Consumer research regarding people at higher risk of food poisoning

Across participant groups, understanding of food poisoning was shaped predominantly by personal experience rather than engagement with technical, research-based, or official sources of information.

Respondents commonly expressed confidence in their existing food safety behaviours, frequently justifying this confidence through the perception that they had “been fine so far.” This reliance on experiential knowledge contributed to notable inconsistencies in understanding and, in some cases, to the continuation of unsafe practices.

A clear disparity emerged between respondents’ perceived knowledge and their actual behaviours. Examples of poor practice included consuming food beyond its use by date, not checking the temperatures of refrigerators and washing raw chicken. Importantly, such behaviours were evident even among respondents who fell within higher risk categories, including older adults and immunocompromised individuals.

Carers demonstrated a heightened awareness of good food safety practices, largely driven by anxiety alongside a strong desire to protect vulnerable loved ones. In contrast, respondents who were immunocompromised did not exhibit noticeably higher levels of awareness or concern about food poisoning than healthier members of the general public. Older adults were particularly entrenched in established behaviours, relying heavily on food handling habits developed over a lifetime.

As a result, conventional food safety messaging could be insufficiently salient to prompt reconsideration of established habits, indicating that future communications may need to be more direct, salient and impactful to achieve behavioural change.

Perceptions of vulnerability to food poisoning were broadly consistent across participant groups. Respondents commonly identified individuals with poor health, weakened immune systems, people taking medications such as chemotherapy and younger age groups as being more susceptible to foodborne illness. Pregnancy was mentioned infrequently as a factor increasing susceptibility to food poisoning and its inclusion on the showcard came as a surprise to many.

While there was a largely shared understanding of who might be considered vulnerable, respondents often lacked clarity regarding why these groups were at increased risk. Moreover, there was conflicting understanding of how young children are defined, which types of medication increase risk, and which underlying illnesses are relevant.

Providing explanations of the underlying physiological or health-related reasons for increased susceptibility significantly enhanced understanding and supported greater self identification among respondents across all groups. Findings point to the need to clearly define ages, types of medication and illness in order to establish a common understanding.

In relation to older adults, vulnerability was more readily attributed to the presence of lifestyle limitations, reduced fitness, or health conditions rather than age alone. Although there was general acceptance of 65 years and over as a public health threshold for older age, many respondents within this age group were reluctant to categorise themselves as such.

Notably, the inclusion of qualifying language, such as describing older adults as “typically” aged 65 and over, helped to mitigate resistance by acknowledging individual variation and avoiding overly rigid or deterministic categorisation.

Version 2B emerged as the preferred definition, judged to be the most effective by five of the seven research groups. Respondents consistently reported that this approach facilitated clearer self-identification, as it framed vulnerability in terms of specific conditions rather than categorising individuals by broad population groups. This condition-based structure was perceived as particularly valuable because it articulated the underlying reasons why certain individuals are more susceptible to food poisoning, thereby strengthening conceptual understanding rather than relying on assumed knowledge.

The inclusion of concrete examples of relevant medical conditions and medications further enhanced the accessibility and credibility of the definition. These examples enabled respondents to reflect on their own circumstances and prompted consideration of overlapping or multiple risk factors, which supported a more accurate assessment of personal vulnerability. Importantly, the language and tone were widely described as clear, respectful, and approachable. While providing sufficient detail to inform and reassure, the definition avoided excessive technicality, maintaining a balance between authority and accessibility.

Overall, Version 2B was perceived as more informative and reassuring than alternative approaches, particularly among individuals living with chronic illnesses or those taking immunosuppressive medications. By combining explanatory depth with straightforward language, the definition was seen to promote understanding, trust, and inclusivity, making it especially effective for communicating risk to diverse audiences.

Respondents did not generally seek out food safety information directly, instead relying on cooking instructions, food packaging and online recipes where safety advice is embedded. Many depended on informal sources such as family, friends and personal experience, which can reinforce outdated or unsafe practices. Google searches and AI tools were commonly used, though often referred to simply as “Google.” Some older adults viewed food safety concerns as overstated. Overall, information was drawn from a mix of informal, online and media sources, with individuals frequently applying personal judgement to the advice received.