![[logo] US EPA](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/eot2008/20081107122317im_/http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Final Report: Communicating Strategies to Grocery Consumers to Reduce their Dietary Exposure to Chemical Pesticide Residues While Maintaining a Healthy Diet
EPA Grant Number: R825819Title: Communicating Strategies to Grocery Consumers to Reduce their Dietary Exposure to Chemical Pesticide Residues While Maintaining a Healthy Diet
Investigators: Zimmerman, Donald E. , Kendall, Pat , Slater, Michael
Institution: Colorado State University
EPA Project Officer: Saint, Chris
Project Period: January 1, 1998 through December 31, 2000
Project Amount: $839,624
RFA: Issues in Human Health Risk Assessment (1997)
Research Category: Health Effects
Description:
Objective:The Food Protection Quality Act of 1996 called for information to explain the risk and benefits of pesticide chemical residues in or on purchased food and recommendations on how consumers could reduce their dietary exposure to pesticide residues while maintaining a healthy diet. The information was to be understandable by laypersons and to be distributed through larger retail grocers.
Guided by the Extend Parallel Processing Model (EPPM), we sought answers to the following questions: (1) What communications strategies help consumers increase their understanding of information about the risks and benefits of pesticides in foods? (2) What kinds of information do consumers find most useful and what motivates them to implement behaviors to reduce their exposure to pesticide residues on and in foods? (3) What key factors ensure the cultural acceptability of the communications to minorities and to potentially susceptible populations? (4) Does an in-store public information campaign help provide shoppers with (a) accurate, pertinent, and useful information about pesticide residues in or on foods; (b) sound nutrition information; and (c) strategies designed to reduce exposures to chemical pesticide residues?
We conducted (1) focus groups with parent and non-parent Blacks/African Americans, Hispanics/Latinos, and Anglos; (2) an experiment in which we compared the effects of the EPA Food and Pesticides brochure-a low-risk brochure, a high-risk brochure, and a control brochure with the target audiences; (3) usability testing of the EPA's Food and Pesticide Web Site, (4) two experiments on Web site design—one compared the reading speeds of long-, medium-, and short-line length online copy and the second compared the effects of text only, still photographs, and animated photographs; and (5) a field experiment in which we placed a computerized kiosk with poster and brochures in a low-income and a middle-income grocery store in a medium-sized metropolitan community.
Summary/Accomplishments (Outputs/Outcomes):1. Focus Groups: Research Questions/Objectives. We conducted nine focus groups (n = 55) in three Western cities of 60,000, 100,000, and 2.3 million populations and followed standard focus group methodologies. Participants consisting of African Americans/Blacks, Anglos, and Hispanics/Latinos were recruited by a commercial marketing firm, and focus group moderators matched the ethnicity of participants.
We assessed current grocery purchasing patterns, determined perceptions about food quality and nutrition, assessed consumers' viewpoints on pesticide use, assessed consumers' current techniques for reducing pesticide residues on foods, assessed their understanding of the government's roles in pesticide regulation, and explored their preferences for information formats.
2. Brochure Experiment. Guided by the EPPM, we conducted a between-subjects experiment; participants (n = 267, 63 percent parents, 47 percent non-parents) read either: (a) EPA's Food and Pesticides brochure, (b) the low-risk/high efficacy brochure, (c) the high-risk/high efficacy brochure, or (d) the brochure. The researches created the low- and high-risk brochures; the control was on immunization. Participants include African Americans/Blacks (34 percent), Anglos (33 percent), and Hispanics/Latinos (32 percent). After being briefed on the project and completing the consent forms, they read one of the four brochures, and completed a questionnaire.
We assessed the EPPM in a setting where the threat (pesticide residues long-term effects) may be known or sometimes unknown, but not clearly understood and the resulting effects on fear or danger controls. Specifically, we assessed intentions to engage in positive protective behaviors and negative protective behaviors; the effects of the brochure on perceptions of threat, response efficacy, and self-efficacy; and how perceived efficacy and threat interacted and predicted message derogation and avoidance, and behavioral intentions.
In applied settings, we recognized that consumers could use a variety of protective behaviors to reduce their exposure to pesticide residues. Some risk-reducing behaviors are less expensive in terms of time, effort, and cost than others. Therefore, we determined the effects of the high and low-threat brochures on alternative protective behaviors (selecting organic produce) relative to the control condition; the effects of the existing EPA educational brochure on perceived threat, efficacy, fear control, and positive, undesirable, and alternative protective behaviors relative to control; and the effects of ethnicity, parental influence, and education on perceptions and behavioral intentions.
3. EPA Food and Pesticide Web Site. We conducted usability testing of EPA's Pesticide and Foods Web Site (http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/food/) using protocol analyses (talk aloud). Data collection included direct observation and videotaping. Participants (n = 24, 37 percent with children) sought answers to a scenario that included 11 information-seeking tasks; they completed pre- and post-protocol questionnaires. Overall, we assessed the ease of use of the Web Site, identified problems users encountered with the Web site, determined their perception of the Web site, and obtained some assessment of the Web site's immediate effectiveness. The findings can guide the redesign of EPA's Pesticide and Foods Web Site (http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/food/).
4. Web Site/Kiosk Line Length Experiment. Using a Greco-Latin Square research design, 32 participants were randomized to one of three sequence groups consisting of combinations of the three line lengths (200, 400, and 600 pixels) content (food pyramid, food safety, and pesticide benefits) to assess the effects on reading copy online (i.e., off the computer screen). Participants sequentially read text material on the computer screen and then answered questions on each of the contents. After reading the three passages, they answered additional background questions. We determined the differences in reading speed, comprehension, and subjective pleasingness of the 200-, 400-, and 600-pixel line length copy on reading online copy.
5. Web Site/Kiosk Animation Experiment. Using a Greco-Latin Square research design, 44 participants were randomized into one of three sequences consisting of combinations of visuals (text only, text with photographs, or animations) and three contents (food pyramid, food safety, and pesticide benefits) to assess the effects of visuals and animations. Each participant sequentially read text material on the computer screen and then answered questions on each of the contents. After reading the three passages, they answered additional background questions. We determined the effects of text only, text with photographs, and text with animation on the perceived appeal, enjoyability, ease of remembering the content, understandability, ease of learning, and attractiveness, comprehension, and protective behaviors (washing, peeling, or scrubbing fruits and vegetables).
6. Brochure Distribution Field Experiment. To assess the effectiveness of providing the brochure as an in-grocery store information campaign, we conducted a 5-week field experiment in a low-income neighborhood store and in a middle-income neighborhood store in a Western city of 100,000 residents between late April 2000, and early July 2000. We were guided by the EPPM of risk communication. We conducted intercept interviews of (a) shoppers before the campaign; (b) shoppers who did not receive the brochure; (c) shoppers who were given a brochure; and (d) shoppers after the campaign. About 1 month after the campaign, we conducted telephone interviews of shoppers who received the brochure and shoppers who did not receive the brochure. We determined (a) the current eating habits assessing good nutrition and protective behaviors (i.e., washing, peeling, scrubbing, and cleaning fresh fruits and vegetables); (b) determined their concerns about pesticides, pesticide beliefs, perceived threats of pesticides, perceived efficacy, fear of pesticides, and perceived control of pesticides; (c) compared the protective behaviors and good nutrition practices of shoppers who received and did not receive the brochures and then assessed their concerns about pesticides, pesticide beliefs, perceived threats of pesticides, perceived efficacy, fear of pesticides, and perceived control of pesticides.
The communication complexities of the pesticide risk message are considerable: one-third of the fresh produce has some level of pesticide residues; pesticide residue levels are usually extremely low and safe, but occasionally, they exceed safe levels. Scientists are concerned that pesticide residues may be linked to health problems, including cancer. Thus, shoppers need to wash, clean, and peel produce as well as eat a variety to reduce their health risks. Eating five servings of fruits and vegetables outweighs the risks of pesticide residues, even though some foods have pesticide residues in them.
Such points create an interesting and complex message that may confuse shoppers. Within this context, our studies begin to identify shoppers' concerns about pesticide residues, offer insights into enhancing the EPA's Pesticides and Foods Web Site, and provide realistic expectations of using a brochure to communicate the risks of pesticide residues to shoppers. Our studies also document the current levels of (a) good nutrition practices among shoppers-eating a variety of fruits and vegetables and eating five servings of fruits and vegetables a day; (b) the protective behaviors of shoppers (i.e., washing fruits and vegetables before eating, peeling vegetables like cucumbers and potatoes before eating); and (c) other protective behaviors like purchasing organic produce or growing their own fruits and vegetables.
Journal Articles on this Report: 1 Displayed | Download in RIS Format
| Other project views: | All 16 publications | 1 publications in selected types | All 1 journal articles |
| Type | Citation | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
Zimmerman DE, Slater M, Kendall P, Keefe T. Foods, pesticide residues, and consumers: extending the application of the EPPM. Journal of Health Communication. |
R825819 (Final) |
not available |
pesticide risk, Food Quality Protection Act, risk communication, pesticides, foods, fruits, vegetables, meats, message design, kiosk design, grocery shoppers, grocery consumers, leaflet design, brochure design, focus groups, usability testing, communication science, formative evaluation, evaluation. , Toxics, Scientific Discipline, Health, RFA, Susceptibility/Sensitive Population/Genetic Susceptibility, Risk Assessments, Social Science, genetic susceptability, Ecology, Chemistry, Children's Health, pesticides, Environmental Chemistry, ethnicity, grocery consumers, nutritional information, environmentally caused disease, environmental hazard exposures, developmental disorders, developmental effects, outreach material, environmental toxicant, pesticide residues, race ethnicity, cultural acceptibility, outreach and education, epidemeology, dietary exposure, ethnic, exposure pathways, pesticide exposure, sensitive populations, toxicology, minorities, consumer behavior, public information campaign, exposure, surveys, pesticide residue, health risks, human exposure, web development
Relevant Websites:
http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/food/ 
Progress and Final Reports:
1998 Progress Report
1999 Progress Report
2000 Progress Report
Original Abstract