Understanding barriers to consumers to stop washing raw poultry through in-depth interviews

Abstract

PurposeFoodborne illness from poultry may be associated with improper handling that results in cross contamination. Washing of raw poultry is one practice that can lead to cross contamination. Some consumers continue to wash raw poultry after learning that not washing raw poultry is the safe behavior. There is a need to better understand why some consumers continue this practice and identify barriers to them adopting the correct behavior.Design/methodology/approachThis research utilized qualitative, in-depth interviews to understand some consumer's barriers to adopting the behavior of not washing raw poultry. The interview questioning route was iteratively developed and designed to allow both structure and flexibility. Questions were anchored in the Transtheoretical Model of Behavior Change. Interviews (N = 23) were conducted over Zoom. Thematic analysis identified themes around consumers' resistance to adopting the correct behavior for handling raw poultry.FindingsResults from the thematic analysis indicate that chicken preparation methods were primarily influenced by family. A desire to control the process of preparing food, lack of trust in chicken processing, and the habitual nature of the behavior all contributed to the continuation of washing raw poultry. Over half of the participants (61%) expressed interest in changing behaviors in the future. Needing supporting scientific evidence, and an alternative behavior to replace washing were two key factors to support the development of future public health messaging.Originality/valueThis study investigates the barriers to safe raw poultry handling utilizing in-depth interviews and contributes to the development of more effective public health messaging.

Food safety and cognitive biases: what we know, what we need to know, and why

“…(2022) observed that “habitual practices and routine behaviour,” such as how individuals washed their hands, utensils, and food were the primary risk factors contributing to food safety problems. A similar effect was observed in interviews conducted by Gilman et al. (2022), where consumers resisted adopting the correct method of washing raw poultry due to the habitual nature of the behavior.…”

“…For example, in their ethnographic study of Italian households, Menini et al (2022) observed that "habitual practices and routine behaviour," such as how individuals washed their hands, utensils, and food were the primary risk factors contributing to food safety problems. A similar effect was observed in interviews conducted by Gilman et al (2022), where consumers resisted adopting the correct method of washing raw poultry due to the habitual nature of the behavior. This pattern of repeated habitual behavior is consistent with the following description by Aarts and Dijksterhuis (2000, p. 53) of habit formation: "when a behavior has been performed many times in the past, future behavior becomes increasingly under the control of an automatized process."…”

Policy, regulation, and institutional approaches to digital innovation in the wine sector: a cross-country comparison

“…On average, each semi-structured interview lasted between forty-five minutes and one hour and each interview was recorded. During the interviews, the participants were asked common open-ended questions, customised across four semi-structured instruments to reflect participants’ roles and organisations, and formulated in light of the literature regarding Industry 4.0, innovation in the wine industry (Baron and Dimitri, 2019; Gilman et al. , 2021; Rosenlund et al.…”

“…On average, each semi-structured interview lasted between forty-five minutes and one hour and each interview was recorded. During the interviews, the participants were asked common open-ended questions, customised across four semistructured instruments to reflect participants' roles and organisations, and formulated in light of the literature regarding Industry 4.0, innovation in the wine industry (Baron and Dimitri, 2019;Gilman et al, 2021;Rosenlund et al, 2020). The common questions asked in the interviews covered the participant's knowledge and understanding of IoT, blockchain, artificial intelligence, and machine learning, whether policies and regulations acted as barriers or facilitators of adoption, and data access and management.…”

Food safety myths consequences for health: A study of reported gastroenteritis incidence and prevalence in UK, Norway and Germany

“…In a study conducted in Portugal, cleanliness, hygiene, and food safety were the main reasons why people washed their chicken meat (Cardoso, Ferreira, Truninger, Maia & Teixeira, 2021). A study in the USA revealed that the ambition to control the food preparation process, the lack of confidence in poultry processing, and the habitual nature of this behavior in daily life were the most common factors contributing to the washing of chicken (Gilman, Henley & Quinlan, 2021). Vatral, Gilman and Quinlan (2021) reported that in the United States a large part of consumers do not know what the right behavior is.…”