruiting process, each participant was screened to ensure that he or she met certain criteria (e.g., college educated). H

individuals reported different information for education or age on the prediscussion questionnaire. 

bThe food allergy information is based on what participants reported in the screening process and in the focus group discussion.Table 4-2. Participant Demographics, by Group (continued) 

 5 Results 

In this section, we present the findings from the six focus group 

discussions and summarize the results from the prediscussion 

questionnaire. Appendix D provides individual summaries for 

each of the six focus groups. 

 5.1 NUTRITION FACTS PANEL 

In this section, we discuss participants’ use and understanding of 

the information provided in the Nutrition Facts panel. USDA 

permits voluntary nutrition labeling on single-ingredient, raw meat 

and poultry products and mandates nutrition labeling for all other 

meat, poultry, and egg products with certain exceptions (§317.300 

– §317.400 for meat, §381.400 – §381.500 for poultry, and 

§590.411[e] for egg products). 

Most participants read the Nutrition Facts panel when shopping for 

meat, poultry, and egg products and find this information useful in 

making purchase decisions. Most participants seek out 

information regarding 

Z calories, 

Z sodium, 

Z cholesterol, 

Z fat, and 

Z sugar. 

Some participants also seek out information on carbohydrates. A 

few participants are interested in fiber, protein, and vitamins. 

5-1 
Consumer Research on Food Safety Labeling Features for the Development of Responsive Labeling Policy 

Most participants read the 

Nutrition Facts panel when 

shopping for meat, poultry, 

and egg products. They 

understand this 

information and find it 

useful in making purchase 

decisions. 

In most cases, only one or two participants from each group do 

not refer to the Nutrition Facts panel. The exception to this was 

Group 3 (Philadelphia, high school education, ages 35–55) where 

most of the participants do not read the Nutrition Facts panel. 

Participants say they do not read the Nutrition Facts panel 

because they do not have any particular health concerns or are 

not concerned about their weight. One participant stated, “I do not 

have any health concerns that would force me to read the 

information.” Another participant admits, “If it’s something I like, I 

don’t care what’s in it.” Other participants offered similar 

comments. 

Most participants agree that the information on the Nutrition Facts 

panel is understandable; however, as summarized below, several 

participants find some of the information confusing. 

Z A few participants find the “% Daily Value” information 

confusing. For example, if a product’s Nutrition Facts 

panel states that the “% Daily Value” is 38 percent for 

sodium then they believe that 38 percent of that product’s 

contents is sodium. 

Z A few participants would like to know how the information 

on the Nutrition Facts panel applies to their own health. 

Z One participant suggests using one standard unit of 

measure for the “amount per serving” information (i.e., 

provide all information in either milligrams or grams). 

Z One participant does not understand the difference 

between the different types of fat. 

Z One participant does not understand why products labeled 

as “sugar-free” have grams of sugar listed on the Nutrition 

Facts panel. 

 5.2 HANDLING STATEMENTS 

In this section, we discuss participants’ awareness, use, and 

understanding of handling statements. Packaged products that 

require special handling to maintain their wholesome condition 

must display handling statements (§317.2[k] for meat and 

§381.125[a] for poultry). Examples of handling statements include 

the following: 

Z “Keep Frozen” 

Z “Keep Refrigerated” 

Z “Keep Refrigerated After Opening” 

5-2 
Section 5 — Results 

Nearly all participants have seen handling statements on 

refrigerated and frozen meat, poultry, and egg product labeling. 

Although most participants describe handling statements as 

“common sense,” they think they are necessary and critical pieces 

of information. Some participants think handling statements are 

useful reminders in case they mishandle the product or are unsure 

if a product needs to be refrigerated after opening. A few 

participants mentioned previous experiences where they relied on 

handling statements to determine whether they should eat a 

product after it had set out for a long period. 

The majority of participants generally follow handling statements. 

A few participants follow the unsafe practice of thawing frozen 

entrees or dinners at room temperature to shorten the product’s 

cooking time. 

Most participants think companies provide handling statements for 

both food safety and food quality purposes, while some think 

companies provide them just for food safety reasons. Participants 

think companies provide these instructions so consumers will 

enjoy their products (and will buy them again) and will safely 

consume them. One participant stated, “If it doesn’t taste good, 

you won’t buy it again.” Other participants offered similar 

comments. 

A few participants think handling statements are used as 

disclaimers for liability reasons. One such participant stated, “I 

think some of that stuff [handling statements] is common sense, 

but it almost seems that putting it on there protects themselves

[manufacturers] in case somebody were to sue for liability 

reasons.” 

5.3 SAFE HANDLING INSTRUCTIONS 

Nearly all participants 

have seen handling 

statements and generally 

follow the instructions 

provided. Although most 

participants describe 

handling statements as, 

“common sense,” they 

think they are necessary 

and critical pieces of 

information. 

In this section, we discuss participants’ awareness and use of the 

SHI label. Meat and poultry products that have not received an 

adequate lethality treatment for pathogens (i.e., raw or partially 

cooked product) are required to display the SHI label (§317.2[l] for 

meat and §381.125[b] for poultry). 

5-3 
Consumer Research on Food Safety Labeling Features for the Development of Responsive Labeling Policy 

Most participants have 

seen the SHI label and 

associate it with raw meat 

and poultry. Although they 

consider these instructions 

to be common sense, they 

think it serves as a good 

reminder to handle raw 

meat and poultry safely. 

Most participants have seen the SHI label. They associate this 

label with raw meat and poultry. The majority of participants do 

not refer to the information provided on the SHI label when 

preparing raw meat and poultry at home. Participants describe 

the instructions as “common sense” and instead rely on their past 

experience and knowledge when handling raw meat and poultry. 

Although participants do not generally read the SHI label, they 

believe it serves as a good reminder and should be provided on 

raw meat and poultry packaging. 

Some participants think the SHI label is helpful in determining 

whether a product requires cooking, especially for new cooks. 

One participant stated, “Seeing the cooking sign [on the SHI label]

would make me think that it’s raw and that it needs to be cooked.” 

Some participants do not rely on the SHI label for determining 

whether a product requires cooking, and instead rely on their 

cooking experience. One participant stated, “I can’t imagine not 

knowing [whether or not to cook it].” 

 5.4 PREPARATION INSTRUCTIONS 

In this section, we discuss participants’ use of preparation 

instructions and their attitudes toward uniform guidelines for 

preparation instructions. Currently, no federal regulations require 

preparation instructions or provide guidelines on how this 

information should be displayed. For the purposes of the focus 

group discussions, we defined preparation instructions as 

information on how to cook or prepare a product and noted that 

preparation instructions may be called “cooking instructions,” 

“heating instructions,” “baking instructions,” or something similar. 

5.4.1 Use of Preparation Instructions 

About half of the participants look for preparation instructions 

when shopping for meat, poultry, and egg products. Most 

participants refer to preparation instructions to determine the 

cooking method (e.g., bake or microwave) and cooking time. 

Some participants also read preparation instructions to determine 

preparation difficulty and convenience, whether other ingredients 

or materials (e.g., a baking sheet or foil) are needed, and whether 

the directions are easy to follow. 

5-4 
Section 5 — Results 

Many participants use 

preparation instructions. 

They find them most 

useful for frozen and 

refrigerated 

entrees/dinners, 

dehydrated products, and 

egg products. 

As shown in Figure 5-1, about 70 percent of participants use 

preparation instructions at least some of the time. Most 

participants read and follow preparation instructions before 

preparing a product for the first time, but do not generally refer 

back to them. Few participants read and follow preparation 

instructions word-for-word each time they prepare a product; 

instead they rely on their familiarity and past experience with the 

product. Some participants vary the suggested cooking time to 

accommodate their ovens or microwaves. Some participants rely 

on their senses (i.e., sight, taste, or touch) to determine doneness, 

and a few participants also add or subtract ingredients that are not 

suggested in the product’s preparation instructions. 

Figure 5-1. Percentage of 

Participants Who Use 

Preparation Instructions on 

Meat, Poultry, and Egg Product 

Labeling 

Rarely

28%

Some of the Time

34%

Most of the Time

28%

All of the Time

10%

Many participants use 

preparation instructions at least 

some of the time. 

Source: Prediscussion questionnaire (n = 48). Because a probability-based 

sample was not used, the results from the prediscussion questionnaire should 

not be generalized to the U.S. population of household shoppers and cooks in 

any statistical sense. 

Some participants noted that the packaging for raw meat and 

poultry does not always provide preparation instructions; thus, 

participants rely on their past experience with the product, and 

some rely on recipes and cookbooks to prepare raw meat and 

poultry. Few participants use a food thermometer to measure the 

internal temperature of meat and poultry. 

5-5 
Consumer Research on Food Safety Labeling Features for the Development of Responsive Labeling Policy 

As shown in Table 5-1, participants think preparation instructions 

are most useful for frozen and refrigerated entrees/dinners, 

dehydrated products, and egg products. Participants think 

preparation instructions are somewhat useful for raw meat and 

poultry products, especially products they prepare infrequently 

(e.g., turkeys, ducks, and large roasts). Participants think 

preparation instructions are least useful for canned and processed 

products; however, several participants think novice cooks and 

children would find them useful. 

Table 5-1. Participants’ Opinions on the Usefulness of Preparation Instructions for Meat, Poultry, and Egg Products 

Participants consider preparation instructions to be most useful for frozen and refrigerated entrees/dinners, 

dehydrated products, and egg products. 

Product Category Most Useful Somewhat Useful Least Useful 

Frozen entrees and dinners M

Refrigerated entrees and dinners M

Processed products M

Canned products M

Dehydrated products M

Raw meat and poultry M

Egg products M

Nearly all participants think preparation instructions are product 

specific; that is, they do not think preparation instructions 

displayed on one product can be used for another similar product. 

Also, nearly all participants follow product-specific preparation 

instructions; they do not rely on their past experience with other 

similar products. 

Most participants believe companies provide preparation 

instructions for both food quality and food safety purposes. They 

think companies provide preparation instructions so consumers 

will be satisfied with the product and safely prepare the product. 

One participant stated, “If you don’t like it, it doesn’t taste good, 

you’re not going to buy the product again.” Another participant 

stated, “Well if you get sick after you eat it, you’re...not going to 

buy it again.” A few participants think companies provide 

5-6 
Section 5 — Results 

preparation instructions primarily for quality purposes. One 

participant stated, “I don’t think it says that if you don’t cook it for 

that length of time it’s going to have bacteria in it.”

A few participants think preparation instructions are also provided 

for liability reasons. One participant stated, “I think they’d

[companies] rather avoid a major lawsuit and lose their business.” 

Only a few participants think the federal government requires 

companies to provide preparation instructions on product labeling 

for food safety purposes. 

5.4.2 Attitudes toward Uniform Guidelines 

We asked participants about their preferences for uniform 

guidelines for preparation instructions. Uniform guidelines would 

specify that certain information be provided in a specific format. 

Some participants like the idea of uniform guidelines. They 

suggest that all preparation instructions include the following 

information: 

Z cooking time 

Z cooking temperature 

Z recommended cooking method 

Z easy to read, step-by-step directions 

A few participants suggest including the following information: 

Some participants like the 

idea of uniform guidelines 

for preparation 

instructions, while others 

think such guidelines are 

unnecessary. Uniform 

guidelines would specify 

that certain information 

(e.g., cooking time, 

temperature, and method) 

be provided in a specific 

format. 

Z Precautions (e.g., “May Produce Steam”) 

Z Friendly tips (e.g., “Do Not Add Too Much Water”) 

Z Information on how to store leftovers 

Most participants in Group 2 (Raleigh, high school, ages 18–30) 

and Group 4 (Philadelphia, college, ages 18–30) do not like the 

idea of uniform guidelines or are indifferent to the concept. They 

think uniform guidelines are unnecessary. They believe 

companies already provide appropriate and useful information and 

that it should be up to individual companies to decide what 

information to provide and in what format. One participant stated, 

“I think they’ve already done a good job.”

Most participants agree that they would prefer to see preparation 

instructions displayed on the back of the product packaging. 

Several participants suggest placing the preparation instructions 

5-7 
Consumer Research on Food Safety Labeling Features for the Development of Responsive Labeling Policy 

next to the Nutrition Facts panel. Some participants suggest that 

preparation instructions be large enough to read. 

5.5 LABELING OF NRTE PRODUCTS 

In this section, we discuss participants’ preferences for labeling of 

NRTE meat, poultry, and egg products. Although the use of the 

SHI label is mandatory on some NRTE products,1 other labeling 

features that indicate that cooking is required such as cooking 

statements (e.g., “Cook Thoroughly”) and preparation instructions 

are optional. For the purposes of the focus group discussions, we 

referred to NRTE products as products that need to be cooked for 

safety and defined “cooking for safety” to mean that a product 

must be properly cooked before eating to prevent foodborne 

illness. 

5.5.1 Preferences for Cooking Statements and Logos 

We asked participants about their preferences for using cooking 

statements (e.g., “Cook Thoroughly”) in conjunction with universal 

logos or symbols on product labeling to indicate that cooking for 

safety is required. The side bar shows the logos that we 

presented to the focus group participants.2 

Cook Thoroughly

Requires

Cooking

Cooking Logos

Most participants like the 

use of cooking statements 

in conjunction with cooking 

logos on NRTE product 

labeling; however they do 

not like the idea of 

replacing preparation 

instructions with cooking 

statements/logos. 

Most participants like the use of cooking statements in conjunction 

with cooking logos on NRTE product labeling. Participants agree 

that a combination of both cooking statements and logos would be 

useful to consumers. They think that cooking statements/logos 

would be especially useful for those consumers who speak 

English as a second language and those who cannot read. One 

participant compared the logos to those used on clothing labels 

and thinks that having a coding system for food would be useful. 

Some participants think that cooking statements/logos would be 

helpful in distinguishing between RTE and NRTE foods. One 

participant stated, “Some products need to be cooked. Some just 

 

1Meat and poultry products that have not received an adequate lethality 

treatment for pathogens (i.e., raw or partially cooked product) are required to 

display the SHI label (§317.2[l] for meat and §381.125[b] for poultry). 

2In previous focus groups conducted for FSIS (Cates, Carter-Young, and 

Gledhill, 2001), we found that most participants liked the use of universal 

logos or symbols; the sidebar shows the two logos most preferred by the 

focus group participants. 

5-8 
Section 5 — Results 

need to be heated. It would be nice to label these products 

accordingly.” 

Most participants do not like the idea of replacing preparation 

instructions with cooking statements/logos. They prefer to see 

both preparation instructions and cooking statements/logos on 

NRTE meat, poultry, and egg product labeling. 

5.5.2 Attitudes toward Mandatory Preparation Instructions 

Many participants support regulations requiring preparation 

instructions on the labeling for all NRTE meat, poultry, and egg 

products. They think preparation instructions are necessary for 

food safety reasons and are especially important for novice cooks. 

One participant stated, “If handling statements are important to 

them [USDA, FSIS], I don’t see why it [preparation instructions]

wouldn’t be just as important.” Another said, “Because if you 

prepared it [the product] wrong, you’ll get sick. If the companies 

don’t protect themselves, the government should be looking out 

for us too.” One participant summed it up by saying, “The more 

information provided, the better.” 

Many participants support 

mandatory preparation 

instructions to help 

consumers safely prepare 

NRTE meat, poultry, and 

egg products. Participants 

who oppose mandatory 

preparation instructions 

say it is manufacturers’ 

responsibility, not the 

government’s, to provide 

this information. 

Participants who do not support such regulations believe that it is 

manufacturers’ responsibility, not the government’s, to provide 

instructions on how to properly prepare and cook the product. 

One participant stated, “I don’t think the government needs to tell 

this company how to print the cooking instructions on there. 

Things like nutrition facts and safety, sure, but not how to cook it.” 

Some participants think that companies will provide preparation 

instructions if they want consumers to buy their products. One 

participant stated, “It’s their [the consumer’s] decision to buy [the 

product]...They’ll realize that there are no instructions on it, so 

they won’t buy it.” Some participants believe companies already 

do a good job of providing preparation instructions, so government 

regulations are unnecessary. 

5.6 FOOD PRODUCT DATING 

In this section, we summarize participants’ use and understanding 

of dates on meat, poultry, and egg product labeling and their 

attitudes toward mandatory product dating. With the exception of 

infant formula and some baby food, product dating is not required 

5-9 
Consumer Research on Food Safety Labeling Features for the Development of Responsive Labeling Policy 

by federal regulations, and no uniform standards are used for food 

product dating in the United States. 

5.6.1 Use of Product Dates 

As shown in Figure 5-2, 86 percent of participants check product 

dates all or most of the time before purchasing meat, poultry, or 

egg products. Participants check product dates to ensure product 

freshness and safety. Participants tend to purchase products that 

have some time between the date of purchase and the date 

shown on the product. Most participants refer to product dates 

when making purchase decisions for perishable products. For 

example, when deciding which brand of product to buy, most 

participants say they will not purchase a brand without a date. 

As shown in Figure 5-2, 69 percent of participants check product 

dates all or most of the time before cooking or preparing the 

product. Participants check product dates to ensure that the 

product is still fresh and safe to eat. Some participants do not 

refer back to the product date because they use the product within 

a week or so after purchase. Some participants rely on the smell 

and appearance of the product, instead of product dates, to 

determine storage time. After freezing raw product, most 

participants do not refer back to the product date, although several 

participants have concerns about the safety of raw product that 

has been stored in the freezer for a long period of time. 

Most participants check 

product dates before 

purchasing meat, poultry, 

or egg products to ensure 

product freshness and 

safety. Many participants 

check the date again 

before cooking or 

preparing the product. 

Some participants will use meat, poultry, or egg products a few 

days beyond their sell-by or use-by date as long as the product 

smells and looks okay. Others will throw a product away as soon 

as the sell-by or use-by date has expired. 

As shown in Table 5-2, participants think product dates are most 

useful for refrigerated entrees/dinners, processed products, raw 

meat and poultry, and egg products. Participants find product 

dates somewhat useful for dehydrated products. Participants find 

product dates to be least useful for frozen entrees/dinners and 

canned products. They do not look for product dates on these 

products. 

5-10 
Section 5 — Results 

5.6.2 Understanding of Product Dates 

Most participants correctly defined the different types of product 

dates (sell-by, best-if-used-by, and use-by) we asked about in 

each group discussion. Some participants find the use of different 

dates confusing and do not distinguish among them. 

Figure 5-2. Percentage of Participants Who Use Sell-By and/or Use-By Dates on Meat, Poultry, and Egg Product 

Labeling 

Participants frequently check product dates before purchasing and preparing meat, poultry, and egg products. 

31%

19%

8%

4%

38%

Check Product Dates Before

Purchasing the Product

Check Product Dates Before

Preparing the Product

25% 61%

10%

4%

All of the Time

Most of the Time

Some of the Time

Rarely

Never

Source: Prediscussion questionnaire (n = 48). Because a probability-based sample was not used, the results from 

the prediscussion questionnaire should not be generalized to the U.S. population of household shoppers and cooks 

in any statistical sense. 

5-11 
Consumer Research on Food Safety Labeling Features for the Development of Responsive Labeling Policy 

Table 5-2. Participants’ Opinions on the Usefulness of Product Dates for Meat, Poultry, and Egg Products 

Participants think product dates are most useful for refrigerated entrees/dinners, processed products, raw meat and 

poultry, and egg products.

Product Most Useful Somewhat Useful Least Useful 

Frozen entrees or dinners M

Refrigerated entrees or dinners M

Processed products M

Canned products M

Dehydrated products M

Raw meat and poultry M

Egg products M

Participants correctly define the sell-by date as being for the 

store’s use; that is, the date by which the store should pull the 

product from its shelves. Many participants believe the sell-by 

date is provided for quality purposes, rather than food safety; 

some participants think the date is provided for food safety 

purposes or find it difficult to distinguish between safety and 

quality. Most participants believe a product is still good after the 

sell-by date, but they are unsure for how long and will not buy a 

product if the sell-by date has expired or is close to expiring. 

Some participants are concerned with using a product after the 

sell-by date has passed because they are unsure of its freshness. 

Many participants consider the sell-by date not very useful 

because it does not provide any guidance on how long one can 

safely store the product at home. One participant stated, “If the 

store can’t sell it after that date, why would I want to buy it?”

Types of Dates 

A “Sell-By” date tells the 

store how long to display 

the product for sale. You 

should buy the product 

before the date expires. 

A “Best-if-Used-By (or 

Before)” date is 

recommended for best 

flavor or quality. It is not a 

purchase or safety date. 

A “Use-By” date is the 

last date recommended for 

the use of the product 

while at peak quality. 

Source: 

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/o

a/pubs/dating.htm

Participants correctly define the best-if-used-by date as when to 

consume the product for best taste, freshness, and quality. Most 

participants believe this date is provided for quality purposes. 

Most participants find this date to be the least useful to 

consumers. A few participants even describe the date as 

“misleading.” One participant said, “I don’t like that [the best-ifused-by date], I think it’s misleading. If it only said, ‘best-if-usedby,’ then I would guess I could probably still use it.” 

5-12 
Section 5 — Results 

Participants correctly define the use-by date as the date by which 

the consumer should use the product. One participant stated, 

“...after this date, it’s not going to be good any more.” Many 

participants consider the use-by date to be mainly provided for 

food safety purposes rather than quality; some participants think 

the date is provided for quality purposes or find it difficult to 

distinguish between safety and quality. Most participants agree 

that the use-by date is most useful to consumers. 

Participants think that manufacturers, the government, and 

supermarkets (for raw meat and poultry) determine product dates 

and verify their accuracy. Some participants believe that 

manufacturers (e.g., their quality control department) determine 

product dates and periodically perform tests to check the accuracy 

of these dates. Some participants think the government plays a 

role by establishing guidelines that manufacturers must follow or 

periodically verifying that product dates set by manufacturers are 

safe and accurate. A few participants think that because meat, 

poultry, and egg products are inspected by USDA, the Agency 

periodically performs tests to see if product dates are accurate. 

One participant stated, “If the government’s going to put ‘USDA’ 

[USDA’s inspection legend] on there [the product], of course they 

should be able to say, ‘Yeah, we’re checking on them periodically 

to see if what we’re saying is fresh for you is actually fresh for 

you.’” 

Several participants are unsure but hope that the government 

plays a role in determining and verifying product dates. One such 

participant stated, “I would like to think that the USDA sets 

standards and helps in making them [the manufacturers] follow 

them.” Another said, “I feel like the USDA would not let them [the 

manufacturers use product dates] if they [the manufacturer’s 

product dates] were bad.” A few participants think Consumer 

Reports conducts tests on the accuracy of product dates. 

These findings suggest there exists some confusion among 

participants as to how products dates are determined and verified. 

5.6.3 Attitudes toward Mandatory Product Dating 

Most participants support mandatory product dating for all meat, 

poultry, and egg products to ensure product safety. One 

5-13 
Consumer Research on Food Safety Labeling Features for the Development of Responsive Labeling Policy 

participant said, “The federal government needs to step in on this 

one.” Most participants find the use of different dates confusing 

and would like to see a universal dating system adopted in which 

all products display the same date, preferably a use-by date. One 

participant said, “I think a use-by date is a lot better because you 

know that after that date you don’t use it anymore. But a sell-by 

date means, ‘just get it out of the store by this day.’ That doesn’t 

mean that two weeks later you can or can’t use it.” Several 

participants prefer the sell-by date, particularly for raw meat and 

poultry products. 

Several participants do not support mandatory product dating for 

all meat, poultry, and egg products. Instead, they think it should 

be manufacturers’ responsibility to provide product dates when 

deemed necessary. One participant stated, “I put faith in the 

manufacturers to provide an appropriate date and a safe product.” 

A few participants are concerned about the cost of such a 

regulation. 

5.7 LABELING OF IRRADIATED MEAT AND POULTRY 

PRODUCTS 

Most participants support 

mandatory product dating 

for all meat, poultry, and 

egg products and would 

like to see a universal 

dating system adopted in 

which all products display 

the same date, preferably 

a use-by date. 

Irradiated meat and 

poultry products are 

required to display the 

Radura symbol and an 

irradiation statement on 

the label. 

In this section, we discuss participants’ awareness of irradiated 

meat and poultry products and their preferences for labeling 

irradiated products. Only refrigerated or frozen raw meat and 

poultry products, meat by-products, and certain other meat 

products may be irradiated. Irradiated meat and poultry products 

are required to display the Radura symbol on the label. In 

addition to the Radura symbol, manufacturers of irradiated 

products must also provide a written statement on the product 

label such as “Treated by Irradiation” or “Treated with Radiation” if 

the name of the product does not include the word “irradiated” 

(§424.22[c] for meat and poultry). 

Awareness of irradiated meat and poultry products is low. Prior to 

being contacted for the focus group study, 40 percent of the 

participants were aware that some meat and poultry products are 

treated with radiation to decrease harmful bacteria (see Figure 5-

3). Several participants linked their awareness to recent press 

coverage on using radiation to treat anthrax-tainted mail. Five of 

the 64 participants recall seeing an irradiated meat or poultry 

5-14 
Section 5 — Results 

product, and one participant has purchased an irradiated meat or 

poultry product. 

Figure 5-3. Percentage of 

Participants Who Are Aware of 

and Have Seen Irradiated Meat 

and Poultry Products 

Unaware

56%

No Response

4%

Seen

Aware

40%

Have Not

Seen

Awareness of irradiated meat 

and poultry products is low. 

Source: Prediscussion questionnaire (n = 48). Because a probability-based 

sample was not used, the results from the prediscussion questionnaire should 

not be generalized to the U.S. population of household shoppers and cooks in 

any statistical sense. 

Most participants do not consider themselves well informed or 

educated on the process of irradiation and all desire more 

information. Many participants are unsure about the safety of 

irradiated products. One participant asked, “Do we need food to 

be irradiated?” Another participant said, “I don’t know if I want to 

eat something that’s been irradiated.” Given their limited 

knowledge of irradiation, some participants were not comfortable 

evaluating the alternative labeling statements for irradiated meat 

and poultry products. 

Many participants are 

unaware of irradiated meat 

and poultry products and 

are unsure of the safety of 

irradiated products given 

their limited knowledge. 

Participants evaluated the following irradiation statements: 

Z “Treated by Irradiation” 

Z “Treated with Radiation” 

Z “Irradiated for Your Safety” 

Z “Irradiated to Decrease Harmful Bacteria” 

Z “Irradiated by an Electronic Process to Decrease Harmful 

Bacteria” 

Most participants prefer the following statements: 

5-15 
Consumer Research on Food Safety Labeling Features for the Development of Responsive Labeling Policy 

Z “Irradiated to Decrease Harmful Bacteria” 

Participants like the 

following statements for 

irradiated meat and poultry 

products: 

Z “Irradiated to 

Decrease Harmful 

Bacteria” 

Z “Irradiated for Your 

Safety” 

Z “Treated by 

Irradiation” 

Z “Irradiated for Your Safety” 

Participants like these two statements because they provide 

information on what irradiation does to the product (i.e., makes it 

safer and decreases harmful bacteria). However, one participant 

remarked that the statement, “Irradiated for Your Safety” implies 

that prior to irradiation, products have not been safe. 

Some participants want a statement that is short and simple and 

think that consumers should take the initiative and educate 

themselves about irradiation. These participants prefer this 

statement: 

Z “Treated by Irradiation” 

A few participants prefer the statement, “Irradiated by an 

Electronic Process to Decrease Harmful Bacteria.” They think this 

statement provides the most information about the process of 

irradiation. 

Participants dislike the statement “Treated with Radiation.” A few 

participants in each group say they associate this statement with 

cancer, chemotherapy, or “nuking.” 

A few participants suggest the following alternative statements: 

Z “Meat Irradiated by Standards Set by the USDA” 

Z “Processed to Decrease Harmful Bacteria” 

Z “Irradiated.” 

At this time, FSIS considers labeling statements or claims for 

irradiated products that include the term “pasteurization” to have 

the potential for creating consumer confusion (USDA, FSIS, 

2001). FSIS continues to examine the term “pasteurization” and 

its use on a case-by-case basis. For future policy development, 

FSIS desires information on consumer perceptions of irradiated 

meat and poultry products labeled with the term “pasteurization.” 

Most participants properly defined the term “pasteurization.” They 

understand it to be a heating process to kill bacteria. Each group 

provided a definition: 

Z “A process invented by Louis Pasteur that heats a product 

to a certain temperature to kill bacteria.” 

Z “A process that cooks a product to kill bacteria.” 

5-16 
Section 5 — Results 

Z “A process that heats a product to a certain point to kill 

bacteria.” 

Z “Removes bacteria from milk to make it safe to drink.” 

Z “A heating process to kill certain bacteria.” 

Z “A process that removes impurities from a product.” 

A few participants correctly believe that pasteurization is also used 

to prolong a product’s shelf life. Participants correctly 

define “pasteurization” and 

associate the process with 

dairy products, egg 

products, and fruit juices. 

Participants consider 

irradiation and 

pasteurization to be two 

different processes so they 

consider it misleading to 

label irradiated meat and 

poultry products as 

“pasteurized.” 

Participants repeatedly identified dairy products (e.g., milk, 

cheese, and yogurt), egg products, and fruit juices (e.g., orange 

and apple juices) as foods that are pasteurized. One participant 

also mentioned beer, and another participant mistakenly believes 

that condensed soups are pasteurized. 

Participants are unsure about the need to cook pasteurized 

products; some participants think pasteurized products require 

cooking and others think that cooking is not required. One 

participant said, “I don’t have a clear enough definition of it to say 

that” pasteurized products need to be cooked. Another participant 

stated, “It depends on what the food was, I would think.” 

Nearly all participants do not think the term “pasteurized” should 

be used on meat and poultry products treated with radiation. They 

consider pasteurization and irradiation to be two different 

processes; hence, they think that labeling irradiated meat and 

poultry products as “pasteurized” would be “misleading” and 

“deceitful.” One participant stated, “I don’t think you can compare 

the two. It’s a totally different process.” Another said, “It’s 

misleading. You can’t tell someone they’re buying one thing that 

actually has been treated with something else.” 

5.8 LABELING OF PRODUCTS WITH POSSIBLE 

ALLERGENS 

In this section, we discuss participants’ use of ingredients 

statements on product labeling and their preferences for labeling 

products with possible allergens. Products with two or more 

ingredients are required to display an ingredients statement on the 

product label (§317.2[f] for meat, §381.118 for poultry, and 

§590.411[c] for egg products). The ingredients statement must 

provide the common or usual names of the ingredients listed in 

descending order of predominance, with certain exceptions. For 

5-17 
Consumer Research on Food Safety Labeling Features for the Development of Responsive Labeling Policy 

future policy development, FSIS desires information on whether 

consumers would find it useful to have additional labeling features 

to help them identify products with possible allergens. 

5.8.1 Use of Ingredients Statements 

About half of the participants read the ingredients statement on 

product labeling. Of those participants who read the ingredients 

statement, some always read them, and many only read them 

when trying a product for the first time. Only some participants 

think all of the product’s ingredients are listed. Some participants 

find the ingredients statement confusing because they are 

unfamiliar with the names of many ingredients. 

About half of the 

participants read the 

ingredients statement, 

particularly for products for 

which they are unfamiliar. 

Most participants who 

have or have household 

members with food 

allergies always read 

ingredients statements. Nineteen participants have or have members in their household 

with food allergies. A few participants have celiac sprue disease, 

which means consuming foods with allergens could result in 

severe reactions, and most participants have household members 

who get moderate side effects from consuming foods with 

allergens. Most participants who have or have household 

members with food allergies always read the ingredients 

statement to identify possible allergens. Several participants do 

not always read the ingredients statement and rely on their 

knowledge and past experience with a product. A few participants 

also look at the picture on the product label or rely on lists of 

“approved” foods. 

5.8.2 Preferences for Allergen Labeling 

For some food ingredients (e.g., whey), the source (i.e., milk) of 

the ingredient, as well as the ingredient (whey) itself, may be a 

possible allergen. The source of the ingredient may or may not be 

listed in the ingredients statement. We asked participants whether 

they think it is necessary to provide both the source and the 

ingredient in the ingredients statement.

5-18 
Section 5 — Results 

Most participants would 

like to see the source of 

the ingredient listed next to 

the ingredient itself in the 

ingredients statement. 

Participants opposed to 

this idea believe it is 

consumers’ responsibility 

to know this information if 

they have food allergies. 

Most participants would like to see the source of the ingredient 

listed next to the ingredient itself in the ingredients statement. 

They believe this information would be useful to consumers with 

food allergies in making purchase decisions. A few participants 

prefer that only the source be listed. Several participants, 

particularly in Group 5 (St. Louis, high school, ages 60+) think that 

listing only the ingredient is sufficient. They argue that if people 

are allergic to a particular ingredient then they should educate 

themselves and take personal responsibility to read ingredients 

statements to identify possible allergens. 

Companies are not required to display statements providing 

special allergen information on product labeling. The following are 

examples of allergen statements that are currently used by some 

manufacturers: 

Z “Allergic Consumers, See Ingredient List” 

Z “Manufactured in a Facility that Uses Peanuts” 

Z “May Contain Allergens” 

We asked participants whether the federal government should 

require companies to display special allergen statements like 

these on products with possible allergens. About half of the 

participants support mandatory allergen statements for products 

with possible allergens. They think such labeling would be 

beneficial to the consumer and support it for safety reasons. All of 

the participants in Group 3 (Philadelphia, high school, ages 35–

55) support mandatory allergen statements and insist that the 

federal government require companies to provide allergen 

statements to prevent illness and death. One participant stated, 

“...they’re [the government] supposed to be watching out for 

us...People can get really sick and die from certain allergies.” 

Some participants also suggest displaying allergen statements on 

the front of product packaging or above the ingredients statement. 

5-19 
Consumer Research on Food Safety Labeling Features for the Development of Responsive Labeling Policy 

About half of the 

participants support 

mandatory allergen 

statements (e.g., “May 

Contain Allergens”) for 

safety reasons. Some 

participants do not support 

mandatory allergen 

statements; they think it is 

consumers’ responsibility 

to read the product’s 

ingredients statement to 

check for possible 

allergens. 

Some participants do not support mandatory allergen statements. 

They think that individuals with allergies should be responsible for 

reading ingredients statements to check for possible allergens. 

Several participants doubt the usefulness of allergen statements. 

One participant stated, “If I’m allergic to something, I’m going to 

read the ingredient list anyway.” Several participants think it 

would be difficult to provide allergen statements because there are 

a lot of different food allergies and they are concerned about too 

much information on the product label. 

Participants in one group suggest that companies highlight or bold 

ingredients that may be common allergens in the ingredients 

statement. One participant stated, “This would be very helpful for 

people with allergens to identify products more quickly, instead of 

reading an ingredient list for 20 minutes.” 

Participants are apathetic about a toll-free telephone number or 

web site consumers could access for allergen information. One 

participant stated, “Manufacturers who are really concerned about 

their relationship with their consumers will take the initiative and 

provide such information to their customers.” Those participants 

who support a toll-free telephone number or web site think the 

USDA, rather than the individual food companies, should sponsor 

it. They consider the USDA to be a more credible and 

knowledgeable source for food allergen information. 

5-20 
 Conclusion and 6 Recommendations 

The focus groups provided information on consumers’ use and 

understanding of different labeling features—the Nutrition Facts 

panel, handling statements, the SHI label, preparation 

instructions, product dating, and ingredients statements. In 

addition, we collected information on consumers’ preferences for 

labeling of NRTE products, irradiated meat and poultry products, 

and products with possible allergens. Finally, we collected 

information on consumers’ attitudes toward mandatory preparation 

instructions for all NRTE meat, poultry, and egg products and 

mandatory product dating for all meat, poultry, and egg products. 

Although consumer focus group findings should not be 

generalized to the general population of consumers in any 

statistical sense, the findings can be used to help guide policy 

decisions. Our key findings along with suggested 

recommendations based on these findings are summarized below. 

Nutrition Facts Panel, Handling Statements, and Safe Handling 

Instructions 

Z Most participants read the Nutrition Facts panel when 

shopping for meat, poultry, and egg products. They find 

this information understandable and very useful in making 

purchase decisions. 

Z Nearly all participants have seen and use handling 

statements. Although they consider this information 

common sense, they consider them to be a necessary 

labeling feature. 

Z Most participants have seen the SHI label. Although they 

consider these instructions to be common sense, they 

6-1 
Consumer Research on Food Safety Labeling Features for the Development of Responsive Labeling Policy 

think it serves as a good reminder to handle raw meat and 

poultry safely. 

Z Participants find the Nutrition Facts panel, handling 

statements, and the SHI label to be useful and necessary 

labeling features. Based on the focus group findings, we 

do not recommend any changes to the Nutrition Facts 

panel, handling statements, and the SHI label. 

Preparation Instructions 

Z Some participants read preparation instructions when 

shopping for meat, poultry, and egg products, and many 

participants refer to them when preparing these products at 

home, especially when preparing packaged products for 

the first time. Participants find preparation instructions 

most useful for frozen and refrigerated entrees/dinners, 

dehydrated products, and egg products. 

Z Although some participants support uniform guidelines for 

preparation instructions, others do not think such 

guidelines are necessary. They believe companies 

already provide appropriate and useful information and 

that individual companies should decide what information 

to provide and in what format. 

Z The focus group findings suggest that consumer demand 

is insufficient to warrant developing and implementing 

uniform guidelines for preparation instructions at this time. 

Labeling of NRTE Products 

Z Most participants like the use of cooking statements (e.g., 

“Cook Thoroughly”) in conjunction with cooking logos on 

NRTE product labeling. These findings are consistent with 

the findings from the previous focus group study we 

conducted for FSIS on labeling of NRTE products (Cates, 

Carter-Young, and Gledhill, 2001). Participants in both 

studies agree that cooking logos would be especially 

useful for consumers who speak English as a second 

language. 

Consistent with our 

recommendations 

from the previous 

study, we again 

recommend that 

FSIS consider the 

costs and merits of 

requiring cooking 

statements/logos on 

NRTE products to 

convey that cooking 

for safety is 

required. 

Z These findings suggest the need for improved labeling of 

NRTE products. Consistent with our recommendations 

from the previous study, we again recommend that FSIS 

consider the costs and merits of requiring cooking 

statements/logos on NRTE products to convey that 

cooking for safety is required. 

Z Many participants support regulations requiring preparation 

instructions on the labeling for all NRTE meat, poultry, and 

egg products. They think that preparation instructions are 

necessary on NRTE products so consumers safely prepare 

the product. This is somewhat inconsistent with 

participants’ comments earlier in the discussion that 

preparation instructions are only somewhat useful for raw 

meat and poultry. 

6-2 
Section 6 — Conclusion and Recommendations 

Z Participants who do not support mandatory preparation 

instructions believe that it is manufacturers’ responsibility, 

not the government’s, to provide instructions on how to 

properly prepare and cook the product. Furthermore, they 

think that companies already do a good job of providing 

preparation instructions, so government regulations are 

unnecessary. 

Although some 

participants support 

mandatory 

preparation 

instructions for all 

NRTE meat, 

poultry, and egg 

products, others do 

not. Hence, there is 

no concensus 

among participants 

regarding FSIS’s 

role in this matter. 

Z Although some participants support mandatory preparation 

instructions for all NRTE meat, poultry, and egg products, 

others do not. Hence, there is no concensus among 

participants regarding FSIS’s role in this matter. 

Food Product Dating 

Z Most participants check product dates before purchasing 

meat, poultry, or egg products, and many check the date 

again before cooking or preparing the product. 

Participants find product dates most useful for refrigerated 

entrees/dinners, processed products, raw meat and 

poultry, and egg products. 

Z Although many participants rely on product dates, most 

find the use of different dates confusing (because some 

products have a use-by date and others have a sell bydate). Participants would like to see a universal dating 

system adopted in which products display the same date, 

preferably a use-by date. 

Z Some participants do not understand how product dates 

are determined and are unsure whether product dates are 

verified for accuracy. 

Z Most participants support mandatory product dating for all 

meat, poultry, and egg products to ensure product safety. 

Several participants are opposed to mandatory product 

dating; they think manufacturers should decide to provide 

this information. 

We recommend 

that FSIS consider 

the costs and merits 

of requiring product 

dating for all meat, 

poultry, and egg 

products, preferably 

a use-by date. 

Z These findings suggest the need for more consistent 

dating of products. We recommend that FSIS consider the 

costs and merits of requiring product dating for all meat, 

poultry, and egg products, preferably a use-by date. 

Z We also recommend that FSIS consider implementing a 

consumer education campaign on product dating through 

the general media. We suggest that FSIS educate 

consumers on how product dates are determined and how 

they can use product dates in making storage decisions at 

home. 

Labeling of Irradiated Meat and Poultry Products 

Z Many participants are unaware of irradiated meat and 

poultry products and are unsure of the safety of irradiated 

products given their limited knowledge. 

6-3 
Consumer Research on Food Safety Labeling Features for the Development of Responsive Labeling Policy 

Z Participants consider irradiation and pasteurization to be 

two different processes; hence, they consider it misleading 

to label irradiated meat and poultry products as 

“pasteurized.” These findings concur with FSIS’ current 

belief; that is, labeling statements or claims for irradiated 

products that include the term “pasteurization” have the 

potential for creating consumer confusion. 

Labeling of Products with Possible Allergens 

Z Most participants would like to see the source of the 

ingredient listed next to the ingredient itself in the 

ingredients statement (e.g., whey [milk] and semolina 

[wheat]). They think this information would be useful to 

consumers with food allergies. Several participants think 

that listing only the ingredient is sufficient; they believe that 

it is consumers’ responsibility to read and understand the 

ingredients statement. 

Some participants 

support special 

allergen labeling, 

while others think it 

is consumers’ 

responsibility to 

select products they 

can safely 

consume. Hence, 

there is no 

concensus among 

participants 

regarding FSIS’s 

role in allergen 

labeling. 

Z About half of the participants support mandatory allergen 

statements on product packaging (e.g., “May Contain 

Allergens”) to ensure the safety of consumers with 

allergies. Other participants think that such regulations are 

unnecessary and that it is consumers’ responsibility to read 

the ingredients statement to check for possible allergens. 

Some doubt the usefulness of such generic statements. 

Z Participants are apathetic about a toll-free telephone 

number or web site consumers could access for allergen 

information. 

Z Some participants support special allergen labeling, while 

others think it is consumers’ responsibility to select 

products they can safely consume. Hence, there is no 

concensus among participants regarding FSIS’s role in 

allergen labeling. Participants prefer source labeling to the 

use of allergen statements. 

6-4 
 

 References 

Cates, S.C., H.L. Carter-Young, and E.C. Gledhill. April 2001. 

“Consumer Perceptions of Not-Ready-to-Eat Meat and 

Poultry Labeling Terminology.” Prepared for the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection 

Service, Labeling and Additives Policy Division. 

Fern, Edward F. 1982. “The Use of Focus Groups for Idea 

Generation: The Effects of Group Size, Acquaintanceship, 

and Moderator of Response Quantity and Quality.” Journal 

of Marketing Research 19(February):1-13. 

Food Safety and Inspection Service, United States Department of 

Agriculture. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 9, Part 200 

to End. Washington, DC: Office of the Federal Register 

National Archives and Records Administration, revised as 

of January 1, 2000. 

Greenbaum, Thomas L. 1988. The Practical Handbook and 

Guide to Focus Group Research. Lexington, MA: D.C. 

Heath and Company. 

Greenbaum, Thomas L. 2000. Moderating Focus Groups. 

Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. 

Kruger, Richard A. 1988. Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for 

Applied Research. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE 

Publications, Inc. 

Teague, Jackqueline L., and D.W. Anderson. 1995. “Consumer 

Preferences for Safe Handling Labels on Meat and 

Poultry.” The Journal of Consumer Affairs 29(1):108-127. 

USDA, FSIS. December 20, 2001. “Irradiation Q’s and A’s” 

<http://www.fsis.usda.gov/oppde/larc/ 

Irradiation_Q_&A.htm>. As obtained on January 17, 2002. 

R-1