Prepared for Health Canada
Prepared by Narrative Research
PSPC Contract Number: HT372-193951/001/CY
Contracted Value: $125,978.05
Contract Date: December 17, 2019
Delivery Date: March 2020
POR number: 053-19
For more information, please contact: hc.cpab.por-rop.dgcap.sc@canada.ca
Ce rapport est aussi disponible en français
Final Report
Supplier Name: Narrative Research
March 2020
This public opinion research report presents the results of focus groups conducted by Narrative Research on behalf of Health Canada. The research study was done using qualitative focus groups. The research entailed a total of 18 in-person focus groups, namely, three (3) groups in each of Toronto (ON), Halifax (NS), Winnipeg (MB), Red Deer (AB), Vancouver (BC), and Quebec City (QC). In each location, one group was conducted with each of three audiences: parents or guardians of children 13 years or younger and who exhibit a low socio-economic profile; parents or guardians of children 13 years or young and who exhibit a high socio-economic profile; and pregnant women. All participants were 18 years of age or older, with a mix of gender and ages within each group, where relevant. The research was conducted between February 3rd and 19th, 2020.
Cette publication est aussi disponible en français sous le titre:
Évaluation qualitative de messages et de concepts marketing sur le thème de la salubrité alimentaire
This publication may be reproduced for non-commercial purposes only. Prior written permission must be obtained from Health Canada. For more information on this report, please contact Health Canada at: hc.cpab.por-rop.dgcap.sc@canada.ca
Catalogue Number:
H164-297/2020E-PDF
International Standard Book Number (ISBN):
978-0-660-34492-8
Related publications (registration number: POR-053-19):
Catalogue Number H164-297/2020F-PDF (Final Report, French)
ISBN 978-0-660-34493-5
©Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, as represented by the Minister of Health, 2020
Narrative Research Inc.
Contract Number: HT372-193951/001/CY
POR Registration Number: 053-19
Contract Award Date: December 17, 2019
Contracted Cost: $125,978.05
The prevalence of domestically-acquired food-borne illness is significant among Canadians, with important consequences on individuals' health and accordingly, a significant impact on the country's healthcare system. In this context, Health Canada has conducted annual Safe Food Handling marketing campaigns to vulnerable populations since 2008, part of broader on-going public education efforts. A shift in approach of the marketing campaign focuses on three audiences most at risk of food-borne illnesses, but also identified by recent research as being among the most receptive to food safety messaging and behaviour changes: pregnant women, parents or guardians of children 13 years of age or younger, and children 11-13 years of age.
Health Canada commissioned qualitative research to inform messaging and creative development of various marketing initiatives. The main objective of this qualitative research was to assess the effectiveness of safe food handling marketing messages and creatives with the two of the three audience segments identified: pregnant women, and parents or guardians of children aged 13 years and younger.
Specific research objectives included:
To achieve these objectives, a qualitative research approach was undertaken. This entailed a total of 18 in-person focus groups conducted from February 3rd to 19th, 2020 with parents or guardians of children 13 years or younger and with pregnant women. Specifically, three groups were conducted in each of Toronto (ON), Halifax (NS), Winnipeg (MB), Red Deer (AB), Vancouver (BC), and Quebec City (QC). All participants were 18 years of age or older, and each parent group included a mix of gender. Group discussions were held in English with the exception of those in Quebec City which were conducted in French. Group discussions each lasted approximately 2 hours with participants each receiving $100 in appreciation of their time. A total of 212 participants were recruited across all 18 groups (including 2 stand-by respondents per group). Across all groups, 157 participants attended the discussions, with an additional 13 participants incentivized as stand-by respondents who did not take part in the discussions.
All participants were recruited per the recruitment specifications for the Government of Canada. Recruitment was conducted through qualitative panels stored on Canadian servers, with follow-up calls to confirm the details provided and to ensure quotas were met.
This report presents the findings from the study. Caution must be exercised when interpreting the results from this study, as qualitative research is directional only. Results cannot be attributed to the overall population under study, with any degree of confidence.
I hereby certify as a Representative of Narrative Research that the deliverables fully comply with the Government of Canada political neutrality requirements outlined in the Directive on the Management of Communications. Specifically, the deliverables do not include information on electoral voting intentions, political party preferences, standings with the electorate or ratings of the performance of a political party or its leaders.
Signed
Margaret Brigley, CEO & Partner | Narrative Research
Date: March 2, 2020
Findings from the Focus Testing of Food Safety Marking Messages and Creatives (POR-19-07) reveal that a public education campaign that presents the risks and serious consequences of unsafe food handling in a serious manner may have an important impact on key audiences' food handling behaviours. Further, showing a familiar setting and situation may help in ensuring audiences feel the threat is realistic, and generally make the message relatable. The ability to learn something new, or to have current knowledge challenged also offers the potential to grab attention and make the public reconsider their current beliefs. This is most important in the case of promoting safe food handling, as concepts that simply reiterate basic food safety advice (e.g., washing hands before and after preparing meat; avoiding cross-contamination by using different utensils for raw and cooked meat), were somewhat disregarded among focus group participants, as the message was perceived as being already known. By contrast, concepts that challenged current beliefs led to greater reflection. Initial discussions during focus groups suggested that there is good awareness of the importance of safe food handling and of basic advice across the three audiences included in the study.
Altogether, this may explain the attraction of a concept referred to as "Blue" for the purpose of testing, that showed a woman rushing to prepare chicken in a household kitchen for a family meal, spreading germs that are visible through a black light, and that are ultimately ending up on vegetables eaten by a young child. This concept clearly suggested that despite some basic safe food handling behaviours, innocuous gestures (e.g. pulling hair behind ear; opening a cupboard door), germs can spread unknowingly and at a rapid pace. This concept brought together the various aspects of what was considered effective communication in this context, namely a serious tone, a familiar setting and situation, highlighting the risks associated with complacency or ignorance when dealing with day-to-day behaviours, the effects of improper handling on others, and myth busting.
Another approach tested well which focused on information sharing. The concept was referred to as "Cooking" for the purpose of testing, and it was effective for the simplicity of the information presented (a step-by-step account of how to safely verify if chicken is cooked), a light tone that helped focus the attention on content, and debunking current beliefs that the look of cooked chicken and its juices are good indicators of safe internal temperature. It also provided specific information as to the desired safe internal temperature of cooked chicken and techniques for safe cooking (using a thermometer).
Finally, the lighter tone of the concept "Hero", which featured many of the same elements, namely a step-by-step outline of assumptions countered with correct cooking methods, as well as involvement of an entire family in a familiar setting, was also strong in causing participants to rethink their food handling behaviours. However, this concept used a much more jovial, light-hearted tone, which also had an impact for many.
It is important to note that all three of the above-mentioned concepts resonated with the three audiences under study. While in general the 'humorous' concepts resonated more positively with those with average/high SES compared to those with low SES, these three concepts in particular had widespread impact in terms of adoption of safe food handling behaviours.
By contrast, some of the concepts that did not have an impact were critiqued for not using the right tone, setting, or content that would engage and compel the target audience. The use of humour to speak of food safety elicited polarized reactions, with some finding it attention-grabbing, while others felt it inappropriate to speak of a serious topic such as food safety. Across concepts tested, the ones referred to as "Summer" and "Nuggets" used an off-beat and unique type of humour that was difficult to understand and took away from the message. In fact, many did not recall what the "Nuggets" concept was trying to communicate, even minutes after seeing the video. The message being exclusively displayed as copy on the creative without any voiceover or narration, combined with the off-beat humour may have contributed to this. Both of those concepts were considered most appropriate to a younger audience (teenagers or children). As noted above, the type of humour found in the "Hero" concept was more approachable, as it followed a storyline (step-by-step preparation approach) and presented a familiar setting (kitchen and family meal preparation).
The other concepts that took a more educational tone elicited lukewarm reactions. Notably, the "Interview" concept that consisted in a "vox pop" approach on the streets of Montreal was appreciated for providing food safety information in a layperson's terms, which made the concept approachable, although less credible as the public's comments were often construed as people's personal opinions rather than expert advice. At the same time, the concept touched on too many aspects of food safety to ensure the message was memorable. The "Statistics" concept (print infographic piece) generally lacked appeal, as it included too much written information to grab attention and elicit people's interest. It was considered a more useful reference document than one to raise awareness of food safety.
Other concepts that provided a warning about food safety failed to have an impact. Specifically, the "Orange" concept that consisted of a short frame-by-frame video warning that suggested that the look of cooked chicken is not a good indicator of internal temperature lacked memorability, as the information was only displayed as copy on the creative without a voice over, the tempo was too quick to grasp the message, and it lacked personal relevance. Many indicated that without an 'answer' (as to which chicken breast was actually cooked), the concept lacked impact. The "Emergency" print concept generally lacked credibility, included a message that was vague and did not specify the risks or consequences of food poisoning. The image was not considered to be compelling and did not effectively communicate the message.
The two targeted Health Canada concepts for specific audiences that were briefly discussed elicited mixed reactions. The web banner for pregnant women was well received and attracted attention. The implication of grave consequences on the fetus from food poisoning grabbed attention, and the illustration of foods that posed risks invited reflection. The concept was considered relevant, engaging and credible, and was considered most impactful for women in their first pregnancy. By contrast, the web banner targeting parents elicited mixed opinions. The realization that food poisoning could have serious consequences was deemed an important reminder by some parents, while others felt that the concept lacked visual appeal and specific information to capture their attention. For both concepts, the endorsement of the Government of Canada was deemed an important component to establish credibility.
It was believed that to reach the target audience, a public education campaign on food safety should be found in various locations, including schools, doctors' offices, hospitals, public washrooms (including in restaurants), daycares, and grocery stores. At the same time, it should be broadcasted through traditional media (notably television, dailies, outdoors, and transit), and online on social media (Instagram and Facebook particularly) and targeted websites (cooking, news). Pregnant women also mentioned pregnancy apps as being a good avenue to reach them.
It should be noted that participants' reactions to the various concepts presented may have been influenced in part by the context of the testing (focus group sessions) and by the different concept formats (video, static ad, concept for web banner) and video lengths (ranging from approximately 15 seconds to 2 minutes).
Nonetheless, findings from the research suggest that public education campaigns that include consequences, shock or fear, along with showing a situation that is relatable, elicits emotions, or present unexpected information (myth-busting) all contribute to their effectiveness. Attention should also be paid to focus each communication on one or two messages, while presenting the information in a simple way, and on ensuring that the message is self-contained in the marketing material, given the lack of interest in following-up for additional information online. Further, showing the "wrong" and the "right" way would also help debunk myths. Overall, Health Canada would be well served to draw on those findings in the development of its public education marketing on food safety.
The prevalence of domestically-acquired food-borne illness is significant among Canadians, with important consequences on individuals' health and accordingly, a significant impact on the country's healthcare system. In its efforts to educate the public about safe food handling, Health Canada was in the process of delivering its tenth food safety marketing campaign, with a particular focus on four segments of the population deemed most at risk - namely parents of children under the age of 6; pregnant women; people with a compromised immune system; and adults 60 years or older. The awareness and education campaign included print and digital content for all four target audiences, combined with various outreach activities to health professionals and other intermediaries and numerous public relations activities.
For its upcoming marketing initiatives, Health Canada has shifted its campaign strategy to focus on three key audiences, namely parents or guardians of children 0 to 13 years old, children 11-13 years of age, and pregnant women. While these audiences are at higher risk of food-borne illness, they have also been identified in recent research as being the most receptive to food safety messaging and behaviour change. Along with targeting more specific audiences, Health Canada is looking at implementing a seasonal marketing approach to reach audiences when they are more receptive to these kinds of messages.
With this in mind, Health Canada commissioned Narrative Research to conduct qualitative research with the main objective of assessing the effectiveness of safe food handling marketing messages and creatives on two of three current and new primary target audiencesÑpregnant women and parents or guardians of children 0 to 13 years old.
Specific research objectives included:
This report presents the findings of the research. It includes a high-level executive summary, the description of the detailed methodology used, the detailed findings of the focus group discussions, and considerations derived from the analysis of research findings. The working documents are appended to the report, including the recruitment screener (Appendix A), the moderator's guide (Appendix B), and a description of the materials tested (Appendix C).
There were three target audiences for this study, namely:
To assess the socio-economic status of participants, Statistics Canada's Low-Income Cut-Offs (LICO) thresholds were used to determine income thresholds based on the size of the household. The specific categories considered for the study are defined in the recruitment screener found in Appendix A.
The study included a total of 18 in-person focus groups, specifically one group with each of the three audiences, in each of six locations. The following provides a breakdown of groups based on location, date, language and audience:
| Location | Date (2020) |
Language | Parents/guardians of Children 0-13 Years Old Low SES |
Parents/guardians of Children 0-13 Years Old Average/High SES |
Pregnant Women | Total # of sessions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Toronto | Feb 3-4 | English | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 |
| Halifax | Feb 5-6 | English | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 |
| Winnipeg | Feb 10-11 | English | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 |
| Red Deer | Feb 12-13 | English | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 |
| Quebec City | Feb 17-18 | French | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 |
| Vancouver | Feb 18-19 | English | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 |
| TOTAL # SESSIONS: | 6 | 6 | 6 | 18 | ||
All participants were 18 years of age or older, and each parent/guardian group included a mix of gender. Specifically, they included adults whose child 13 years of age or younger live with them at least one third of the time. Where possible, recruitment for all audiences was conducted to include a mix of household situations. The recruitment also considered the market's cultural composition, with Indigenous people and non-Caucasians represented in focus groups where relevant.
All participants were recruited per the recruitment specifications for the Government of Canada. Recruitment was conducted through qualitative panels stored on Canadian servers, with follow up calls to confirm the details provided and to ensure quotas were met. Those with current or past employment in sensitive occupations were excluded from the research, in addition to those living in the household. These sectors included marketing, marketing research, public relations, advertising, media, medical sector, food manufacturing/food industry, government departments responsible for health or public health, and any organization involved in health promotion or advice on food safety, nutrition or healthy eating. Individuals who have been to at least three qualitative sessions in the past five years, those who have attended a session in the past six months, and those who have participated in group discussions on food safety, food preparation or nutrition were excluded from the research.
Group discussions were held in English with the exception of those in Quebec City which were conducted in French. Each session lasted approximately 2 hours with participants each receiving $100 in appreciation of their time. A total of 212 participants were recruited across all 18 groups (including 2 stand-by respondents per session). Across all groups, 157 participants attended the discussions, with an additional 13 participants incentivized as stand-by respondents who did not take part in the discussions.
Qualitative discussions are intended as moderator-directed, informal, non-threatening discussions with participants whose characteristics, habits and attitudes are considered relevant to the topic of discussion. The primary benefits of individual or group qualitative discussions are that they allow for in-depth probing with qualifying participants on behavioural habits, usage patterns, perceptions and attitudes related to the subject matter. This type of discussion allows for flexibility in exploring other areas that may be pertinent to the investigation. Qualitative research allows for more complete understanding of the segment in that the thoughts or feelings are expressed in the participants' "own language" and at their "own levels of passion." Qualitative techniques are used in marketing research as a means of developing insight and direction, rather than collecting quantitatively precise data or absolute measures. As such, results are directional only and cannot be projected to the overall population under study.
Prior to seeing any concepts, participants were asked if they recalled any advertisement that educate or inform, rather than those trying to sell something. Across locations, participants generally found it difficult to recall specific public education campaigns, though on reflection, remembered those with an emotional link, a fun or memorable character or tagline, or a stark warning or graphic imagery.
Although difficult for many to initially recall public education campaigns, recall was strongest for a few key types of advertisements:
Few participants recalled any campaigns specific to food safety or handling food safely, other than a few participants mentioning the Canada Food Guide as a form of public education campaign on food, and one participant having seen information about the safe preparation of chicken in a health clinic brochure, and one other, again in a health clinic, having seen advice on the "best 12 things to eat during pregnancy". One other mention was of a graphic ad that zoomed in on bacteria on hands and surfaces, urging people to wash their hands.
Participants recalled seeing these campaigns in different places, including posters, buses and bus shelters or other public transit (TTC, Skytrain), billboards, schools, social media (mainly Facebook), direct mail pieces, bathroom stalls, elevators, health clinics, doctors' offices, and television. That said, television appeared to be the most recalled media.
A number of different types of public education campaigns were identified as most likely to make participants think about their behaviour, which echo the types of campaigns mentioned above as having high recall. Specifically, campaigns that included consequences, shock, or fear were considered effective, along with situations that were relatable, or those that were emotional or unexpected. When prompted, few participants could name specific campaigns that caused them to change their behaviour, though key noted changes included:
To assess the understood meaning of selected terms related to food safety, participants were asked to provide examples of what each of a number of concepts entails, using their own words. The following sub-sections provide an overview of comments received for each of the six terms reviewed.
Participants associated a range of terms with the concept of "Food Safety", including washing hands, avoiding cross contamination, cleaning surfaces, refrigerating food, washing food, proper food storage in general, checking expiry dates, following guidelines for proper cooking of food, and checking the origin of food. Some thought of food safety courses and certifications. There were also some who mentioned being careful about allergies (e.g., avoiding serving peanuts or gluten when people with allergies are present).
"Thinking of where the food comes from, there's been a lot of safety recalls." - Winnipeg; Parent with average/high SES
"It's proper training, especially at restaurants, the knowledge of how to cook meat and wash food." - Red Deer; Pregnant woman
In Quebec City, the term "Salubrité alimentaire" consistently referred to the broader concept of food safety that applies across the food chain as defined above (including the physical environment where foods transition), while the term "Salubrité des aliments" referred to the safety of specific food items including the risks posed by specific foods (e.g., lettuce). In general, both terms were seen as having a different meaning, with no clear indication of which one is most commonly used.
While some felt this term was more applicable to a restaurant environment than a home cooking environment, many examples were easily recalled for this term, including wearing gloves, preparing food, using separate cutting boards for meat and vegetables, washing surfaces and hands, storing food safely and ensuring cross contamination is avoided.
"I think about restaurants, I wonder if they mixed their raw meats with their cooked meats" - Toronto; Parent with low SES
"Keeping things refrigerated, wearing hair nets, ensuring proper temperatures when cooking." - Red Deer; Pregnant woman
"It's more about where it is coming from and what's the process" - Toronto; Parent with low SES
Participants had more visceral reactions to this term, often initially recalling symptoms of food poisoning such as vomiting or diarrhea. In addition, the causes of food poisoning were often mentioned, such as bacteria, improperly cooked meat or cross contamination. Other comments included leaving food out too long, improper storage more generally, or eating something that wasn't safely prepared. A few participants immediately thought of restaurants and did not necessarily relate food poisoning to preparing food at home.
"It's from restaurants, always from restaurants" - Winnipeg; Parent with average/high SES
"It's puking from eating improperly-cooked food." - Vancouver; Parent with low SES
"Scary and awful!" - Red Deer; Pregnant woman
In Quebec City, the terms "Intoxication alimentaire" and "Empoisonnement alimentaire" were generally seen as referring to sensibly the same concept of being sick from ingesting foods. That said, the concept of "empoisonnement" was seen as having more serious consequences than that of "intoxication", often leading someone to need medical treatment or emergency care. In general, the term "Intoxication alimentaire" was considered as being slightly more commonly used and understood.
Nearly universally, this term brought to mind fruits and vegetables for participants, and it was clearly understood as a common umbrella term for fresh food items with shorter shelf life. Other mentions included pesticides, checking the country of origin, not trusting pre-washed produce from the grocery store, food recalls, healthy, fresh, organic, imported foods and E. coli outbreak.
"I think of having to wash it - fruits and vegs, making sure you clean it first!" - Red Deer; Parent with average/high SES
Although this expression was not familiar to participants, it was very well understood and had them thinking of correct food handling procedures to follow, such as not using the same utensils, that leftovers need to be stored properly, to remember to wash counters, and to separate meat and vegetables when cooking. For many, this term was felt to specifically refer to meat, fish and chicken. Most notably this expression referred to the steps involved in safe food handling or food/meal preparation in general.
"It's the steps you take to cook at home." - Toronto; Parent with average/high SES
"That's meal prep 101." - Red Deer; Pregnant woman
Participants regularly recalled meat and use of a meat thermometer when thinking of this term, in addition to food poisoning, not cooking food properly. Cutting into meat to check that it is cooked, that there is no pink or the juices are clear were also top-of-mind examples provided.
"C'est de bien faire cuire les aliments avant de les consommer." - Quebec City; Parent with low SES
"I see a meat thermometer, 180 degrees." - Vancouver; Parent with average/high SES
"It's different temperatures for different meats, I have a list at home." - Red Deer; Pregnant woman
Once all six expressions were discussed, participants were asked what people can do to prevent food poisoning or ensure safe food handling. Participants commonly referred to the following steps, with no clear differences between audiences:
"I think of having to wash it - fruits and vegs, making sure you clean it first!" - Red Deer; Parent with average/high SES
"Overall cleanliness of the area where you're cooking." - Toronto; Parent with low SES
In addition, across groups, participants noted the importance of knowledge and being informed in ensuring food poisoning is avoided.
"Be informed, keep up with scares, recalls, and be alert." - Toronto; Pregnant woman
"I watch for public announcements and recalls to avoid it." - Vancouver; Pregnant woman
Other less common mentions included:
Foods that are felt to be more likely to cause food poisoning include meat in general and chicken, pork or ground beef more specifically, as well as seafood, shellfish, sushi, tuna, eggs, dairy, mayonnaise, any type of raw foods, leafy greens, sprouts, and other unwashed vegetables. There were also specific mentions of ground meat in general, sausage, cold cuts, berries and grapes, as well as unpasteurized cheese (mentioned in pregnant groups predominantly).
"You don't hear [about] Salmonella on meat, it's always chicken." - Toronto; Parent with low SES
"Anything fresh!" - Vancouver; Parent with average/high SES
Participants were informed that over the years, there have been a number of public education campaigns by the Government of Canada to inform the public about food safety. They were reminded that this kind of public education has also been undertaken by other governments around the world and there are different approaches and tones that have been considered to communicate this information - humorous, factual or informative, showing consequences, and instilling fear, among others.
For the purposes of discussing the benefits and drawbacks of various approaches, participants were shown ten examples of concepts, educational videos or advertisements used by the Government of Canada and by various public-sector organizations in Canada and abroad. Three approaches were presented and discussed, with each approach including three different products. A tenth product was shown separately. Products included different formats (video, online banner, print) and length. Participants were asked to focus on the manner in which the information was presented (format, tone, approach) rather than the information itself, as the food safety advice from other jurisdictions included in the marketing materials may not be consistent with Canadian guidelines.
The review process during the focus group entailed showing all products within one approach, followed by participants writing their initial thoughts on paper prior to a group discussion. Each approach followed the same review pattern. A presentation schedule was designed to ensure that the presentation of concepts/advertisements and approaches were rotated across groups to minimize presentation biases. The presentation schedule is included in the discussion guide provided in Appendix B.
The following sections provide an analysis of participants' reactions for each approach.
This approach consisted of three videos referred to as, "Hero", "Summer", and "Nuggets" for the purpose of the discussion.
This approach elicited polarized views, with some, predominantly low SES parents, finding it to be inappropriate, though attention-grabbing, and others finding it to be smart, quirky, and attention-grabbing. It should be noted that some also had lukewarm reactions to the approach as a whole. Some participants felt that due to food poisoning not being top-of-mind or an overly serious issue, that this type of attention-grabbing approach would be much more likely to catch their attention and break through to them. Others felt that food safety is an important issue and making light of it is inappropriate.
Those who felt the approach resonated generally indicated that because they were already familiar with how to handle food safely, that it would only be a funny or arresting approach that could break through and cause them to pay attention.
"It grabs you with its 'stupidness'… but it's effective." - Winnipeg; Parent with average/high SES
"It's what I want to see - it stands out. It gets you thinking and has some good points and reminders." - Vancouver; Pregnant woman
"This is stupid, I feel like they could have done a humorous approach in a better way. I didn't focus on the message, it all felt stupid" - Toronto; Parent with average/high SES
This approach was described as presenting safe food handling in a humorous way. Broadly speaking across all three concepts, the tone was seen as odd, eccentric, funny, comic-style, exaggerated, and trendy. Some participants also used words such as over the top, sarcastic, pop culture, odd, cheesy, satire, comedy, or silly to describe the approach. Again, this had a polarizing effect with many participants not finding it to be effective, while others felt that it was a surprising and attention-grabbing way of getting their attention.
"It's flippant, the pink chicken suit is slapstick comedy. They're just goofing off." - Vancouver; Parent with low SES
"It's a good tone - they took a serious thing and made it funny. It's not always good to scare people." - Red Deer; Pregnant woman
While this light tone was considered to effectively grab attention, it lacked credibility for many. This was particularly the case of "Nuggets" and "Summer" which used humour that was considered less universal or mainstream (quirkier). For both concepts, the humour was considered at times as overshadowing the message itself. Using off-beat humour was also seen as lacking credibility and was felt to be more entertaining than practical, with the balance of advice versus entertainment being off (not enough advice). It should be noted that the "Nuggets" concept was originally developed for a young male target audience, which may in part explain the lack of appeal among the current research's broader audience.
"They tried to talk about a serious matter in a funny way but it has the opposite effect. I am bothered by it." - Vancouver; Parent with low SES
"The humour takes away from the seriousness of the situation. It gets your attention, but that is it." - Halifax; Pregnant woman
Some felt that because the consequences of unsafe cooking were not specified, there were fewer reasons to take the messages seriously. That said, across the three concepts, "Hero" was felt to offer much more specific advice, and was felt to be a strong example of how a serious message can be conveyed while still offering a more entertaining approach with credibility. The final summary comic strip in this concept was appreciated by many for reiterating the key points related to cooking chicken properly.
"I felt like there was an underlying tone of seriousness. Especially with 'Hero', where you need to keep your family safe. Here's this family, they are about to enjoy chicken, but hold on, here's all the things you can do to […] be safe. It made me think about the risks of food poisoning, and that was more relevant to me." - Winnipeg; Parent with average/high SES
"I couldn't take it seriously! It's not a joking matter!" - Toronto; Pregnant woman
"I liked the comic at the end - it summed things up really well." - Red Deer; Parent with average/high SES
Many participants were of the impression that this type of approach would be best suited to a younger audience (teenagers), as it lacked depth of content and relatable situations to make it personally relevant to them. That said, the inclusion of a familiar setting (kitchen) and situation (family cooking together) in the "Hero" concept was widely appreciated and felt to have a broader level of appeal across the three audiences.
"It was dealing with a relatively serious concept with that element of humor in it, it's probably something the kids will stop to look at." - Toronto; Parent with low SES
"It's millennial or younger, it's appealing to them because it's funny." - Winnipeg; Parent with average/high SES
"I think it's good for kids. The superhero is going to grab kids. Most adults should already know about washing hands, so this is more directed towards kids." - Winnipeg; Parent with average/high SES
"I like that there is a family working together with younger kids being knowledgeable. It appeals to younger generations too with its comic book style." - Red Deer; Parent with low SES
Despite the concepts lacking personal relevance, many participants felt that inclusion of young people in an approach was an extremely important component both to catch attention as well as to incite action. This was considered most important as parents stated that they are very likely to take action if something has an effect on their children.
While humour was considered as helping to make the concepts memorable, in some instances ("Summer" and "Nuggets"), the message was not remembered. This was not the case for "Hero" however, where the step-by-step nature of the concept held much more impact. The narrator also explaining what behaviours are to be avoided and which ones are preferable also helped convey the message while making it memorable. That said, for some "Hero" was considered too long and therefore the specific messages were lost. It was felt that "Hero" could be shortened, or broken up into multiple elements.
"Hero would be best shown at the movie theatre, like before the movie starts. Where they have to sit there and watch seven minutes of an ad." - Winnipeg; Parent with average/high SES
"The last one [Nuggets], what was it about? Why does a nugget have googly eyes? Afterward it gives a website… well I'm not going to go to that." - Winnipeg; Parent with average/high SES
Of the three concepts reviewed, "Hero" was the only one that was felt to have the potential to make participants seriously reconsider their food handling behaviours, and adopt safer practices where needed. Again, the step-by-step process of cooking chicken, with specific advice was praised. For some, the advice was surprising, or different than their typical practices, which caused them to think that they would reconsider their actions (for example, not washing chicken in the sink). That said, others felt that the "Summer" concept caused them to be reminded of the need to avoid 'pink chicken' and ensure chicken is cooked to 74 degrees. By contrast, participants nearly universally felt that "Nuggets" did not offer any practical advice and therefore could not understand what action they would take after seeing it.
"[Referring to Nuggets] Go check the website, but for what? Cooking recipes?" - Halifax; Parent with low SES
"Next time I am barbequing I'd remember to check for pink chicken!" - Toronto; Parent with average/high SES
"In 'Hero' I saw something I do - washing chicken - I could see myself. I learned something new." - Toronto; Parent with low SES
Of the three concepts, the "Hero" version was considered most relatable, (showing familiar situation and setting) although it did not have as strong an encouragement to change behaviours as some of the concepts in other approaches. This concept was, however, seen as informative, lively, and visually pleasing, albeit too lengthy. Across several locations, a few participants, more commonly in the pregnant women groups and average/high SES groups, noted a slightly patronizing tone in "Hero", in that the advice was already commonplace, and that the father was the one who was unaware of common safety practices when cooking chicken. In Quebec City, there was a concern among very few participants with showing a man as being ill informed about food safety, and as such implying to some extent that men are less experienced or knowledgeable than women on the topic.
"It is lighthearted and fun, but also very practical in giving advice." - Vancouver; Pregnant woman
"I'd actually watch it because it's not going to traumatize me. I want information, not to be forced to do something." - Vancouver; Parent with average/high SES
The "Summer" concept was felt to lack depth of food safety information and the offbeat creative overshadowed the advice for many. In fact, participants were left with the impression that the message is not to eat pink chicken, something they already know. There was also a sense that the message is introduced too late into the video, thus posing a risk that someone would lose interest in watching before the message is specified. That said, others felt that this technique built up suspense or their sense of curiosity, wanting to watch further in order to find out what was happening. It should be mentioned that a few participants were under the impression that the liquid thrown on people was either eggs or raw chicken "juice", something they felt was unsanitary, even an act of violence. Those who believed that the liquid was water were puzzled as to the meaning of throwing water at people.
"Pourquoi ils lancent de l'eau aux gens? Je ne comprend pas." - Quebec City; Parent with low SES
"Even I would not eat pink chicken! I would like to see something that shows the proper amount of danger." - Halifax; Parent with low SES
The "Nuggets" concept was least preferred. It was deemed unmemorable and lacking a clear message and call to action. The concept of chicken nuggets with "eyes" and looking at a frowning man left many puzzled as to what message was being communicated, and that the message was clarified too late into the concept. Further, many felt that it resembled an advertisement for chicken nuggets. It was felt that the concept failed to sustain attention due in part to a lack of narration and a quick tempo.
"The Nuggets didn't even have a message for me." - Toronto; Parent with low SES
"The Nuggets one looks like a McDonald's ad." - Toronto; Parent with low SES
"[The guy and the nuggets] are they going to have a fight, or what?" - Halifax; Parent with low SES
In Toronto, both the "Hero" and "Nuggets" concepts were felt by a few participants to have a racist tone. In particular, there were sensitivities around advice against washing chicken, as this was common practice in certain Caribbean communities. The "Nuggets" concept was felt by a few to be racist as well - conveying a lack of trust towards an Asian man.
This approach consisted of two videos referred to as "Cooking" and "Interview" for the purpose of the discussion, and one static print piece labelled "Statistics".
This approach was described as informative and factual, presenting relevant information about safe food handling. Other words used to describe this approach included educational, literal, boring, instructional, awareness-raising, and casual. Some felt that the information included in each concept was detailed and as such, the focus was considered to be on educating the public on safe food handling practices and the risk of food poisoning for improper handling. To a certain extent though, it was felt that the information is conveyed in a serious or boring tone, that would not achieve sustained interest.
The tone was described as simple, informational and factual, focusing on food preparation, cleanliness, and proper food cooking temperature. The approach was considered neutral, not eliciting positive or negative emotions. In general, this was believed to have the proper balance between seriousness and lightness to elicit trust in the information being shared. The "step-by-step" approach of "Cooking" in particular gave the impression that the advice given was based on facts rather than opinions. Further, the fact that the "Cooking" concept showed common practices that were not enough to ensure safety (i.e., visual account of cooked chicken) was felt to offer a sense of credibility and drive to action. Inclusion of the Canadian government further engendered a sense of trust and credibility.
"It showed you the practical step-by-step process of getting it right." - Toronto; Pregnant woman
"In 'Cooking' it shows you specific advice, and contrary information that is surprising. I'd pay attention to that advice." - Red Deer; Parent with low SES
The credibility of the "Interview" concept was questioned by some, as it was unclear if the commentary represented personal opinions or proper food handling advice. Hesitations in people being interviewed when providing some of the responses and a lack of clarity in who was speaking at times (i.e.,, off camera) contributed to this impression. As such, it was mentioned that it is difficult to clearly identify opinions from factual information.
"Who are they? It doesn't seem factual. It's important to have a source." - Red Deer; Pregnant woman
"It's too much like casual friends chatting. Not as impactful because it just seems like they're having fun." - Vancouver; Parent with low SES
While the "Statistics" concept was credible to participants across groups, the large amount of information and lack of dynamism in how the information was presented caused many participants to lose interest and not pay attention.
"I believe it, I'm just not going to bother reading it. I'd never look at it unless I was sitting somewhere like at a doctor's office." - Vancouver; Parent with low SES
The approach was seen as directed at the general public, including adults, as it shows day-to-day settings and presents the information in a serious manner.
"It's definitely for me, especially 'Cooking'. It's relatable, a normal kitchen." - Vancouver; Parent with average/high SES
The approach felt relatable because it was realistic and simple to understand, yet for some the concepts weren't seen as memorable because there was too much information being conveyed. "Interview" showing realistic conversations and the 'people on the street' was felt to be relatable and appealing to some, though as mentioned, others felt that this aspect was less appealing to them, as well as less relevant, as they weren't sure if the opinions of people on the street were credible.
"I like that it showed real people, that was good." - Toronto; Parent with low SES
"[Interview] It wouldn't change my mind - they are just people's opinions." - Red Deer; Pregnant woman
"This is for everyone, except 'Statistics'. That's over my head." - Vancouver; Pregnant woman
Due to the more neutral tone of the concepts, they were generally less memorable to participants. The length of "Interview" was also considered problematic for recall of its message. While some of the information was interesting or useful to participants, it was felt that there was too much information to understand the main message. Similarly, the "Statistics" concept was polarizing in its appeal and memorability. For some, the surprising statistics (such as the fact that foodborne illness is more prominent in the summer) was intriguing. For others, there was too much information, and presented in a way that was not memorable. Some felt as though the "Cooking" concept reminded them of a tutorial video they see on social media (Buzzfeed-type or akin to Tasty videos) and as such would not pay attention. For others, this similarity was a clear attraction and reason to watch the video. Indeed, those who were interested in those kinds of quick tutorial cooking videos felt that this approach would grab their interest and make the concept memorable.
"[Statistics] It's boring. Too detailed. It's appropriate maybe but not attention grabbing." - Toronto; Parent with low SES
With "Cooking" particularly, the step-by-step process shown, combined with new or surprising facts (the correct temperature for chicken to be cooked, tested with a meat thermometer, or the fact that cutting into chicken may not offer conclusive proof that the chicken is cooked) were attention-grabbing and would incite a change in behaviour. Many participants felt that seeing the chicken breast that looked cooked from a visual look of the inside but realizing that it had not reached the proper internal cooking temperature was an eye opener that challenged their current behaviours/beliefs. Being shown this information on the screen rather than simply being told gave the information more weight.
"I am going to go and buy a digital thermometer!" - Red Deer; Parent with average/high SES
Both "Interview" and "Statistics" were felt to lack a sense of urgency or clear call to action. They were both seen more as a means to expand on knowledge rather than an invitation to take action. That said, the conversational tone of "Interview" combined with graphics and specific advice on food handling was effective for some in providing tips they would consider themselves when preparing food.
As noted, the "Interview" concept elicited mixed reactions. Some liked the way it presented safe food handling in an approachable manner - laypeople terms used to describe concepts - and in an informal, conversational approach. For some, using real people added to the message's credibility, as it was felt to provide an unbiased view of the topic, while for others this concept lacked credibility as participants questioned whether the responses of those interviewed represented sound advice or simply their personal opinions. The concept was also considered too lengthy to sustain attention and providing too much information for the message to be memorable. Some felt that the approach represented a true vox pop situation featuring ordinary people, while others were under the impression that the individuals were actors.
"In the first one, it's just some person's opinion, the average Joe." - Toronto; Parent with average/high SES
"There is no credibility in the interviews, so if you could incorporate more legitimate sources" - Toronto; Parent with average/high SES
Again as noted, the "Statistics" concept elicited mixed reactions. Some liked that it provided plenty of sound information and advice to inform their decisions, although many felt that they would not pay attention to it initially as the design is too crowded and overwhelming. In fact, it was often seen as a good reference tool for those interested in the topic, rather than an effective approach to raising awareness of safe food handling. It was felt to be a good communication tool to post in public places where people have to wait (e.g., doctors' offices) or to have available online for downloading.
"I don't think I would take the time to sit and read a poster that detailed." - Toronto; Parent with low SES
"The last one has a lot of information; I'm not going to read all of it." - Toronto; Parent with average/high SES
"I would find the stats more useful, and I would be able to learn something I wasn't aware of" - Toronto; Parent with average/high SES
The "Cooking" concept was considered the best of the three concepts within the approach, for the simplicity of advice provided (simple and pointed), and the ease of application. It was sometimes described as a "step-by-step" approach to educating about safe food handling. This concept presented a lot of information in a simple manner and was considered a good reminder of the steps involved in cooking chicken safely. Again, the "myth busting" of this concept was appreciated by many, who felt that they would want to purchase a meat thermometer. The approach was described as concise, simple to understand, and light-toned. Many also appreciated that it shows what not to do as well as what are the desirable behaviours. Some, however, suggested to incorporate narration to grab attention and strengthen the concept's memorability.
"I feel like I would like to know the statistics rather than go into the cooking style, it puts things more into perspective." - Toronto; Parent with average/high SES
"I really like 'Cooking' - it dispels common myths. It's surprising, and easy to follow advice." - Vancouver; Pregnant woman
"I love watching the food network so the 'Cooking' one is more relevant to me." - Toronto; Parent with average/high SES
This approach consisted of two videos referred to as "Orange" and "Blue" for the purpose of the discussion, and one static print piece labelled "Emergency".
This approach was often described as focusing on the dangers, risks and consequences of food handling behaviours considered unsafe, and the illness potential that results from it. Words used to describe this approach included warning, eye-opener, safety, consequences, serious, straightforward, direct, to-the-point, risk, scare, and cautionary. This approach generally resonated with participants, primarily as it addressed consequences of unsafe food handling. Participants noted that showing the consequences in this approach was highly effective at making them think about the effects resulting from their own behaviour.
Regardless of the concepts, the tone of this approach was described as serious, ominous, grave, cold, scary, dramatic, fear-based and overall focusing on warning the public about the possible dangers or consequences of unsafe food handling. This tone was considered appropriate to speak of food safety and safe food handling, as this is considered a serious topic. Seeing evidence of contamination in the "Blue" concept gave a sense of credibility to the message.
"It's a good example of how fear can work. It's informative too." - Vancouver; Pregnant woman
"Il faut faire peur pour faire réagir." - Quebec City; Parent with average/high SES
That said, some, particularly pregnant women, felt that the dramatic tone of "Blue" was over-the-top and not appropriate to incite action. Some participants questioned the seriousness of food poisoning, not believing that it could result in a hospital visit, and therefore "Emergency" did not seem plausible.
The "Blue" concept was considered most relevant to the audiences, as it shows a familiar setting (kitchen) and situation (meal preparation), as well as an emotional appeal of the consequence of cross contamination affecting a child. Participants recognized that they could be distracted in the kitchen, particularly by other family members, and they could inadvertently have cross-contaminated their surroundings even when aware that it could happen. Making the invisible visible was deemed to be highly effective at showing possible consequences despite the appearance of safe food handling.
"'Blue' is pretty realistic. It shows how quickly she can contaminate her whole kitchen unintentionally and she's completely unaware of it." - Winnipeg; Parent with average/high SES
That said, some felt that it was not relevant to them as the advice was already well-known. Further, there were some, again, primarily pregnant women, who felt that the advice was unrealistic and that the scenarios portrayed were overly naïve (particularly that the woman did not wash her hands after handling raw chicken).
"[Blue] is believable, but also points out how naïve someone can be." - Vancouver; Pregnant woman
While the consequences of improper food handling were felt to be implied in this approach, some felt that the concepts did not go far enough in terms of showing what could happen if advice is not followed. That said, many thought that the implied consequences were strong enough to have impact.
"It's not serious enough because it doesn't actually say what could happen. The intent seems like it's for everyone, but because I know this information already, it's more just like a reminder of doing things right." - Vancouver; Pregnant woman
Of the three concepts in this grouping, the "Blue" version was consistently identified as being most memorable. The mundane situation depicted in the concept - namely that of an average mother rushing to prepare a meal for her family in an average home kitchen -helped make the ad relatable and suggested that the risks of unsafe food handling is more common than one might think, and that actions could have an impact on other members in a family.
"You know germs are spreading, but you just don't know how much." - Halifax; Pregnant woman
"It's the shock value - you think you're doing it right but the you pass it over to the little one." - Toronto; Parent with low SES
The "Orange" concept was felt to be memorable for a smaller number of participants, who felt that the fast pace and informative, succinct message was effective at getting them to think about using a meat thermometer when cooking.
By contrast, due to a lack of understanding of the link between the imagery and what the message was in "Emergency", few felt that this concept would stick with them or cause them to change their behaviour.
Across all three concepts, the "Blue" concept elicited the most reaction and was felt by most as grabbing attention and leading to change. It was believed that making the invisible visible helped with the realization that small gestures are important in ensuring safe food handling. Apart from being impactful, this concept was seen as realistic and the message easy to understand. In watching the video, many were reminded of small gestures that appear innocuous when preparing meals (e.g., tucking hair behind ears) but that could have serious consequences on cross-contamination. As such, it made them realize of the importance of being alert about their action when preparing foods, notably when handling raw chicken.
"Blue - I'm always touching everything! It makes you evaluate your cooking." - Vancouver; Parent with average/high SES
In addition, some felt that the short, snappy message to use a thermometer in "Orange" would cause them to purchase or use a thermometer when cooking.
"Orange - it makes you stop and think because it's contrary to my current behaviour." - Red Deer; Parent with low SES
The "Blue" concept showed the hidden risks by making the invisible visible, thus encouraging participants to be on their guard even if there is no visible risk. This captured the imagination of participants and made them reconsider how they handle food. Seeing how the raw chicken juices spread so quickly and end up on food that is consumed by the little girl, or on the face of the women, elicited feelings of disgust that contributed to sustaining the attention of viewers. Not only did this concept show how contamination happens, but also how much and how quickly it can affect surroundings. That said, some felt that the approach was naïve and overdone, with the woman in the concept making simple mistakes (touching chicken directly and not washing hands) that are unrealistic and therefore not credible. A few parents felt that this concept was not effective as it felt judgmental against parents' actions.
"I really like the 'Blue', it was the sheer shock value - you think you've done it right and you're in a rush and before you know it the germs transfer to the kid." - Toronto; Parent with low SES
"The 'Blue' one puts into perspective other people that might be affected by the spreading of bacteria, so you should watch out for everybody else." - Toronto; Parent with average/high SES
"On voit à quel point un petit geste peut avoir de grandes conséquences." - Quebec City; Parent with average/high SES
"It's making the invisible visible; it's making it real; it's not just a concept anymore." - Halifax; Parent with low SES
The "Emergency" concept often elicited confusion, as the intent of the message was unclear. The image failed to communicate a broad food safety message besides that of washing your cart's handle prior to grocery shopping to avoid contamination. At the same time, the text did not specify what steps helps reduce the risks of food poisoning, nor was it considered effectively at communicating the severity of consequences from food poisoning. The concept also lacked visual appeal and interest, and to some, it looked unnatural or "cheap" (photoshopped).
"You should think about food safety even when you are shopping for food? How?" - Halifax; Parent with low SES
"Emergency doesn't spell out anything. What's the link between buying and the hospital? It's not clear what it means at all." - Toronto; Pregnant woman
The "Orange" concept failed to effectively grab attention for some, as it lacked visual interest and the tempo was too quick to elicit lasting impressions, though for others the simple and straightforward message of advice to use a meat thermometer was well conveyed. For others, however, the "Orange" concept was generally unmemorable and lacking impact, particularly as there was a lack of an answer to the concept's initial question (which chicken is cooked?) and participants wanted to see a surprising or clear reveal. Further, the tempo was too quick for some participants to grasp or remember the message and the sounds took away from the written words on the screen or the overall message. A few also felt that this concept was too light-hearted to match the mood of the other two concepts within this grouping.
After reviewing the nine creative concepts across the three approaches, participants were asked to consider all of the ideas together. Of the nine concepts, a few were consistently considered as being most memorable:
"Blue is relatable. That's how cooking in your kitchen looks. You could easily see it happening accidentally." - Winnipeg; Parent with average/high SES
"Just because it looks cooked doesn't mean it is" - Toronto; Parent with average/high SES
To a lesser extent, a few participants felt that other concepts would be remembered for some of the creative elements or overall approach, despite mixed feelings regarding their effectiveness at communicating the message. These concepts included "Orange", "Interview", and "Summer".
"I remember Orange. It asked a question. Showed me the answer. It was quick. Boom." - Winnipeg; Parent with average/high SES
Of the nine concepts reviewed, some left little impression on participants across groups, including the following:
It should be noted that participants were generally not interested in following-up online for additional information on safe food handling, thus suggesting that the message be self-contained in each marketing material piece.
When asked if there were any other approaches or tones that would be best suited to increase awareness of safe food handling, participants provided a number of suggestions. In general, participants noted that the concepts seen during the session could go one step further in showing the consequences of improper food handling. For example, showing a sick child, or someone hospitalized, or some other representation of the seriousness of the issue. Indeed, participants did not necessarily believe that improper food safety behaviours could result in something other than just feeling sick, and were at times surprised to learn that hospital visits could be one of the more serious outcomes. Even those who knew felt that it would be important to be reminded of that fact. Furthermore, showing how these consequences could affect their life because of food poisoning, for example missing an important moment such as a school performance, was felt to resonate with parents. Another approach would be to use sadness, or pulling at heartstrings, showing a very sick child for example.
"Sabotaging really important life events? That would be memorable." - Winnipeg; Parent with average/high SES
"Unless I know the consequences of something, it won't stick with me." - Toronto; Parent with average/high SES
"Keep the consequences realistic. Escalating it could mean it's taken less seriously." - Winnipeg; Pregnant woman
Some participants felt that the seriousness could be displayed in a humorous way, for example showing someone sick and unable to leave the bathroom. In a few instances, a testimonial of someone who has suffered from food poisoning (either themselves or a loved one) was considered an interesting approach to explore, especially if the person is well known (such as a celebrity chef, for example).
In some instances, participants mentioned that their behaviour is often influenced by what their children learn in school, and thus they felt that incorporating food safety and safe food handling into the curriculum would have an impact on the entire family.
"It would be better to discuss it, make people aware by incorporating it into school curriculums." - Toronto; Parent with low SES
It was noted that regardless of the approach or tone, it is important to identify the message early on in a video, as a means to sustain interest.
Participants were reminded that food safety and safe food handling are particularly important for vulnerable audiences, such as pregnant women, young children, people with weakened immune systems or seniors. To that end, the Government of Canada has developed and used targeted communications to reach those audiences in the past. A previous campaign was presented and briefly discussed during the focus groups for each audience. The following sections provide an overview of reactions for each campaign shown to the target audience.
This concept was generally well received by pregnant women, and the presence of the image of a pregnant woman attracted attention and caused the audience to notice and feel the ad was directed at them. Overall, the campaign was considered relevant, engaging, and credible. It was mentioned that the Government of Canada endorsement lended credibility to the message.
The tone was described as being informative and serious, without being dramatic. A few participants, however, felt that the concept was not shocking enough to capture their attention. This was especially true of women who had already been pregnant before, and who felt that they already know basic food safety practices relevant to their condition. On that note, a few women in their first pregnancy mentioned the importance of including simple information, as not everyone is aware of what foods may pose a risk to their unborn baby.
"I didn't really know food poisoning was bad for the baby. I'm sure there are other women who might not know that either." - Winnipeg; Pregnant Woman
Many pregnant women across locations focused on the images of foods shown, and intuitively tried to assess whether they were eating those foods or not. These images also made some wonder what other foods might present a risk. This helped focus their attention on the message and kept them engaged to looking at the banner until the end.
"There isn't enough information on its own, but it made me want to review what I'm eating." - Toronto; Pregnant Woman
The words highlighted in yellow were also considered well chosen and an important design element to highlight the key message, namely that food poisoning is harmful, as well as eliciting a sense of urgency. To improve the concept, it was suggested to label the foods to indicate where the risk exist (e.g., soft cheeses rather than crackers or hard cheese, salmon, as this image was confusing for some).
"The pregnant image, that catches your attention in itself, just a picture, no face to it, the bold lettering catches your attention." - Winnipeg; Pregnant Woman
It was also suggested to identify the possible health consequences of food poisoning on unborn babies directly on the web banner, so as to further grab attention. It was also mentioned that showing statistics would enhance credibility (such as "did you know?" or showing the incidence of serious issues during pregnancy caused by food poisoning).
This web banner was felt to be strong and effective for some parents, though for others it did not stand out and to some extent caused confusion. The realisation that food poisoning could be much more serious was an important point for some, although many others were unsure of how food poisoning could have such dire consequences.
"I like that it used a question. You may think one way… but actually it's another way." - Winnipeg; Parent with average/high SES
"A lot of people think of food poisoning as you in the washroom, but you never think it can actually get that serious." - Toronto; Parents with average/high SES
"What could keep them [children] in the hospital for so long? How is that possible?" - Halifax; Parent with low SES
"Tell me something new; tell me what to do." - Halifax; Parent with average/high SES
There were some polarized views expressed on this approach. Some described the creative approach as bland and unattractive, with nothing standing out. Others felt that it was too much of a scare tactic or exaggeration.
"I don't like it - it's too much fear. I'm already a panicky parent." - Vancouver; Parent with average / high SES
The tone was considered realistic, serious and direct, though the visuals, text and message did not stand out as much as they could to grab attention. In particular, it was unclear to many that the first image illustrated a residential bathroom, as it gave the impression of an institutional bathroom. Given that parents considered they would pay more attention to a web banner that included a photo of a child, some suggested that a child (or child's legs) be included in the photo of the bathroom, and that the second banner more clearly show that the child was in hospital.
"L'image ne me dit pas que c'est pour les enfants. Que ça parle des enfants." - Quebec City; Parent with low SES
In a few instances, particularly among the parents or guardians with low SES, it was mentioned that the banner would not grab their attention because there was too much to read.
"Il faut trop travailler pour avoir le peu d'information. Pour connaitre le message." - Quebec City; Parent with low SES
For some, the web banner also lacked proper explanation of what could keep a child in hospital, for how long, and what consequences there might be. That said, the emotional impact for many parents that food poisoning could seriously harm a child made this concept effective for many, across audiences. Having said that, some parents would have liked to see more specific information about food poisoning, consequences, symptoms, or advice included on the web banner, rather than being directed to click for more information.
"Je pense que je fais déjà ce qu'il faut [pour protéger mon enfant]. Il n'y a rien de nouveau ici." - Quebec City; Parent with average/high SES
A few parents felt that the tone implies that parents are irresponsible (use of "you"), thus suggesting that it is a parent's fault if a child suffers from food poisoning, without offering advice on how to avoid a dire consequence. Nonetheless, the inclusion of a question compelled some parents to read the information.
"It really works for parents because it talks about keeping YOUR child safe." - Vancouver; Parent with low SES
"I don't want to feel guilty for something I haven't done. It says you're doing something wrong, it shames you. But it's not helpful because there is no specific advice." - Vancouver; Parent with average / high SES
Participants were asked where should Government of Canada advertisements on food safety be found to ensure that they come across them. A number of locations and mediums were identified including schools, hospitals, the internet and social media including Facebook, Instagram and YouTube and general online ads, public washrooms (particularly restaurants - such as on the back of stall doors), grocery stores, free dailies, billboards, buses and bus shelters / other transit, offices and waiting areas, and daycares. In Quebec, some also felt that the placement of ads on television or online was important, and they suggested that be shown on cooking or food-related channels or shows (e.g., the television show l'Épicerie on Radio-Canada; YouTube recipes; grocery stores website). Across locations, pregnant women also suggested to have the information available at maternity shows, in doctor's waiting room, and on maternity apps (e.g., What to Expect; Count Down; Bump).
Participants offered additional comments at the conclusion of the sessions. Below is a summary of themes that emerged by audience and location:
There were mixed opinions regarding the best approach to speak of food safety, with the preferred tone varying from humorous to more serious. Showing how bacteria is transmitted, and the consequences of unsafe food handling were common suggestions. Short, informative videos were also preferred. The following provides a more detailed account of recommendations among parents/guardians with low SES, for each location:
"Seeing things that are usually hidden was eye opening."
"I think they should use a combination of the visuals as well as the possible end results of the hospital."
"L'aspect comique au début va captiver l'attention et une fois après, on pourra passer le message détaillé avec un peu de dramatique montrant les conséquences."
Overall, parents/guardians with average/high SES were highly interested in seeing the consequences of unsafe food handling, and to some extent, an approach that instilled some level of fear. Food safety was considered a serious topic that should be communicated using a serious tone. A realistic, simple, and straight forward approach held appeal. The "Blue" concept was commonly cited as a good example of how the message should be presented. Only a few in this audience recommended using a lighted tone. The following provides a more detailed account of suggestions for each location:
"Humor is always my favorite but seeing the consequences, especially when it's about my kids hits home more and makes me want to make sure I'm doing things right."
"I think a combination of fear and education would be most effective in terms of bringing attention to the matter and positively impacting behaviour."
"I think a simple story of what happens regularly in homes is both relatable and informative while being easy to follow."
"L'image des germes de la publicité bleu a un impact visuel qui m'a marqué."
Information sharing was often cited by pregnant women as a good way to enhance awareness of food safety. Step-by-step tutorials, facts or statistics about the situation, and practical information about safe food handling were all suggested approaches that held appeal. In terms of tone, some felt that a more serious tone would lend credibility to the message, while others felt that humour should be used to grab attention. The following provides a more detailed account of suggestions provided in each location:
"This would work best as they're more memorable, relatable and once they've got my attention, I retain these better than the humorous ones."
"I feel it's most compelling when you can see yourself in that situation."
"Instill fear and be informative in order to show why food safety is so important."
"I want to know I can trust the information."
"Having solid info but presented in a comedic way. It helps people remember the information and keeps them engaged with the content."
The following provides broad conclusions and initial recommendations stemming from the analysis of research findings.
There is generally a good understanding of safe food handling terms and practices, suggesting that public education campaigns need to go beyond the basics.
The quick review of food safety terms, such as Food Safety (Salubrité alimentaire/Salubrité des aliments), Safe Food Handling (Manipulation sécuritaire des aliments), Food Poisoning (Intoxication alimentaire/Empoisonnement alimentaire), Produce (noun), Clean, Separate, Cook and Chill (Nettoyer, séparer, cuire et réfrigérer), and Safe Internal Cooking Temperature (Températures sécuritaires de cuisson interne) reveal that there is generally a good understanding of the basic meaning of these expressions. Among French-speaking participants in Quebec City, the term "salubrité des aliments" seemed to be more commonly used than "salubrité alimentaire" in the context of particular foods, while "intoxication alimentaire" appeared a slightly more appropriate term to speak of food poisoning than "empoisonnement alimentaire". In general, "empoisonnement alimentaire" was considered to describe a much more serious condition than "intoxication alimentaire".
Further, basic safe food handling procedures, such as washing hands or work surfaces and avoiding cross contamination, for example, were well known across audiences, and safe food handling appears to be deemed an important component of food preparation. There also appears to be a fairly widespread awareness of the types of foods that offer more risks of food poisoning. These findings, combined with reactions to the concepts tested, suggest that more in-depth or specific safe food handling advice needs to be included in public education campaigns, beyond just the basics to capture the public's attention and motivate action. For example, given that participants are generally aware that they need to cook meat at right internal temperature, the more effective concepts were the ones that actually showed that common means of assessing whether meat is cooked or not may not be sufficient. Another example, given that participants are aware of the need to wash hands, may be to demonstrate for how long hands need to be washed or to show the consequence of forgetting to wash in between kitchen activities.
New or lesser-known advice and those that challenge current beliefs are most likely to catch attention and motivate change.
Many already feel they know how to avoid food poisoning and practice safe food handling (across SES). Indeed, washing hands prior to handling chicken and cooking chicken to a safe internal temperature were well-known steps and thus when they are the focus of the message in public education material, it was often overlooked. Across all concepts tested, those that challenged beliefs were often considered most memorable and most effective. This included the "Blue" concept which showed how a lack of attention can result in dire consequences (being rushed to prepare supper and not paying close attention to safe handling of raw chicken can result in spreading germs and ultimately affecting a child), as well as the "Cooking" concept which demonstrated that relying on the look of cooked chicken and its juices may be a misleading indicator of safe internal temperature.
Therefore, in order to capture attention, something needs to surprise these audiences or have an emotional draw. This attention can be attained through "myth busting" - that is, showing common practices that are unsafe, or surprising facts (how serious it can be, how many people are affected or by showing how easily bacteria can travel and affect others). Indeed, to capture attention and interest, the message must introduce the thought that there is more to food safety than what is commonly known. Informing people about something new was one of the most memorable parts of the concepts tested. Another method of capturing attention could be including an emotional link (such as the effect of food poisoning on a family member or child). Another effective emotional link that could motivate action could be a focus on the potential risks or consequences of unsafe food handling, as well the identification of the desired behaviours.
A serious tone is considered most broadly appropriate to speak of safe food handling, and will likely help steer attention to the message for the largest audience.
The concepts presented during the sessions represented various tones, although results showed that a serious tone was considered most appropriate to speak of safe food handling. By contrast, humour, while catching attention, was generally felt to overpower the message. Indeed, participants focused so much attention on trying to understand the humour in concepts such as "Summer" and "Nuggets" that they failed to remember the message. The humour in "Hero" was considered more balanced, which helped draw attention to the concept.
The source of the information more so than the tone of the concepts appeared to influence the message's credibility.
Across concepts, information that appeared to be provided by an official, or institutional, source of information was considered credible, regardless of the tone of the concepts. Indeed, despite the quirky and off-beat tone of some of the approaches (including "Nuggets", "Summer", and "Orange", among others), no one questioned the message's credibility. By contrast, participants were skeptical of the advice provided in the "Interview" concept, often questioning whether advice provided represented the opinions of individuals from the general public or expert advice. At the same time, the "Statistics" concept elicited trust given that the sources of information were mentioned.
It is imperative to keep messages and advice simple, and one effective way to do this was shown to be through step-by-step demonstration of the desired behaviour.
Some of the concepts featured one or two specific pieces of safe food handling advice, while others, such as "Cooking" or "Hero" clearly presented the steps to safe preparation and cooking of chicken. These concepts generally elicited the greatest interest and were considered most memorable. At the same time, these concepts remained simple and focused. By contrast, concepts like "Interview" and "Statistics" proved problematic in presenting too much information. Overall, providing practical, clear, simple and specific advice is considered effective, while debunking myths or addressing behaviours that are not endorsed. It should be noted that the simplicity of a concept also includes the communication of a limited number of pieces of advice in any given concept.
To ensure that the message is relevant and that the target audience feels engaged, the setting and situations should be familiar and relatable.
Across concepts tested, those that presented familiar settings (household kitchen) and situations (family meal preparation) were consistently considered most compelling. Participants could easily envision themselves in those situations which helped draw their attention and drive the message home. As such, the underlying message should be that the risks of unsafe food handling is omnipresent in everyday life.
| Date | Time | Location |
|---|---|---|
| Toronto, ON (ENGLISH) - Moderator: Margaret Chapman | ||
| February 3, 2020 | Group 1 - 6:00pm - Adult parents with Low SES Group 2 - 8:00pm - Adult parents with Average/High SES |
CRC Toronto (Yonge/Bloor) 2 Bloor St. West 3rd Floor |
| February 4, 2020 | Group 3 - 6:00pm - Pregnant women | |
| Halifax, NS (ENGLISH) - Moderator: Claude Perreault | ||
| February 5, 2020 | Group 6 - 6:00pm - Pregnant women | Narrative Research Halifax 7071 Bayers Road Suite 5001 |
| February 6, 2020 | Group 4 - 6:00pm - Adult parents with Low SES Group 5 - 8:00pm - Adult parents with Average/High SES |
|
| Winnipeg, MB (ENGLISH) - Moderator: Christina Waddy | ||
| February 10, 2020 | Group 7 - 6:00pm - Adult parents with Low SES Group 8 - 8:00pm - Adult parents with Average/High SES |
Leger Research (NRG Research) 213 Notre Dame Avenue Suite 804 |
| February 11, 2020 | Group 9 - 6:00pm - Pregnant women | |
| Red Deer, AB (ENGLISH) - Moderator: Margaret Chapman | ||
| February 12, 2020 | Group 10 - 5:30pm - Adult parents with Low SES Group 11 - 7:30pm - Adult parents with Average/High SES |
Holiday Inn Red Deer South 33 Pertolia Drive - Gasoline Alley |
| February 13, 2020 | Group 12 - 5:30pm - Pregnant women | |
| Quebec City, QC (FRENCH) - Moderator: Claude Perreault | ||
| February 17, 2020 | Group 13 - 6:00pm - Adult parents with Low SES Group 14 - 8:00pm - Adult parents with Average/High SES |
SOM Quebec 3340, rue de La Perade 3rd Floor |
| February 18, 2020 | Group 15 - 6:00pm - Pregnant women | |
| Vancouver, BC (ENGLISH) - Moderator: Margaret Chapman | ||
| February 18, 2020 | Group 16 - 6:00pm - Adult parents with Low SES Group 17 - 8:00pm - Adult parents with Average/High SES |
CRC Vancouver 1398 West 7th Avenue |
| February 19, 2020 | Group 18 - 6:00pm - Pregnant women | |
Hello/Bonjour, my name is ___ and I am with Narrative Research, a market research company. We are conducting a study on behalf of the Government of Canada, specifically for Health Canada, and we are looking for people to take part in a small group discussion. We would like to speak with someone in your household who is at least 18 years of age. Would that be you? IF NO, ASK TO SPEAK WITH SOMEONE ELSE AND REPEAT INTRO
Would you prefer that I continue in English or in French? Préférez-vous continuer en français ou en anglais? [IF FRENCH, CONTINUE IN FRENCH OR ARRANGE CALL BACK WITH FRENCH INTERVIEWER: Nous vous rappellerons pour mener cette entrevue de recherche en français. Merci. Au revoir.
The purpose of the study and the small group discussions is to hear people's views on marketing approaches and materials being considered by Health Canada. Those who qualify and participate in the group discussion will receive $100 in appreciation for their effort.
May I ask you a few quick questions to see if you are the type of participant we are looking for to take part in this small group discussion? This will take about 6 or 7 minutes. The information you provide will remain completely confidential and you are free to opt out at any time. The information collected will be used for research purposes only and handled according the Privacy Act of Canada.*
*IF ASKED: The personal information you provide is protected in accordance with the Privacy Act and is being collected under the authority of section 4 of the Department of Health Act. The information you provide will not be linked with your name on any document including the consent form or the discussion form. In addition to protecting your personal information, the Privacy Act gives you the right to request access to and correction of your personal information. You also have the right to file a complaint with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner if you feel your personal information has been handled improperly. For more information about these rights, or about our privacy practices, please contact Health Canada's Privacy Coordinator at 613-948-1219 or hc.privacy-vie.privee.sc@canada.ca.
THANK & TERMINATE WHERE REQUIRED IN THE SCREENER: Unfortunately, we will not be able to include you in this study. We already have enough participants who have a similar profile to yours. Thank you for your time today.
Thank you.
Gender (By Observation):
RECRUIT EQUAL MIX OF GENDER IN EACH PARENT GROUP
FEMALE ONLY FOR PREGNANT WOMEN GROUPS
QUOTAS: CONSIDER FOR PARENT GROUP WITH LOW SES:
OTHERWISE, CONSIDER FOR AVERAGE/HIGH SES PARENT GROUPS
IF THEY HAVE BEEN TO A GROUP IN THE PAST 6 MONTHS - THANK & TERMINATE,
IF THEY HAVE BEEN TO 3 OR MORE GROUPS IN THE PAST 5 YEARS - THANK & TERMINATE
IF PARTICIPATED IN A GROUP ON FOOD SAFETY/PREPARATION/NUTRITION - THANK & TERMINATE
Based on your responses, it looks like you have the profile we are looking for. I would like to invite you to participate in a small group discussion, called a focus group, we are conducting at ___ PM, on. As you may know, focus groups are used to gather information on a particular subject matter; in this case, the discussion will touch on marketing approaches and materials being considered by Health Canada. The discussion will consist of 8 to 10 people and will be very informal. It will last approximately two hours, refreshments will be served and you will receive $100 as a thank you for your time. Are you interested and available to attend?
The discussion you will be participating in will be audio and video recorded for use by the research team only to analyse the findings. Please be assured your comments and responses are strictly confidential. Are you comfortable with the discussion being recorded?
[IN TORONTO, WINNIPEG, VANCOUVER, HALIFAX, AND QUEBEC CITY] The discussion will take place in a room that is equipped with a one-way mirror for observation, allowing Health Canada employees who are involved in this research to observe the discussion without disturbing it.
[IN RED DEER] The discussion will take place in a room equipped with a close-circuit camera hooked to a television in an adjoining room, allowing Health Canada employees who are involved in this research to observe the discussion without disturbing it.
[ALL] Some people may also be observing the discussion remotely [SPECIFY ONLY IF ASKED: via web streaming, through the use of a secure online portal]. Your participation will be anonymous and only your first name will be given to these people. Would this setup be acceptable to you?
During the group discussion, participants will be asked to read materials and write out short responses. Is it possible for you to take part in these activities [QUEBEC CITY: in French] [ALL OTHER LOCATIONS: in English] without assistance?
TERMINATE IF PERSON GIVES A REASON AS VERBAL ABILITY, SIGHT, HEARING, OR RELATED TO READING/WRITING ABILITY.
Since participants in focus groups are asked to express their thoughts and opinions freely in an informal setting with others, we'd like to know how comfortable you are with such an exercise. Would you say you are?
Thank you. Just a reminder that the group discussion will be held on [DATE] from [TIME] to [TIME]. To make sure that the discussion begins on time, we ask that you arrive 15 minutes before the start. We will not be able to include you if you arrive late and you will not receive the financial incentive.
Please bring your glasses if you need them to read or view materials on a screen, and anything else you need to take part in the group discussion. Also, everyone is asked to bring a piece of I.D, picture if possible.
Someone from our company will call you back one or two days before the group discussion. To do that, we will need your contact information. RECORD AT THE TOP OF THE SCREENER
As these are small groups and with even one person missing, the overall success of the group may be affected, I would ask that once you have decided to attend that you make every effort to do so. If something comes up and you are unable to attend, please call_____ (collect) at ________as soon as possible so we can find a replacement.
Thank you, and we look forward to hearing your thoughts during the group discussion.
Food Safety Marketing Messages and Creative
I'd like you to think about marketing campaigns for a moment. Think about messages and creatives (such as ads, posters and videos) that educate or inform, rather than those that try to sell something.
As mentioned earlier, today we'll be talking about food safety. I'd like to get your reaction to a number of terms related to that topic.
English terms to be tested:
French terms to be tested:
For each term:
After all terms have been reviewed:
Over the years, there have been a number of public education campaigns by the Government of Canada to inform the public about food safety. This kind of public education has also been undertaken by other governments around the world. Different approaches and tones have been used to communicate this information - humorous, factual or informative, showing consequences, instilling fear, etc.
Today, we will look at a number of videos and creatives that talk about food safety in different ways - ads from Canada but also examples from other countries. I would like to know what works and what doesn't work from your perspective. There are lots of examples so I have grouped them according to three themes, or approaches, to make it easier for us to talk about them. Each approach will include a number of concepts that have some similarities. We will look at each approach one at a time.
The concepts I will show you have different formats and lengths. Some are designed as videos while others are designed to be used as posters, in print publications or online. Because of these differences, I'd like you to think of the overall approach, not the quality of the production or the length of the videos. I'd also ask that you think about the tone and approach rather than the information or the wording because some of the food safety advice provided may not be consistent with our Canadian guidelines. That is why we will focus on how the information is being communicated and not what advice is provided.
This is what we will do…For each approach, I will show you all of the concepts within this approach and then you will jot down your initial reactions before we chat about it as a group. Please hold your thoughts while I show you the material.
| APPROACH A: Humorous | A1 (2min) | HERO: Chicken Hero |
|---|---|---|
| A2 (1min) | SUMMER: Nothing Spoils Summer like Pink Chicken | |
| A3 (15 sec) | NUGGETS: Do You Really Trust Your Nuggets? | |
| APPROACH B: Informative and/or providing advice or instructio | B1 (1min) | COOKING: Food Thermometers |
| B2 (2min) | INTERVIEW: How to Avoid Food Poisoning (vox pop) | |
| B3 (print) | STATS: Foodborne Illness: What We DonÕt Know Can Harm Us | |
| APPROACH C: Showing risks and/or consequences / cautionary | C1 (20sec) | ORANGE: Which one is Cooked? |
| C2 (40sec) | BLUE: Food Safety Germ Spread | |
| C3 (1min) | EMERGENCY: Emergency Visit |
| Adults Low SES | Adults Average/High SES | Pregnant Women | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Toronto | A, B, C = 1, 2, 3 | B, A, C = 2, 1, 3 | C, A, B = 3, 1, 2 |
| Halifax | B, A, C = 2, 1, 3 | A, B, C = 1, 2, 3 | C, B, A = 3, 2, 1 |
| Winnipeg | C, A, B = 3, 1, 2 | B, A, C = 2, 1, 3 | A, B, C = 1, 2, 3 |
| Red Deer | C, B, A = 3, 2, 1 | C, A, B = 3, 1, 2 | B, A, C = 2, 1, 3 |
| Quebec City | A, B, C = 1, 2, 3 | C, B, A = 3, 2, 1 | C, A, B = 3, 1, 2 |
| Vancouver | B, A, C = 2, 1, 3 | A, B, C = 1, 2, 3 | C, B, A = 3, 2, 1 |
EXERCISE 1: Take a moment to answer a few questions about this concept on your exercise sheet:
I will show on the screen a summary of the three concepts we just looked at, as a reminder. MODERATOR SHOWS APPROACH SUMMARY SHEET ON THE SCREEN - KEEP FOR THE GROUP DISCUSSION
EXERCISE 1: Now that you have seen all of the concepts within this grouping, indicate which one is most compelling to you personally. That is, which one is most likely to make you think about how you handle food. Write down the concept number or if none are effective, jot down "none". Then, at the top of the exercise sheet, write down a word that describes the overall approach - something that could be used as a title for this grouping.
Now let's talk about it together.
Now that we have seen many different ideas… let's consider them all. MODERATOR SHOWS SUMMARY SHEET ACROSS APPROACHES ON THE SCREEN
You've seen different approaches that could be used: humor, informative, and showing risks or consequences.
Food safety and safe food handling are particularly important for vulnerable audiences, such as pregnant women, young children, or seniors. I would like to hear your thoughts on some advertisements and messaging that the Government of Canada has used in the past to reach out to those people.
EXERCISE 2: Before we talk about it together, take a moment to answer a few questions on your exercise sheet:
EXERCISE 3: Let's do one last individual exercise. If the Government of Canada was creating an educational campaign on food safety, which approach should it use to guide campaign development? It could be an approach you've seen examples of today, or something completely different. Take a moment to jot down which approach would work best and why.MODERATOR TO CHECK WITH BACKROOM
That concludes our discussion. On behalf of the Government of Canada, thank you for your time and input.
First Name:
| CONCEPT 1 | Yes | No |
|---|---|---|
| This grabs my attention | ||
| I feel that this is relevant to me | ||
| I'd think about adopting safer food handling behaviours after seeing this |
| CONCEPT 2 | Yes | No |
|---|---|---|
| This grabs my attention | ||
| I feel that this is relevant to me | ||
| I'd think about adopting safer food handling behaviours after seeing this |
| CONCEPT 3 | Yes | No |
|---|---|---|
| This grabs my attention | ||
| I feel that this is relevant to me | ||
| I'd think about adopting safer food handling behaviours after seeing this |
Concept Choice:
| CONCEPT 1 | Yes | No |
|---|---|---|
| This grabs my attention | ||
| I feel that this is relevant to me | ||
| I'd think about adopting safer food handling behaviours after seeing this |
| CONCEPT 2 | Yes | No |
|---|---|---|
| This grabs my attention | ||
| I feel that this is relevant to me | ||
| I'd think about adopting safer food handling behaviours after seeing this |
| CONCEPT 3 | Yes | No |
|---|---|---|
| This grabs my attention | ||
| I feel that this is relevant to me | ||
| I'd think about adopting safer food handling behaviours after seeing this |
Concept Choice:
| CONCEPT 1 | Yes | No |
| This grabs my attention | ||
| I feel that this is relevant to me | ||
| I'd think about adopting safer food handling behaviours after seeing this |
| CONCEPT 2 | Yes | No |
| This grabs my attention | ||
| I feel that this is relevant to me | ||
| I'd think about adopting safer food handling behaviours after seeing this |
| CONCEPT 3 | Yes | No |
| This grabs my attention | ||
| I feel that this is relevant to me | ||
| I'd think about adopting safer food handling behaviours after seeing this |
Concept Choice:
| Yes | No | |
| This grabs my attention | ||
| I feel that this is relevant to me | ||
| I'd think about adopting safer food handling behaviours after seeing this |
Which one?
Why?
A concept composed of 9 small pictures in rows of three. Three pictures include the text "Do you really trust your nuggets?", "Improperly cooked chicken can cause food poisoning" and "Learn how to reduce hidden risks at Canada.ca/foodsafety". Three pictures contain images of chicken nuggets. Three pictures contain the face of a stern-looking man.
Picture of a shopping cart outside a hospital emergency room entrance and the words, "Think food safety, even when shopping for food. A few easy steps can go a long way in protecting your health and avoiding the consequences of food poisoning."
Image of a pregnant woman's belly and the phrase, "Food poisoning during pregnancy can be harmful to you and your baby. Don't take chances with your food choices. Reduce your risk".
Image of a bathroom with the phrase, "You may think food poisoning will keep your child here all night." Image of a child in a hospital bed with the phrase, "But if could keep them here even longer. You can reduce your child's risk of food poisoning."