April 25, 2001 

Consumer Perceptions of 

Not-Ready-to-Eat Meat and Poultry 

Labeling Terminology

Volume 1: Final Report 

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

Delivery Order 11

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, Room 602 — Annex 

Washington, DC 20250-3700 

Prepared by 

Sheryl C. Cates 

Heather L. Carter-Young 

Erica C. Gledhill 

Research Triangle Institute 

Center for Regulatory Economics and Policy Research 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 

RTI Project Number 07182.011 
RTI Project Number 

07182.011

Consumer Perceptions of 

Not-Ready-to-Eat Meat and Poultry 

Labeling Terminology

Volume 1: Final Report 

April 25, 2001

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, Room 602 — Annex 

Washington, DC 20250-3700 

Prepared by 

Sheryl C. Cates 

Heather Carter-Young 

Erica C. Gledhill 

Research Triangle Institute 

Center for Regulatory Economics and Policy 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 ................................................................3-3 

 4. Participant Demographics 4-1 

 5. Results 5-1 

5.1 Responses to Product Worksheet......................................5-1 

5.2 Characterization of RTE and NRTE Meat and Poultry 

Products.............................................................................5-6 

5.3 Use of Labeling Terms and Features to Distinguish 

between RTE and NRTE Products ....................................5-7 

5.3.1 Labeling Terms.......................................................5-7 

5.3.2 RTE vs. NRTE........................................................5-8 

5.3.3 Descriptive Terms ..................................................5-8 

5.3.4 Safe Handling Instructions (SHI) Labeling .............5-9 

5.3.5 Handling Statements..............................................5-9 

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

iii 
5.4 Use of Product Attributes Other than Labeling to 

Distinguish between RTE and NRTE Products................5-10 

5.4.1 Factors Considered by Participants .....................5-10 

5.4.2 Factors Not Considered by Participants...............5-11 

5.5 Views on Cooking and Preparation Instructions ..............5-12 

5.5.1 Checking for Doneness of Meat and Poultry 

Products ...............................................................5-12 

5.5.2 Verification of Cooking Instructions......................5-12 

5.6 Reactions to Novel Labeling Features .............................5-13 

5.6.1 Standardized Phrase............................................5-13 

5.6.2 Warning Statement...............................................5-14 

5.6.3 Logo or Icon .........................................................5-16 

5.6.4 Color Coding ........................................................5-20 

5.7 Attitudes Toward Requiring Standardized Labeling of 

NRTE Products ................................................................5-21 

 6. Conclusion and Recommendations 6-1 

 References R-1 

 Appendices 

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

B Moderator Guide and Focus Group Materials................... B-1 

C Participant Questionnaire.................................................. C-1 

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

iv 
Figures 

Figure 5-1 Logo Concepts Evaluated.........................................................5-16 

Figure 5-2 RTE Logo Concept Evaluated ..................................................5-19 

Figure 5-3 Color-coding Schemes Evaluated.............................................5-21 

v 
Tables 

 

Table 2-1 Types and Classes of NRTE and RTE Products ........................2-3 

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

Table 3-2 Moderator Guide Summary.........................................................3-4 

 Table 4-1 Participant Demographics—Summary........................................4-2 

Table 4-2 Participant Demographics, by Group..........................................4-3 

Table 5-1 Description of Meat and Poultry Products Evaluated..................5-2 

Table 5-2 Participants’ Responses to Product Worksheet..........................5-4 

Table 5-3 Participants’ Preferences for Logo Concepts............................5-17 

vi 
 

 Executive Summary 

The features on meat and poultry product labels that tell 

consumers whether a product is not-ready-to-eat (NRTE) or 

partially cooked, as opposed to ready-to-eat (RTE) and fully 

cooked, have become unclear. The U.S. Department of 

Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (USDA, FSIS) 

contracted with the Research Triangle Institute (RTI) to conduct 

focus groups with consumers on their perception and 

understanding of labeling terms and features that convey that a 

product is NRTE and thus requires further cooking for safety 

before consumption. 

RTI conducted eight focus groups—two groups in each of four 

locations (Raleigh, North Carolina; Phoenix, Arizona; Philadelphia, 

Pennsylvania, and Cincinnati, Ohio). 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 focus groups with 

individuals in the following age groups: 18 to 30 (3 groups), 35 to 

55 (3 groups), and 60 years or older (2 groups). 

The purpose of the focus groups was to collect information on 

consumers’ 

Z characterization of RTE and NRTE meat and poultry 

products, 

Z use of labeling terms and features to distinguish between 

RTE and NRTE products, 

Z use of product attributes (or characteristics) other than 

labeling to distinguish between RTE and NRTE products, 

ES-1 
Consumer Perceptions of Not-Ready-to-Eat Meat and Poultry Labeling Terminology 

Z views on cooking and preparation instructions, 

Z reactions to novel labeling features, and 

Z attitudes toward requiring standardized labeling of NRTE 

meat and poultry products. 

Prior to the focus group discussion, participants independently 

completed a worksheet on which they indicated whether 12 

different meat or poultry products require cooking for safety (i.e., a 

person might get sick from foodborne illness if the product is not 

properly or thoroughly cooked before eating). The moderator then 

led participants in a discussion on how they characterize RTE and 

NRTE products and how they use labeling terms and features and 

other product attributes or characteristics to distinguish between 

RTE and NRTE products. Participants then discussed several 

novel labeling features, such as standardized phrases or logos, 

that USDA could require companies to display on NRTE product 

labeling so that consumers understand that the product requires 

further cooking on their part. Finally, participants discussed 

whether they thought it was necessary for USDA to require 

standardized labeling of NRTE meat and poultry products. 

 E.1 KEY FINDINGS 

The key findings from the focus group discussions are 

summarized below. 

Characterization of RTE and NRTE Meat and Poultry Products 

Z Participants characterized meat and poultry products that 

require cooking for safety as raw or bloody, yet they also 

considered many of the frozen products we asked about to 

require cooking for safety. 

ES-2 
Executive Summary 

Z Participants described meat and poultry products that do 

not require cooking for safety as products that are fully 

cooked, packaged in cans, processed meats, and normally 

eaten cold or at room temperature. 

Some participants 

expressed 

confusion and 

frustration about the 

inconsistency in 

labeling of meat 

and poultry 

products with 

regard to whether 

they require 

cooking for safety. 

Use of Labeling Terms and Features to Distinguish between RTE 

and NRTE Products 

Z Some participants expressed confusion and frustration 

about the inconsistency in labeling of meat and poultry 

products with regard to whether they require cooking for 

safety. Participants were surprised that some products do 

not provide instructions. Also, participants were confused 

when one product indicates that cooking is required and a 

similar product under a different brand name does not. 

Some participants speculated that manufacturers who 

provide cooking instructions “care more” about consumers, 

while others expressed the view that companies provide 

these instructions to protect themselves from potential 

lawsuits. 

Z When completing the product worksheet, many 

participants said that they used information on the product 

label or packaging to determine whether a meat or poultry 

product requires cooking for safety. Participants read the 

instructions (e.g., length of time) and looked for certain 

labeling terms that indicate whether cooking for safety is 

required. Several participants looked for the presence of 

Safe Handling Instructions (SHI) labeling. 

When completing 

the product 

worksheet, many 

participants said 

that they used 

information on the 

product label or 

packaging to 

determine whether 

a meat or poultry 

product requires 

cooking for safety. 

Z Participants said that “cook thoroughly” and “cook until 

internal temperature...” are labeling terms that indicate that 

cooking for safety is required. Participants said that “fully 

cooked,” “ready to eat,” and phrases including the word 

“serve” (such as “heat and serve” and “ready to serve”) 

indicate that cooking for safety is not required. 

Z Most participants did not rely on descriptive terms (e.g., 

“baked,” “breaded,” “browned,” “fried,” and “roasted”) in the 

product name or description, nor did they rely on the 

presence of handling statements (e.g., “keep refrigerated” 

and “keep frozen”) to determine if a product requires 

cooking for safety. 

Z Some participants said that “smoked” in the product name 

or description implies that the product is fully cooked, while 

others disagreed or were unsure. 

Z Although most participants did not look for the presence of 

SHI labeling to determine if cooking for safety is required, 

many participants were aware of SHI labeling and 

generally associated it with raw meat and poultry products 

that must be cooked. Some participants believed that the 

absence of SHI labeling implies that the product is RTE, 

while others disagreed or were unsure. 

ES-3 
Consumer Perceptions of Not-Ready-to-Eat Meat and Poultry Labeling Terminology 

Z Most participants distinguished between different types of 

instructions on product packaging. Participants said that 

products with “heating” instructions do not need to be 

cooked for safety, while products with “cooking” 

instructions require cooking for safety. 

Use of Product Attributes Other than Labeling to Distinguish 

between RTE and NRTE Products 

Z Participants also used attributes other than product 

labeling to help them distinguish between RTE and NRTE 

meat and poultry products. Most participants said that they 

consider the following factors when deciding whether a 

product requires cooking for safety: 

X the appearance of the meat or poultry through the 

product packaging (e.g., the product looks raw); 

X type of product packaging (e.g., canned goods do not 

require cooking for safety); and 

X the location of the product in the grocery store (e.g., 

products in the frozen foods section more than likely 

require cooking for safety). 

Z Most participants said that they do not consider the 

following factors when deciding whether a product requires 

cooking for safety: 

X the color of the package; 

X the picture of the product or serving suggestion shown 

on the front label; 

X whether the product has “side dishes” that normally 

would not be further cooked (e.g., cookies or apple 

sauce); 

X whether a fully cooked meat or poultry product is 

combined with vegetables that are not cooked; and 

X commercials or printed advertisements. 

Views on Cooking and Preparation Instructions 

Z Participants said that they rely on color (juices run clear), 

texture (feels done), experience, length of time they cook a 

product, and the cooking instructions on the product 

packaging when checking for doneness of meat and 

poultry. 

Z Only a few participants use a food thermometer when 

checking for doneness of meat and poultry and only do so 

when cooking large cuts, such as whole turkeys or roasts. 

No participants said that they would use a food 

thermometer when cooking packaged products like frozen 

meals and entrees. 

ES-4 
Executive Summary 

Z Most participants believed that manufacturers verify the 

cooking instructions displayed on their products. 

Participants speculated that manufacturers verify cooking 

instructions to avoid lawsuits and to satisfy consumers by 

finding the optimal way of cooking their products. 

Most participants liked the 

idea of using a 

standardized phrase on 

NRTE product labeling to 

indicate that cooking for 

safety is required. 

Participants preferred the 

following phrases: 

Z “Requires cooking” 

Z “Cook thoroughly” 

Reactions to Novel Labeling Features 

Z Most participants liked the idea of using a standardized 

phrase on NRTE meat and poultry product labeling to 

indicate that cooking for safety is required. The majority of 

participants preferred the phrases “requires cooking” and 

“cook thoroughly.” 

Z Many participants did not like the idea of using warning 

statements on NRTE meat and poultry product labeling. 

Participants said that warning statements are not 

necessary, might deter consumers from purchasing the 

products, and would not be effective (some participants 

cited the warning statements on cigarette packaging as an 

example). 

Most participants liked the 

idea of using a logo or 

icon on NRTE product 

labeling to identify them as 

requiring cooking for 

safety. Participants 

preferred the following 

logos: Z Most participants liked the idea of using a logo or icon on 

NRTE meat and poultry product labeling to identify them as 

requiring cooking for safety. Participants said that logos 

would be particularly effective with children, individuals 

with limited education, and people who do not speak 

English as their native language. The sidebar shows the 

logos preferred by most participants. 

Z Participants were split on the need to display a logo on 

both RTE and NRTE products. Some participants said that 

it is necessary so consumers could look at the product and 

know immediately whether it is RTE or NRTE. Others 

disagreed and said that it is not necessary because RTE 

products are already fully cooked, so there are no safety 

concerns. 

Z Most participants did not like the concept of a color-coding 

scheme for RTE and NRTE products (i.e., using 

standardized color packaging for RTE and NRTE 

products), and said it would be too complicated. However, 

many participants liked the idea of a color-coding scheme 

with standardized phrases for RTE (“fully cooked” in a 

green rectangle) and NRTE (“requires cooking” in a red 

rectangle) products. 

Z Most participants said that a standardized phrase or logo 

should be displayed on the front of the product packaging 

so it is visible when the consumer first looks at the product. 

Participants suggested that the standardized phrase or 

logo always be displayed in the same location (e.g., top 

right or left corner or by the net weight) so consumers 

know where to look for it. 

ES-5 
Consumer Perceptions of Not-Ready-to-Eat Meat and Poultry Labeling Terminology 

Z Participants suggested that the standardized phrase or logo 

be big enough that consumers can easily see it; for 

example, about the size of a quarter for a logo. Participants 

suggested that the standardized phrase or logo be in a 

bold, bright color and that it contrast with the rest of the 

product packaging. 

Many participants 

would like to see 

the government 

impose regulations 

that would ensure 

consistency in 

labeling of NRTE 

products and make 

it clear to 

consumers that 

further cooking is 

required on their 

part. 

Attitudes toward Requiring Standardized Labeling of NRTE Meat 

and Poultry Products 

Z Many participants would like to see the government 

impose regulations that would ensure consistency in 

labeling of NRTE products and make it clear to consumers 

that further cooking is required on their part. Of the novel 

labeling features discussed, participants most preferred a 

logo or a color-coding scheme with standardized phrases. 

Z Participants who did not support government regulations 

said that labels already provide enough information and 

that consumers are savvy shoppers, so additional 

regulations are unnecessary. Several participants were 

concerned about the cost of such regulations. A few 

participants said that government regulations are 

warranted only if there is a significant problem of 

manufacturers not labeling products as requiring cooking 

and people getting sick as a result. 

We recommend E.2 RECOMMENDATIONS 

that FSIS conduct 

analyses to 

evaluate the costs 

and benefits of a 

regulation or policy 

requiring 

standardized 

labeling of NRTE 

meat and poultry 

products to convey 

that cooking for 

safety is required. 

Although consumer focus group findings should not be 

generalized to the general population of all consumers in any 

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

decisions. The focus group findings suggest that there is some 

confusion and frustration among consumers regarding the 

inconsistency in labeling of meat and poultry products with respect 

to whether they require cooking for safety. Many participants said 

that there is a need for the government to impose regulations that 

would require consistency in labeling of NRTE products. 

Participants said that standardization would “...eliminate the 

confusion from the consumer’s mind.” Participants said that 

regulations are necessary because manufacturers would be 

unlikely to voluntarily adopt standardized labeling of NRTE 

products because of the expense and lack of interest. Of the 

novel labeling features discussed, participants most preferred a 

logo (see page ES-5) or a color-coding scheme with standardized 

phrases (“fully cooked” in a red rectangle for RTE products and 

“requires cooking” in a green rectangle for NRTE products). 

ES-6 
Executive Summary 

Participants said that the labeling feature used should be large 

enough to be easily visible to the consumer and displayed on the 

front of the product packaging in a standardized location (e.g., top 

right corner). 

While these focus groups indicate that there is currently a 

considerable degree of confusion about labeling terminology and 

a desire for more consistent labeling, we do not believe that these 

findings alone are a sufficient basis for regulatory action. We 

recommend that FSIS conduct analyses to evaluate the costs and 

benefits of a regulation or policy requiring standardized labeling of 

NRTE meat and poultry products to convey that cooking for safety 

is required.1 If the decision is then made to go forward with 

standardized labeling, we encourage FSIS to consult with affected 

industry stakeholders about their preferences for the type of 

labeling feature to use and the formatting and placement of the 

labeling feature on the product packaging. We also recommend 

that FSIS implement a consumer education campaign through the 

general media to make consumers aware of the standardized 

labeling and to encourage consumers to look for the NRTE 

labeling feature to determine whether cooking for safety is 

required. 

 

1The cost analysis should, minimally, estimate the compliance costs to industry 

of meeting any proposed labeling requirement. The benefits analysis should 

at least consider any anticipated reduction in the incidence of foodborne 

illnesses resulting from consumption of undercooked NRTE products. There 

may be other benefits to consider, however, such as a reduction in consumer 

search costs. 

ES-7 

 1 Introduction 

In response to the requirement to reassess their Hazard Analysis 

Critical Control Point (HACCP) plans for ready-to-eat (RTE) 

products with respect to Listeria monocytogenes (Lm) control, 

some manufacturers have changed their product’s processing 

category. Consequently, the features on meat and poultry product 

labels that tell the consumer whether a product is not ready to eat 

(NRTE) or partially cooked, as opposed to RTE and fully cooked, 

have become unclear. The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food 

Safety and Inspection Service (USDA, FSIS) needs data on 

consumer perceptions and understanding of labeling terms and 

features that convey that a product is NRTE and thus requires 

further cooking for safety before consumption. FSIS contracted 

with the Research Triangle Institute (RTI) to conduct focus group 

discussions with household grocery shoppers and food preparers. 

FSIS will use the findings from the focus groups as a basis for 

rulemaking. 

RTI conducted eight focus groups—two groups in each of four 

locations (Raleigh, North Carolina; Phoenix, Arizona; Philadelphia, 

Pennsylvania; and Cincinnati, Ohio). The purpose of the focus 

groups was to collect information on consumers’ 

Z characterization of RTE and NRTE meat and poultry 

products, 

Z use of labeling terms and features to distinguish between 

RTE and NRTE products, 

Z use of product attributes (or characteristics) other than 

labeling to distinguish between RTE and NRTE products, 

Z views on cooking and preparation instructions, 

1-1 
Consumer Perceptions of Not-Ready-to-Eat Meat and Poultry Labeling Terminology 

Z reactions to novel labeling features, and 

Z attitudes toward requiring standardized labeling of NRTE 

meat and poultry products. 

This report discusses the design of the focus group study and 

presents the key findings from the focus group discussions. The 

report is organized as follows: Section 2 provides a background 

on the Lm reassessment, Section 3 describes the study design, 

Section 4 presents information on participant demographics, 

Section 5 presents the findings from the focus group discussions, 

and Section 6 concludes the report with our recommendations. 

1-2 
 2 Background 

In August 1999, FSIS published “Instructions for Verifying the 

Listeria monocytogenes Reassessment” (FSIS Notice, 23-99). This 

Notice provides instructions to inspection program employees for 

verifying that establishments have conducted a reassessment of 

their HACCP plans for RTE products with respect to control for Lm. 

Attachment 1 of this Notice identified types and classes of products 

to help distinguish RTE products from NRTE products. On January 

24, 2001, FSIS issued Directive 10,240.2, revision 1, amendment 1. 

This directive attempted to clarify the term ready-to eat (RTE). FSIS 

realized that an establishment can produce RTE and NRTE 

products with similar characteristics, such as country ham, dry cured 

ham, country style pork shoulder, and similar pork products. These 

items may be either RTE or NRTE based on how the establishment 

produces and labels these products. Attachment 1 of this directive 

(included here as Table 2-1) describes the differences between 

these products, and addresses how each category should be 

labeled so that consumers can differentiate between RTE and 

NRTE products. 

In recategorizing 

products from RTE 

to NRTE, some 

manufacturers have 

not modified 

product labeling 

sufficiently or have 

not used clear 

enough terms to 

convey to 

consumers the 

critical distinction 

that products they 

purchased in the 

past as RTE are 

now NRTE. 

In response to the Lm reassessment, some manufacturers have 

changed the processing category for their product. Some RTE 

products have been recategorized as NRTE products because of a 

process reassessment. For example, an entree including a cooked 

chicken patty and blanched green beans that was previously 

categorized as RTE may now be categorized as NRTE because the 

green beans have not received a lethality treatment to eliminate Lm. 

In recategorizing products from RTE to NRTE, some manufacturers 

have not modified product labeling sufficiently or have not used 

2-1 
Consumer Perceptions of Not-Ready-to-Eat Meat and Poultry Labeling Terminology 

2-2 

clear enough terms to convey to consumers the critical distinction 

that 
Table 2-1. Types and Classes of NRTE and RTE Products 

Type Class 

Processing Category 

ISP Code 

Reg Required Safety 

Labeling What the Hazard Analysis/HACCP 

A product containing a meat/poultry product (in whole or in part) that has not

received an adequate lethality treatment for pathogens (i.e., raw or partially cooked product). 

NRTE • Raw Product, 

Ground—ISP 03B 

• Raw Product, Not 

Ground—ISP 03C 

• Not Heat Treated, 

Shelf Stable—ISP 03E 

• Heat Treated, Shelf 

Stable—ISP 03F 

• Heat Treated but not 

Fully Cooked, Not Shelf Stable—ISP 03H 

• Products with 

secondary inhibitors, Not Shelf Stable—ISP 03I 

Product must be labeled with statements such as “keep refrigerated,” “keep frozen,” or “refrigerate leftovers.” Use of Safe Handling Instruction (SHI) labeling required. 

• Use of SHI labeling (Some establishm

SHI labeling application). 

If it is not obvious that the product is raw • Features on labeling are conspicuous 

is fully aware that the product must be best conveyed through the product naServe”) but may also be conveyed by the product name that is associated wprinciple display panel, or by a burst w“needs to be fully cooked,” “see cookibefore eating.” 

• Validation that: 

a. cooking and preparation instructio

sufficient to destroy pathogens, an

b. instructions are realistic for the inte

A product containing a meat/poultry component that has received a lethality treatment for pathogens in combination with nonmeat/poultry components that need to receive a lethality treatment by the intended user. This includes meals, dinners, frozen entrees. 

NRTE • Heat Treated but not 

Fully Cooked, Not Shelf Stable—ISP 03H 

Product must be labeled with statements such as “keep refrigerated” or “keep frozen.” Use of SHI labeling is recommended. 

• Validation that: 

a. the meat/poultry component receiv

treatment for pathogens, 

b. cooking and preparation instructio

sufficient to destroy pathogens, an

c. instructions are realistic for the inte

• Features on labeling are conspicuous 

is fully aware that the product must be is best conveyed through the product Serve”) but may also be conveyed by the product name that is associated wprinciple display panel, or by a burst w“needs to be fully cooked,” “see cookibefore eating.” 

• If necessary, a hazard analysis should 

instructions on the label are needed recontamination (e.g., avoid contact of cof pathogenic growth (e.g., promptly r

NOTE: Inspection program personnel arRTE if the establishment does not follow 

2-3 
Type Class Processing Category ISP Code Reg Required Safety Labeling What The Hazard Analysis/HACC

A product containing a meat/poultry component that has received a lethality treatment for pathogens that may or may not be in combination with a non-meat/ poultry component that does not need to receive a lethality treatment by the intended user. RTE • Not Heat Treated, Shelf Stable—ISP 03E • Heat Treated, Shelf Stable—ISP 03F • Fully Cooked, Not Shelf Stable—ISP 03G • Products with secondary inhibitors, Not Shelf Stable— ISP 03I If the product is not shelf stable, labeling such as “keep refrigerated” or “keep frozen” is required. • See part 417 of the meat and poultry 

Source: FSIS Directive 10, 240.2, revision 1, amendment 1. January 24, 2001. Table 2-1. Types and Classes of NRTE and RTE Products (continued) 

2-4 
Section 2 — Background 

products they purchased in the past as RTE are now NRTE. 

Consumers may be unaware that such products require further 

cooking on their part to ensure that the food is safe to eat. 

2-5 

 3 Methods 

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

study design, and discuss the development of the moderator 

guide. 

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. In 

exchange for contributing their time, participants receive a 

monetary incentive. 

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 issues. 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. 

As with any qualitative research study, the results of focus group 

discussions should not be generalized to a larger population in 

any statistical sense (Kruger, 1988). 

3-1 
Consumer Perceptions of Not-Ready-to-Eat Meat and Poultry Labeling Terminology 

 3.2 STUDY DESIGN 

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

of four locations, which were selected to provide geographic 

diversity (Raleigh, North Carolina; Phoenix, Arizona; Philadelphia, 

Pennsylvania; and Cincinnati, Ohio). 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 three groups with 

individuals between the ages of 18 and 30, three 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 eight focus groups. 

Table 3-1. Focus Group 

Populations and Locations Group Age Educationa Location 

1 60+ C Raleigh, NC 

2 35 – 55 HS Raleigh, NC 

3 18 – 30 HS Phoenix, AZ 

4 35 – 55 C Phoenix, AZ 

5 18 – 30 HS Philadelphia, PA 

6 35 - 55 C Philadelphia, PA 

7 60+ HS Cincinnati, OH 

8 18 – 30 C Cincinnati, OH 

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

Each focus group included seven or eight participants, for a total 

of 63 participants. Each group included a mix of males and 

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 or shared responsibility for cooking in the 

household; 

Z have primary or shared responsibility for shopping for 

groceries in the household; 

Z are not vegetarian; 

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

week; 

3-2 
Section 3 — Methods 

Z prepared packaged foods containing meat or poultry (e.g., 

frozen TV dinners, frozen pizza, or frozen breaded chicken 

patties) in the past week; 

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

months; 

Z do not work for a grocery store, restaurant, or food 

processing firm (participant or immediate family member); 

Z do not work for a market research, advertising, or public 

relations firm (participant or immediate family member); 

and 

Z do not work for the health care industry or federal 

government (participant or immediate family member). 

Appendix A provides a copy of the questionnaire used to screen 

and recruit participants. Participants received a monetary 

incentive of $50 for participating in the focus groups. 

 3.3 MODERATOR GUIDE 

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 characterization of RTE and NRTE meat and poultry 

products, 

Z use of labeling terms and features to distinguish between 

RTE and NRTE products, 

Z use of product attributes (or characteristics) other than 

labeling to distinguish between RTE and NRTE products, 

Z views on cooking and preparation instructions, 

Z reactions to novel labeling features, and 

Z attitudes toward requiring standardized labeling of NRTE 

meat and poultry products. 

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. 

3-3 
Consumer Perceptions of Not-Ready-to-Eat Meat and Poultry Labeling Terminology 

Table 3-2. Moderator Guide Summary 

Section Purpose 

Introduction Moderator described the purpose of the discussion and how it would 

be conducted; participants introduced themselves. 

Complete product worksheet Participants completed a worksheet on which they indicated whether 

12 different meat and poultry products require cooking for safety 

before eating. 

Characterization of RTE and 

NRTE products 

Participants discussed how they classified some of the products on 

the worksheet and how they characterize RTE and NRTE products. 

Use of labeling terms and 

features to distinguish between 

RTE and NRTE products 

Participants discussed how they use labeling terms and features to 

distinguish between RTE and NRTE products—words or phrases 

that indicate whether cooking is required, descriptive terms, SHI 

labeling, handling statements, and cooking/heating instructions. 

Use of product attributes other 

than labeling to distinguish 

between RTE and NRTE products 

Participants discussed how they use attributes other than labeling to 

distinguish between RTE and NRTE products—picture of product, 

type of product packaging, location in the grocery store, etc. 

Views on cooking and preparation 

instructions 

Participants discussed how they check for doneness of meat and 

poultry products and whether they think cooking instructions are 

verified. 

Reactions to novel labeling 

features and attitudes toward 

requiring standardized labeling 

Participants discussed ways the USDA might standardize the 

labeling of NRTE meat and poultry products—standardized phrase, 

warning statement, logo or icon, and color coding. Participants also 

discussed their attitudes toward USDA requiring standardized 

labeling of NRTE products. 

Additional questions In the Phoenix, Philadelphia, and Cincinnati focus groups, 

participants’ discussed their understanding and attitudes toward 

other labeling statements. 

Conclusion Participants shared any final comments. 

We conducted the focus groups between December 14, 2000 and 

February 1, 2001. Each focus group lasted about 90 minutes and 

was audiotaped and videotaped. Volume 2 of this report provides 

transcripts of each focus group discussion. 

3-4 
 Participant 4 Demographics 

Prior to the discussion, participants completed a questionnaire 

that collected demographic information. Appendix C provides a 

copy of the questionnaire. 

A total of 63 individuals ages 18 to over 70 participated in the 

eight 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 have prepared frozen meat or poultry products 

in the past week. Demographic information for the focus group 

participants is summarized in Table 4-1. Table 4-2 provides 

demographic information by group. 

4-1 
4-2 

Table 4-1. Participant 

Demographics—Summary 

Consumer Perceptions of Not-Ready-to-Eat Meat and Poultry Labeling Terminology 

Gender 

 Male: 43% 

 Female: 57% 

Race/Ethnicity 

 Caucasian: 64% 

 African-American: 25% 

 Other Race/Multiracial: 8% 

 Asian/Pacific Islander: 2% 

 No response: 1% 

Hispanic or Spanish origin: 16% 

Average years of education

 All participants: 14 years 

 High school education groups: 12 years 

 College education groups: 17 years 

Average income

 All participants: $47,016 

 High school education groups: $37,903 

 College education groups: $56,129 

NA = not available. 
4-3 

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=7) 

Group 

6 

(n=8) 

Group 

7 

(n=8) 

Group 

8 

(n=8) 

Gender 

Male 4 4 4 3 2 4 3 3 Female 4 4 4 5 5 4 5 5 

Age

18-24 0 0 5 0 2 0 0 1 25-30 0 0 3 0 5 0 0 7 35-39 0 4 0 3 0 3 0 0 40-44 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 45-49 0 1 0 4 0 2 0 0 50-55 0 1 0 1 0 3 0 0 60+ 8 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 

Hispanic or Spanish origin 0 2 3 3 1 0 1 0 Note: Group 1 = Raleigh, ages 60+, college education Group 5 = Philadelphia, ages 18-30, high school education 

Group 2 = Raleigh, ages 35-55, high school education Group 6 = Philadelphia, ages 35-55, college education Group 3 = Phoenix, ages 18-30, high school education Group 7 = Cincinnati, ages 60+, high school education Group 4 = Phoenix, ages 35-55, college education Group 8 = Cincinnati, ages 18-30, college education 
4-4 

Table 4-2. Participant Demographics, by Group (continued) 

Number of Participants 

Question 

Group 

1 

(n=8) 

Group 

2 

(n=8) 

Group 

3 

(n=8) 

Group 

4 

(n=8) 

Group 

5 

(n=7) 

Group 

6 

(n=8) 

Group 

7 

(n=8) 

Group 

8 

(n=8) 

Race/ethnicity 

White/Caucasian 5 3 5 5 3 7 6 6 Black/African-American 3 3 1 0 4 1 2 2 Native American/ Alaskan Native 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Asian/Pacific Islander 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Another race or multiracial 0 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 No answer 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 

Education 

11th grade or less 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 High school graduate or 

GED 

0 8 7 0 5 0 5 0 

Some college 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 College graduate 5 0 0 4 0 8 0 5 Postgraduate 3 0 0 4 0 0 0 3 
4-5 

Number of Participants 

Question 

Group 

1 

(n=8) 

Group 

2 

(n=8) 

Group 

3 

(n=8) 

Group 

4 

(n=8) 

Group 

5 

(n=7) 

Group 

6 

(n=8) 

Group 

7 

(n=8) 

Group 

8 

(n=8) 

Total household income before 

taxes 

$9,999 or less 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 $10,000 – $14,999 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 $15,000 – $19,999 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 $20,000 – $24,999 0 1 3 1 2 0 1 0 $25,000 – $34,999 0 0 0 2 0 2 2 3 $35,000 – $49,999 1 2 2 0 1 2 1 1 $50,000 – $74,999 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 More than $75,000 5 3 1 3 0 2 0 2 No answer 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Table 4-2. Participant Demographics, by Group (continued) 

 5 Results 

In this section we present the findings from the eight focus group 

discussions. Appendix D provides individual summaries for each 

of the eight focus groups. 

 5.1 RESPONSES TO PRODUCT WORKSHEET 

Before starting the discussion, each participant completed a 

worksheet on which he or she indicated whether each of the 12 

products identified in Table 5-1 requires cooking for safety. The 

moderator provided the following definitions: 

Z Product requires cooking for safety before eating—

”Cooking for safety” means that you might get sick from 

foodborne illness or food poisoning if the product is not 

properly or thoroughly cooked before eating. 

Z Product does not require cooking for safety before 

eating—You can safely eat the product without cooking it 

because the product is already fully cooked when you 

purchase it. 

The moderator discussed the distinction between heating for taste 

(e.g., heating up canned soup because it tastes better hot) versus 

cooking for safety. Also, for the frozen products, participants were 

asked to consider if the products could safely be eaten without 

cooking if the electricity went out for a couple of hours and they 

thawed out. The moderator instructed participants to pick up and 

examine the products on display as they completed the 

worksheet. As shown in Table 5-1, two different brands of the 

same product type (e.g., hot dogs and chicken pot pie) were 

5-1 
Consumer Perceptions of Not-Ready-to-Eat Meat and Poultry Labeling Terminology 

sometimes displayed. Participants were instructed to consider 

both brands when completing the product worksheet. 

Table 5-1. Description of Meat and Poultry Products Evaluated 

Bologna (refrigerated) Displayed one product without any instructions (Oscar Mayer). 

Bacon (refrigerated) Displayed one product with SHI labeling and “cooking instructions” (Hormel). 

Hot dogs—

Frankfurters 

(refrigerated) 

Displayed two products: (1) states on front, “Always cook thoroughly” and 

provides instructions on how to prepare using stove, grill, and microwave (Ball 

Park) and (2) no instructions on label (Jesse Jones). 

Pepperoni pizza 

(frozen) 

Displayed two products: (1) provides “baking directions,” states on the side, 

“For food safety and quality, thoroughly cook all frozen pizzas and refrigerate 

leftovers,” and states on the front, “Cook thoroughly” (Jenos) and (2) provides 

“baking instructions” (Mr. P’s). 

Beef & bean burrito 

(frozen) 

Displayed one product with “heating instructions” (Tina’s). 

TV dinner—Fried 

chicken, potatoes, 

vegetable (frozen) 

Displayed two products: (1) provides “oven” and “microwave” instructions, 

states on the front, “Simply Cook and Serve” and “Cook thoroughly,” and states 

on the back, “For food safety and quality, follow these cooking instructions. This 

product must be cooked to an internal temperature greater than 150°F prior to 

eating” (Swanson) and (2) provides “microwave” and “oven” instructions 

(Banquet). 

Smoked sausage 

(refrigerated) 

Displayed one product that states on the front “fully cooked” (Thorn Apple). 

Ham with natural 

juices (refrigerated) 

Displayed two products: (1) states on the front, “Ready to cook. Cook to an 

internal temperature of 160°F. See back of label for cooking instructions,” and 

has SHI labeling (Smithfield) and (2) states on the front, “fully cooked,” and has 

SHI labeling as part of price sticker applied by grocery store (Hormel). 

“Hot Pockets” (frozen) Displayed one product that has “cooking directions,” states on the back, “This 

product must be cooked prior to eating,” and states on the front, “Cook 

thoroughly” (Hot Pockets). 

Chicken pot pie 

(frozen) 

Displayed two products: (1) provides “oven” and “microwave” instructions, 

states on the front, “Cook thoroughly,” and states on the back, “For food safety 

and quality, follow these cooking instructions. This product must be cooked to 

an internal temperature greater than 150°F prior to eating” (Swanson) and 

(2) provides “heating instructions” (Banquet). 

Breaded chicken 

nuggets (frozen) 

Displayed two products: (1) provides “cooking instructions” and has SHI 

labeling (Murry’s) and (2) states on the front “fully cooked” and provides “heating 

instructions” (Weaver). 

Beef stew (canned) Displayed one product with “heating instructions” (Dinty Moore). 

5-2 
Section 5 — Results 

Most participants did not find completing the product worksheet 

difficult, although some participants had difficulty distinguishing 

between cooking for safety and heating a product so it tastes 

better. Some participants carefully read the labels on the products 

displayed as they completed the worksheet, whereas others 

completed the worksheet quickly without examining the products. 

Some participants expressed confusion when different brands of 

the same product type displayed conflicting 

statements/instructions or when one brand displayed instructions 

and the other did not. Participants speculated that perhaps 

different ingredients are used in the two products or that one 

manufacturer provides cooking instructions “to be on the safe 

side.” Also, some participants were surprised to find that some 

cooking/heating instructions contradicted their experience with the 

product; for example, the need to thoroughly cook hot dogs (as 

indicated on the label of one of the hot dog products displayed). 

Participants speculated that manufacturers who provide cooking 

instructions “care more” about consumers or provide these 

instructions to protect themselves from potential lawsuits, or as 

one participant stated, “to cover their ....” 

Participants said that consumers have to look closely at some 

products to determine if they require cooking for safety. One 

participant commented about purchasing frozen chicken breasts, 

“You have to look real close because the bags all look the same 

and some just have this tiny little ‘fully cooked’ on them, and some 

don’t.” Several participants said that while cooking at home in the 

past they have been unsure as to whether specific products 

require cooking for safety. Participants said that they cook 

products when in doubt. 

5-3 
Consumer Perceptions of Not-Ready-to-Eat Meat and Poultry Labeling Terminology 

Some participants expressed the need for consistency in product 

labeling. They thought it was necessary for all products to provide 

instructions so consumers know how to properly handle and 

prepare the products. As one participant stated, “It was a bit 

confusing...to look at one and see the same item but one has a 

specific instruction and the other one does not...It makes more 

sense then to have them all labeled so you know what to do.” 

Table 5-2 summarizes participants’ responses to the product 

worksheet. The majority of participants said that bologna, smoked 

sausage, and canned beef stew do not require cooking for safety. 

Table 5-2. Participants’ Responses to Product Worksheet (n = 62)a,b

Percentage of Participants (%)c

Product 

Requires 

Cooking 

for Safety

(1) 

Does NOT 

Require 

Cooking 

for Safety 

(2) 

Not 

Sure 

(3) 

One Product 

Requires 

Cooking and the 

Other Does Not 

(Circled 1 and 2) 

Bologna 3 95 2 0 

Bacon 97 3 0 0 

Hot dogs—Frankfurtersd 50 40 7 3 

Pepperoni pizza (frozen)d 68 23 6 3 

Beef & bean burrito (frozen) 23 50 27 0 

TV dinner—Fried chicken, potatoes vegetable 

(frozen)d

66 21 8 5 

Smoked sausage 24 74 2 0 

Ham with natural juicesd 49 33 5 13 

“Hot Pockets” (frozen) 65 25 10 0 

Chicken pot pie (frozen)d 71 18 8 3 

Breaded chicken nuggets (frozen)d 55 27 11 7 

Canned beef stew 10 80 10 0 

Some participants 

expressed the need 

for consistency in 

product labeling. 

They thought it was 

necessary for all 

products to provide 

instructions so 

consumers know 

how to properly 

handle and prepare 

the products. 

aThe total number of responses is 62 (instead of 63, the total number of participants) because one participant kept 

his or her worksheet. 

bThese results should not be generalized to the U.S. population of household grocery shoppers and cooks in any 

statistical sense. 

cParticipants who selected both (1) and (2) for a product are reported in column 4, “One product requires cooking and 

the other does not,” so that the percentages for each product sum to 100 percent. 

dDisplayed two different brands: one labeled as requiring cooking and one without such instructions. 

5-4 
Section 5 — Results 

Z Participants said that they know from experience that 

bologna does not require cooking for safety because it is 

made to be eaten cold on sandwiches. 

Z Participants said that smoked sausage does not require 

cooking for safety because it is labeled as “fully cooked.” 

Those who disagreed said that all pork products should be 

cooked thoroughly. 

Z Participants said that beef stew does not require cooking 

for safety because it is cooked during the canning process; 

warming is only required for taste. 

Nearly all participants said that bacon requires cooking for safety. 

Z Participants said that bacon is raw meat and must be 

cooked. Some participants also noticed SHI labeling on 

the product with instructions to cook thoroughly. 

The majority of participants said that frozen pepperoni pizzas, 

frozen fried chicken TV dinners, “Hot Pockets,” and frozen chicken 

pot pies require cooking for safety. With the exception of “Hot 

Pockets,” two different brands of each product were displayed 

(one labeled as requiring cooking and one without such 

instructions). 

Z Participants said that the instructions on the product label 

indicate that the product requires cooking for safety, 

although one of the brands displayed did not indicate that 

cooking is required (with the exception of “Hot Pockets,” for 

which only one brand was displayed). Some participants 

said that cooking is required because the ingredients 

include chicken, meat, or other ingredients (e.g., the crust 

on the pizza and pot pie) which must be cooked. 

Z Participants who disagreed said that these products do not 

require cooking for safety because they are already fully 

cooked when purchased. 

Participants were about evenly divided as to whether the other 

products—hot dogs, ham with natural juices, frozen breaded 

chicken nuggets, and frozen beef and bean burritos—require 

cooking for safety. With the exception of frozen burritos, two 

different brands of each product were displayed (one labeled as 

requiring cooking and one without such instructions). 

Z Some participants said that hot dogs are labeled as 

requiring cooking, while others disagreed and said that hot 

dogs are fully cooked and can be consumed cold out of the 

package. Several participants were surprised to see 

cooking instructions on hot dog packaging and were 

concerned because they have eaten them cold in the past. 

5-5 
Consumer Perceptions of Not-Ready-to-Eat Meat and Poultry Labeling Terminology 

Z Some participants said that ham with natural juices 

requires cooking for safety because it is pork and one 

product is labeled as requiring cooking. Others disagreed 

and said that cooking is not required because one product 

is labeled as “fully cooked” and looks like lunch meat, 

which means it is ready to eat. Several participants 

identified one brand as requiring cooking and the other as 

not requiring cooking. 

Z Some participants said that frozen breaded chicken 

nuggets require cooking for safety because they contain 

uncooked chicken and one product is labeled as requiring 

cooking. Others disagreed and said that cooking is not 

required because one product is labeled as “fully cooked.” 

A few participants identified one brand as requiring 

cooking and the other as not requiring cooking. 

Z Some participants said that frozen beef and bean burritos 

do not require cooking for safety because they are fully 

cooked. Other participants said that cooking is required 

because of the ingredients and labeling instructions, and 

some were unsure about the need for cooking. 

5.2 CHARACTERIZATION OF RTE AND NRTE MEAT 

AND POULTRY PRODUCTS 

Participants most often characterized meat and poultry products 

that require cooking for safety as 

Z raw, 

Z bloody, and 

Z containing bacteria. 

Several participants characterized meat and poultry products that 

require cooking for safety as partially cooked or labeled as “cook 

thoroughly.” 

Participants most often characterized meat and poultry products 

that do not require cooking for safety as products that are 

Z fully cooked; 

Z packaged in cans; 

Z processed meats (e.g., bologna); and/or 

Z normally eaten cold or at room temperature. 

Some participants characterized meat and poultry products that 

do not require cooking for safety as products that are dried (e.g., 

jerky); microwaveable; cured or smoked (in some cases); or 

vacuum-packed. 

5-6 
Section 5 — Results 

Participants said that they would do the following to determine 

whether a newly introduced product containing meat requires 

cooking for safety (listed in order of most often mentioned): 

Z read the label/directions; 

Z check the appearance of the meat through the packaging 

to see if it looks raw; 

Z read the ingredients list; 

Z check the brand name and consider the company’s other 

products; 

Z search for additional information (e.g., check any 

informative displays around the product, ask the grocer or 

butcher, or call the manufacturer); and/or 

Z look at the type of packaging (e.g., canned products do not 

require cooking). 

 5.3 USE OF LABELING TERMS AND FEATURES TO 

DISTINGUISH BETWEEN RTE AND NRTE 

PRODUCTS 

Many participants used information on the product label or 

packaging to determine whether the products on the worksheet 

require cooking for safety. Participants read the instructions on 

product packaging (e.g., length of time and internal temperature 

specifications) to determine if cooking (versus heating) is required. 

Participants also looked for specific labeling terms that indicate 

whether the product requires cooking for safety. Several 

participants looked for the presence of SHI labeling to determine if 

cooking for safety is required. 

 5.3.1 Labeling Terms 

Participants most often said that the following labeling terms 

indicate that a product requires cooking for safety: 

Z “cook thoroughly,” and 

Z “cook until internal temperature....” 

Participants most often said that the following labeling terms 

indicate that a product does not require cooking for safety: 

Z “fully cooked;” 

Z “ready to eat;” and 

5-7 
Consumer Perceptions of Not-Ready-to-Eat Meat and Poultry Labeling Terminology 

Z phrases including the word “serve” such as “heat and 

serve,” “ready to serve,” “just serve,” and “brown and 

serve.” 

While one participant associated the word “precooked” with NRTE 

products, a participant in another group noted that “precooked” is 

misleading because it does not indicate how long the product has 

been cooked and how much further cooking, if any, is required. 

5.3.2 RTE vs. NRTE 

The moderator asked participants about using the phrase “ready 

to eat” to refer to products that do not require cooking for safety 

and the phrase “not ready to eat” to refer to products that require 

cooking for safety. Some participants were familiar with “ready to 

eat” and found the phrase meaningful. Most participants were not 

familiar with “not ready to eat” and did not like the phrase. They 

found it awkward, comical, and thought it might deter consumers 

from purchasing the product. One participant stated, “If it’s not 

ready to eat, why do I want to buy it?” Participants said that “not 

ready to eat” was negative and suggested using a positive 

statement, such as “must be cooked” or “requires cooking.” 

Participants who liked the phrase “not ready to eat” said that it 

was simple, easy to remember, and got the point across. 

 5.3.3 Descriptive Terms 

Most participants said that descriptive terms like “baked,” 

“breaded,” “browned,” “fried,” or “roasted” in the product name or 

description do not provide any information as to whether a product 

requires cooking for safety. They said that these terms indicate 

the “style” of the product and do not necessarily indicate that the 

product is fully cooked. A few participants disagreed, saying that 

“fried” and “breaded” imply that a product has been cooked and 

that they relied on these terms when completing the product 

worksheet. 

Some participants said that “smoked” in the product name or 

description implies that the product is fully cooked. Other 

participants disagreed and said that “smoked” describes the 

product flavoring (e.g., smoked bacon) and does not necessarily 

mean that a product is fully cooked. Some participants were 

unsure about the meaning of “smoked.” 

5-8 
Section 5 — Results 

5.3.4 Safe Handling Instructions (SHI) Labeling 

Level of SHI labeling awareness varied by group. In some groups 

most participants were familiar with SHI labeling, while in other 

groups only some participants were familiar with SHI labeling. 

Several participants said that they looked for SHI labeling to 

determine if cooking is required when completing the product 

worksheet. 

Participants generally associated SHI labeling with raw meat and 

poultry products. Many participants believed that the presence of 

SHI labeling indicates that cooking for safety is required. Those 

who disagreed believed that SHI labeling provides information on 

how to handle the product and does not necessarily imply that 

cooking is required. One participant stated, “I don’t think the safe 

handling label means ‘cook,’ ‘not cook,’ ‘raw,’ ‘frozen.’ I think it’s 

there for the consumers’ information.” Some participants believed 

that the absence of SHI labeling on the product packaging implies 

that the product is RTE, while others disagreed or were unsure. 

A few participants found it confusing that ham with natural juices 

was labeled as “fully cooked” and also displayed SHI labeling (as 

part of the price sticker applied by the grocery store), while most 

participants did not notice this inconsistency in labeling. Most 

participants did not notice that one box of chicken nuggets 

displayed SHI labeling and when asked about it were surprised to 

see SHI labeling on a product that they did not consider to be raw. 

5.3.5 Handling Statements 

Nearly all participants said that they do not rely on handling 

statements like “keep refrigerated” or “keep frozen” to determine if 

a product requires cooking for safety. Participants said that 

because refrigeration is required does not imply that cooking for 

safety is required and cited bologna as an example. Despite 

saying they do not rely on handling statements, many participants 

considered most frozen foods to require cooking for safety. 

 5.3.6 Instructions 

Many participants distinguished between different types of 

instructions on product packaging—”heating,” “cooking,” “baking,” 

and “preparation.” 

5-9 
Consumer Perceptions of Not-Ready-to-Eat Meat and Poultry Labeling Terminology 

Z Most participants said that products with “heating” 

instructions do not need to be cooked for safety. They 

said that only warming is needed, primarily for taste, and 

that these products could be safely eaten cold. 

Z Most participants said that products with “cooking” 

instructions require cooking for safety. 

Z Many participants said that products with “baking” 

instructions require cooking for safety. 

Z Some participants related “preparation” instructions to SHI 

labeling or described these instructions as referring to the 

whole process of preparing a product. Others considered 

“preparation” instructions to be synonymous with cooking 

or heating instructions. 

Participants said that “cooking” times are generally longer than 

“heating” times. One participant wondered if USDA has definitions 

for “heating” and “cooking.” 

5.4 USE OF PRODUCT ATTRIBUTES OTHER THAN 

LABELING TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN RTE AND 

NRTE PRODUCTS 

Participants discussed product attributes or characteristics other 

than product labeling that help them to distinguish between RTE 

and NRTE meat and poultry products. Participants identified 

factors that they consider, as well as factors that they do not 

consider, when deciding whether a meat or poultry product 

requires cooking for safety. 

5.4.1 Factors Considered by Participants 

Most participants said that they consider the following factors 

when deciding whether a product requires cooking for safety: 

Z the appearance of the meat or poultry through the product 

packaging, 

Z type of product packaging, and 

Z the location of the product in the grocery store. 

Participants said that for some products the appearance of the 

meat or poultry through the product packaging helps to determine 

whether cooking for safety is required. Participants said that meat 

or poultry that looks raw, such as bacon, requires cooking for 

safety. 

5-10 
Section 5 — Results 

Participants said that the type of product packaging helps to 

determine whether cooking for safety is required; for example, 

canned products do not require cooking for safety. 

Participants said that the location of the product in the grocery 

store helps to determine whether cooking for safety is required. 

Participants said that foods requiring cooking for safety would 

generally be found at meat counters or in the refrigerated section, 

with the exception of processed meats like luncheon meats or deli 

meats. Participants said that foods found in the deli section or on 

nonrefrigerated shelves (such as canned goods) would not require 

cooking for safety. Some participants said that products in the 

frozen section would more than likely require cooking for safety, 

while others said that one would have to read the label or 

instructions to determine if cooking is required. 

5.4.2 Factors Not Considered by Participants 

Most participants said that they do not consider the following 

factors when deciding whether a product requires cooking for 

safety: 

Z the color of the package; 

Z picture of the product or serving suggestion shown on the 

front label; 

Z whether the product has “side dishes” that normally would 

not be further cooked (e.g., cookies or apple sauce); 

Z whether a fully cooked meat or poultry product is combined 

with vegetables that are not cooked; and 

Z commercials or printed advertisements. 

Most participants said that these factors do not provide any 

information as to whether cooking for safety is required. 

Only a few participants said that they consider the picture on the 

product packaging when determining whether cooking for safety is 

required. These participants said that they looked at the picture 

on the TV dinners when completing the product worksheet to 

determine whether cooking for safety is required. Other 

participants disagreed and said that pictures could be misleading 

because they portray the product as it should be served. 

Participants emphasized that consumers should always read and 

follow the instructions on the product packaging when in doubt. 

5-11 
Consumer Perceptions of Not-Ready-to-Eat Meat and Poultry Labeling Terminology 

Several participants commented that even if a product does not 

say it must be cooked, they would do so anyway to be on the safe 

side. 

5.5 VIEWS ON COOKING AND PREPARATION 

INSTRUCTIONS 

Participants discussed how they check for doneness of meat and 

poultry products and whether someone verifies that the cooking 

instructions displayed on meat and poultry product packaging will 

ensure a safe product if properly followed. 

5.5.1 Checking for Doneness of Meat and Poultry Products 

Participants said that they rely on color (juices run clear) and 

texture (feels done) when checking for doneness of meat and 

poultry. Other participants said that they rely on experience, the 

length of time they cook a product, or the cooking instructions on 

the product packaging to determine if a product is cooked and 

safe to eat. 

Only a few participants in each group use a food thermometer to 

check for a safe internal temperature. Most participants who use 

a food thermometer only do so when cooking large cuts of meat or 

poultry, such as whole turkeys or roasts. No participants said that 

they would use a food thermometer when cooking packaged 

products like frozen meals and entrees. They said it would be too 

time consuming, the products are too small, the products do not 

require cooking to a certain internal temperature, and many of the 

products are already partially cooked. 

5.5.2 Verification of Cooking Instructions 

The moderator asked participants if they think someone verifies 

that the cooking instructions displayed on meat and poultry 

product packaging will ensure a safe product if properly followed. 

Most participants believed that the manufacturer verifies the 

cooking instructions displayed on their products. Participants said 

that companies verify cooking instructions to avoid lawsuits and to 

satisfy the consumer by finding the optimal way of cooking their 

products. One participant commented, “I think they’ve tested the 

product enough that they know to put that on there. They’re going 

5-12 
Section 5 — Results 

to feel a lot better about it if you heat that product at that 

temperature before you eat it.” 

Several participants speculated that the government plays a role 

in verifying cooking instructions by establishing guidelines or 

requiring companies to verify their instructions. Only a few 

participants did not think anyone checked to ensure that 

instructions were absolutely correct. 

5.6 REACTIONS TO NOVEL LABELING FEATURES 

Participants discussed a variety of ways to improve the labeling of 

meat and poultry products so consumers can easily distinguish 

between RTE and NRTE meat and poultry products. Participants 

discussed the use of a standardized phrase, a warning statement, 

a logo or icon for NRTE products, and color coding for both RTE 

and NRTE products. 

 5.6.1 Standardized Phrase 

Most participants liked the idea of using a standardized phrase on 

NRTE meat and poultry product labeling to indicate that cooking 

for safety is required. Participants liked the following phrases 

(ranked in order of preference): 

Z “requires cooking,” 

Z “cook thoroughly,” 

Z “must be fully cooked,” 

Z “cook before eating,” 

Z “must be cooked,” and 

Z “cook for safety.” 

The majority of 

participants 

preferred the 

standardized 

phrases “requires 

cooking” and “cook 

thoroughly.” 

The majority of participants preferred the standardized phrases 

“requires cooking” and “cook thoroughly.” 

Several participants did not like the phrase “cook for safety,” 

saying that “safety” sounds “scary” and implies that the product is 

unsafe or harmful to consumers. One participant pointed out that 

the term “cooked” in the phrases “must be fully cooked” and “must 

be cooked” could be misinterpreted, especially among nonnative 

English speakers, to mean that the product is already cooked, 

which led several other participants to change their opinions on 

their preferred phrase. 

5-13 
Consumer Perceptions of Not-Ready-to-Eat Meat and Poultry Labeling Terminology 

Most participants said that the standardized phrase should be 

displayed on the front of the product packaging so it is visible 

when the consumer picks up the product or views it from the shelf 

or case. A few participants suggested that the phrase be 

displayed on the back or instruct the consumer to see the back of 

the package for cooking instructions. 

Participants suggested that the phrase always be displayed in the 

same location on the product packaging so consumers would 

know where to look. Suggested locations included the top right or 

left corner or next to the brand name, the Ingredients List, or net 

weight. 

Participants said that the standardized phrase should be formatted 

to grab consumers’ attention. Participants suggested that the 

standardized phrase be in large type so it stands out from the 

other text on the package, in a bright color (red or orange), or in a 

color that contrasts with the rest of the product packaging. 

Regarding the size of the type used for the standardized phrase, 

one participant stated, “If you can read the brand and the kind of 

food that’s inside the package, you should be able to read that as 

well.”

 5.6.2 Warning Statement 

The moderator asked participants about using warning statements 

on NRTE product labeling to identify these products as requiring 

cooking for safety. The warning statement now used for 

unpasteurized juices and the warning statement that will be used 

on shell egg cartons were provided as examples. 

Many participants 

did not like the idea 

of using warning 

statements on 

NRTE product 

labeling. 

Many participants did not like the idea of using warning 

statements on NRTE product labeling. Some participants said 

that warning statements are not necessary, and described them 

as “overkill” and “over-regulation.” Some participants described 

warning statements as “scary” and were concerned that they 

might deter consumers from purchasing NRTE products. Several 

participants said that warning statements would not be effective, 

citing the warning statements on cigarette packaging as an 

example. Another participant commented that he drinks raw milk 

and fruit juices in spite of the warning statements displayed on 

5-14 
Section 5 — Results 

those products. In response to warning statements, he said, “If 

you see it everywhere, it kind of loses its punch for me.” 

Several participants supported warning statements, particularly if 

used in addition to a standardized phrase. One participant stated, 

“I think the more information you can give to consumers and their 

families, the better.” One participant suggested using the 

statement, “Warning: Cook thoroughly.” 

Attitudes on Warning and Handling Statements Currently Used on 

Some Products 

In most of the Phoenix, Philadelphia, and Cincinnati groups, we 

asked participants about their understanding of the following 

statement that is currently displayed on the labeling of partially 

cooked meat patties: 

“Partially cooked: For safety cook until well done—internal 

temperature of 160°F.” 

Some participants found the statement confusing and described it 

as “too complicated.” Participants doubted that consumers would 

have and use a thermometer to check for doneness. Many 

participants did not like the idea of using this statement for 

partially cooked frozen meals and entrees; they suggested using a 

logo instead. 

In one Phoenix group and one Philadelphia group, we asked 

participants about their understanding of the following statements 

and whether they should be displayed on the labeling of all meat 

and poultry products requiring refrigeration: 

Z “IMPORTANT: Must be kept refrigerated to maintain 

safety,” and 

Z “IMPORTANT: Must be refrigerated after opening to 

maintain safety.” 

While they understood these instructions, most participants did not 

think it is necessary to display these statements on all meat and 

poultry products. They said that refrigerating products containing 

meat or poultry is common sense, and such labeling is 

unnecessary. 

5-15 
Consumer Perceptions of Not-Ready-to-Eat Meat and Poultry Labeling Terminology 

5.6.3 Logo or Icon 

Most participants 

liked the idea of 

using a logo or icon 

on NRTE product 

labeling to identify 

the products as 

requiring cooking 

for safety. 

Participants most 

preferred Logos C 

and B. 

Most participants liked the idea of using a logo or icon on all 

NRTE product labeling to identify the products as requiring 

cooking for safety. Participants said that logos would be 

particularly effective with children, individuals with limited 

education, and people who do not speak English as their native 

language. Figure 5-1 presents the logo concepts evaluated by 

participants. Participants ranked their first, second, and third most 

preferred logos. Table 5-3 summarizes participants’ preferences 

for the logo concepts evaluated. 

Participants most preferred Logos C and B. About 38 percent of 

participants rated Logo C as their most preferred logo (first 

choice), and 21 percent rated Logo B as their most preferred logo. 

Logo C also garnered more first and second choice votes 

combined than any other logo—including Logo B. Participants 

also liked Logos D and A. 

Figure 5-1. Logo Concepts Evaluateda

NOT

FULLY

COOKED

MUST BE

COOKED

!

A B C

D E1b

REQUIRES

COOKING

E2c

Cook

for

Safety

C

ook Thoroughly

Requires

Cooking

aParticipants could also design their own logo (option F). 

bLogo E1 was evaluated in the Raleigh groups only. 

5-16 
Section 5 — Results 

cLogo E2 was evaluated in the Phoenix, Philadelphia, and Cincinnati groups. 

Table 5-3. Participants’ Preferences for Logo Concepts (n = 63)a, b 

Number of Votes 

Logo First Second Third Total

A 9 5 16 30 

B 13 22 15 50 

C 24 16 9 49 

D 7 13 15 35 

E1 1 0 3 4 

E2 3 5 3 11 

Fc 6 2 2 10 

aParticipants ranked their first, second, and third most preferred logos. 

b These results should not be generalized to the U.S. population of household grocery shoppers and cooks in any 

statistical sense. 

cLogo F includes logos designed by participants. 

Participants liked Logo C because of the phrase “cook thoroughly” 

and the flame symbol. As one participant stated, “It stands out the 

best.” Participants believed that people who do not speak English 

would understand that the flame symbol means to cook. 

Participants suggested that the flame be in red. 

Participants liked Logo B because it gives specific information to 

cook the product (“requires cooking”) and they liked the frying pan 

symbol. One participant stated about Logo B, “There’s no 

question about what they want you to do.” Many participants were 

not deterred by the fact that Logo B presents a frying pan symbol, 

although some participants were concerned that it might confuse 

consumers because frozen products are often prepared in a 

microwave. One participant pointed out that the word “requires” 

translates into several Romance languages. 

Participants who liked Logo D liked its simplicity and the phrase 

“must be cooked” with an exclamation point. They liked that this 

phrase is “emphatic” and “a command.” Participants liked the use 

of a yield sign because it implies caution and suggested that the 

logo be in a bright color (e.g., yellow, red, or orange) with black 

lettering. 

5-17 
Consumer Perceptions of Not-Ready-to-Eat Meat and Poultry Labeling Terminology 

Participants who liked Logo A liked the stop sign shape, the 

phrase “cook for safety,” and the bold lettering. Participants who 

did not like Logo A did not like the use of the word “safety.” These 

participants said that the word “safety,” when associated with 

cooking, is ineffective and that consumers would likely ignore such 

a message. One participant commented about Logo A, “‘Cook for 

safety’ is a little more dubious. You know you have to cook it, but 

you don’t know how much.” 

Most participants said that the logo should be displayed on the 

front of the product packaging so it is visible when the consumer 

first looks at the product. Several participants suggested 

displaying the logo on the back near the instructions because 

consumers generally turn the product to the back to read the 

instructions, or displaying the logo on the front and the back of the 

product packaging. 

Participants suggested that the logo always be displayed in the 

same location (e.g., top right or left corner) on the product 

packaging so consumers would know where to look for it. 

Participants suggested that the logo be about the size of a quarter 

(bigger than the USDA seal of inspection) to be easily visible. 

Some participants, particularly seniors, suggested that the logo be 

bigger (about the size of a half-dollar). In one group, participants 

suggested that the logo be proportional to the size of the product 

packaging. 

Participants suggested that the logo be in a bold, bright color like 

red or orange, in a color that contrasts with the product packaging, 

and outlined in black. 

Using a Logo for Both NRTE and RTE Products 

The moderator asked participants about the need to use a 

standardized logo for RTE products as well as NRTE products to 

convey whether cooking for safety is required. Participants in 

several of the focus groups liked this idea, while participants in 

other groups did not. 

Some participants thought that displaying a logo on both NRTE 

and RTE product packaging would help consumers easily 

distinguish between products that do and do not require cooking 

for safety. Participants said that if one product has a logo and 

5-18 
Section 5 — Results 

another does not, consumers might question the difference and be 

unsure as to how to prepare products without a logo. Participants 

said that if all meat and poultry product packaging displayed a 

logo, then consumers could simply look at the product packaging 

and know immediately whether it is RTE or NRTE. One 

participant stated, “You want to know what you can just grab right 

then and just take with you and you don’t have to cook or 

anything. That way it’s just simple. It’s on there, ready to eat.” 

Some participants did not think it is necessary to display a logo on 

both NRTE and RTE product packaging. Participants said that 

manufacturers already emphasize that products are RTE (as a 

selling point) and that RTE products are fully cooked so there are 

no safety concerns. One participant commented, “If it’s already 

cooked it’s not dangerous, there’s nothing to worry about, so I 

would say it’s not necessary.” 

In the first focus group (Raleigh seniors), one participant 

suggested the idea of using the NRTE logo with a slash through it 

as the RTE logo (see Figure 5-2). Other participants in the group 

liked this idea so we tested this concept in the remaining focus 

groups. Most participants did not like this concept, saying that it 

looked negative 

Figure 5-2. RTE Logo Concept 

Evaluated 

Requires

Cooking

and might deter consumers from purchasing the product. They 

suggested using a distinctly different logo for RTE products or a 

color-coding scheme with standardized phrases for RTE and 

NRTE products. Participants who liked the RTE logo shown in 

5-19 
Consumer Perceptions of Not-Ready-to-Eat Meat and Poultry Labeling Terminology 

Figure 5-2 said that it is simple and consumers would not have to 

remember two different logos. 

 5.6.4 Color Coding 

We asked participants about using a color-coding scheme for RTE 

and NRTE products similar to the one that is used for milk cartons 

(different color caps indicate different levels of milk fat); that is, 

use standardized color packaging for RTE and NRTE products. 

Most participants did not like this concept. They were concerned 

that it would be too complicated and would be one more thing that 

they would have to remember. Participants also said that color 

coding would not be effective with color-blind consumers, and in 

their experience color-coding schemes (like the one used with 

milk) vary from store to store. 

Many participants 

liked the idea of a 

color-coding 

scheme when used 

with standardized 

phrases. 

In one of the Phoenix groups (ages 35-55, college educated), one 

participant suggested a color-coding scheme in which the NRTE 

standardized phrase is displayed in a red rectangle and the RTE 

standardized phrase is displayed in a green rectangle. Other 

participants liked this idea so we tested this concept and several 

alternatives in the remaining focus groups (see Figure 5-3; shown 

in color in Appendix B). Participants who supported color coding 

with standardized phrases said that it would make shopping easier 

5-20 
Section 5 — Results 

Figure 5-3. Color-coding Schemes Evaluateda

REQUIRES COOKING FULLY COOKED

FULLY COOKED

REQUIRES COOKING

FULLY COOKED

REQUIRES COOKING

FULLY COOKED

REQUIRES COOKING

Option A

FULLY COOKED

REQUIRES COOKING

Option B

Option C

aTested in the Philadelphia and Cincinnati groups only. 

because consumers would not have to read the instructions on 

each package, and teenagers could shop easily using the colored 

blocks. 

Many participants liked the idea of a color-coding scheme when 

used with standardized phrases. Most participants preferred 

Option A for its simplicity. Participants found Options B and C 

confusing. Participants said that is it universally accepted that red 

means “stop” (i.e., cook) and green means “go” (i.e., fully cooked). 

Some participants preferred the use of a color-coding scheme with 

standardized phrases for RTE and NRTE products to a logo for 

NRTE products. 

 5.7 ATTITUDES TOWARD REQUIRING STANDARDIZED 

LABELING OF NRTE PRODUCTS 

Throughout the discussion, some participants expressed 

confusion and frustration about the inconsistency in labeling of 

meat and poultry products with regard to whether they require 

cooking for safety. Some participants were surprised that some 

5-21 
Consumer Perceptions of Not-Ready-to-Eat Meat and Poultry Labeling Terminology 

products do not provide any cooking or heating instructions. Also, 

there was some confusion when one product indicated that 

cooking is required and a similar product under a different brand 

name did not. One participant said, “The people that don’t have 

anything on their package need to put something on there.” 

Participants admitted to not knowing how to prepare some items 

without instructions, particularly new items or products they had 

not purchased before. Most participants said that they would 

thoroughly cook a product when in doubt. 

Participants said 

that standardization 

would “...eliminate 

the confusion from 

the consumer’s 

mind.” 

Many participants would like to see the government impose 

regulations that would ensure consistency in labeling of NRTE 

products and make it clear to consumers that cooking for safety is 

required. Participants said that standardization would “...eliminate 

the confusion from the consumer’s mind.” While some 

participants thought adults could make an informed decision as to 

how to prepare foods, most agreed that children might not. 

Participants did not think that manufacturers would voluntarily 

adopt standardized labeling of NRTE products because of the cost 

and because they do not “care enough.” 

Some participants did not think such regulations are necessary. 

These participants said that labels already provide enough 

information, consumers are savvy shoppers, and it is the parents’ 

responsibility to protect children. Several participants were 

concerned about the cost of such regulations, and one participant 

stated, “Every time they do something like this it automatically 

raises the prices of things because it is costing them more.” A few 

participants said that government regulations are warranted only if 

there is a significant problem of manufacturers not labeling 

products as requiring cooking and people getting sick as a result. 

5-22 
Section 5 — Results 

Of the novel 

labeling features 

discussed, 

participants most 

preferred the use of 

logos for NRTE 

products or a colorcoding scheme with 

standardized 

phrases for both 

RTE and NRTE 

products. 

Participants said that the labeling requirement adopted by the 

government needs to be simple and easy to understand. Of the 

novel labeling features discussed, participants most preferred the 

use of logos for NRTE products or a color-coding scheme with 

standardized phrases for both RTE and NRTE products. 

Participants who preferred using a logo said that children, 

individuals with limited education, and individuals who do not 

speak English as their native language could understand it. One 

participant likened logos to the symbols used on laundry directions 

for dry, bleach, and iron, and said, “...you have to spell things out. 

You have to show people.” Participants who preferred the use of 

color coding liked that all meat and poultry products would be 

labeled as to whether cooking is required and said that it would be 

simple and easy to understand. 

5-23 

 Conclusion and 6 Recommendations 

The focus groups provided information on consumers’ current 

understanding of the labeling of NRTE meat and poultry products 

and how consumers decide whether a product must be cooked for 

safety. In addition, we collected information on participants’ 

reactions to several novel labeling features, such as standardized 

phrases or logos, that USDA could require companies to display 

on NRTE product packaging so that consumers understand that 

the product requires further cooking on their part. 

We recommend 

that FSIS conduct 

analyses to 

evaluate the costs 

and benefits of a 

regulation or policy 

requiring 

standardized 

labeling of NRTE 

meat and poultry 

products to convey 

that cooking for 

safety is required. 

Although consumer focus group findings should not be 

generalized to the general population of all consumers in any 

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

decisions. The focus group findings suggest that there is some 

confusion and frustration among consumers regarding the 

inconsistency in labeling of meat and poultry products with respect 

to whether they require cooking for safety. Many participants said 

that there is a need for the government to impose regulations that 

would require consistency in labeling of NRTE products. 

Participants said that standardization would “...eliminate the 

confusion from the consumer’s mind.” Participants said that 

regulations are necessary because manufacturers would be 

unlikely to voluntarily adopt standardized labeling of NRTE 

products because of the expense and lack of interest. Of the 

novel labeling features discussed, participants most preferred a 

logo for NRTE products or a color-coding scheme with 

standardized phrases for RTE and NRTE products. Participants 

said that the labeling feature used should be large enough to be 

easily visible to the consumer and displayed on the front of the 

6-1 
Consumer Perceptions of Not-Ready-to-Eat Meat and Poultry Labeling Terminology 

product packaging in a standardized location (e.g., top right 

corner). 

While these focus groups indicate that there is currently a 

considerable degree of confusion about labeling terminology and 

a desire for more consistent labeling, we do not believe that these 

findings alone are a sufficient basis for regulatory action. We 

recommend that FSIS conduct analyses to evaluate the costs and 

benefits of a regulation or policy requiring standardized labeling of 

NRTE meat and poultry products to convey that cooking for safety 

is required.1 If the decision is then made to go forward with 

standardized labeling, we encourage FSIS to consult with affected 

industry stakeholders about their preferences for the type of 

labeling feature to use and the formatting and placement of the 

labeling feature on the product packaging. We also recommend 

that FSIS implement a consumer education campaign through the 

general media to make consumers aware of the standardized 

labeling and to encourage consumers to look for the NRTE 

labeling feature to determine whether cooking for safety is 

required. 

 

1The cost analysis should, minimally, estimate the compliance costs to industry 

of meeting any proposed labeling requirement. The benefits analysis should 

at least consider any anticipated reduction in the incidence of foodborne 

illnesses resulting from consumption of under-cooked NRTE products. There 

may be other benefits to consider, however, such as a reduction in consumer 

search costs. 

6-2 
 

 References 

Greenbaum, Thomas L. 1988. The Practical Handbook and 

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

Heath and Company. 

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

Applied Research. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE 

Publications, Inc. 

R-1