• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Front Cover
 Title Page
 Abstract
 Table of Contents
 List of Tables
 List of Figures
 List of appendix tables
 Executive summary
 Introduction and objectives
 Procedure
 Results
 Conclusion
 Reference
 Appendix A
 Appendix B
 Appendix C






Group Title: FAMRC industry report
Title: Consumer and restaurant manager reaction to depurated oysters and clams
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00026922/00001
 Material Information
Title: Consumer and restaurant manager reaction to depurated oysters and clams
Alternate Title: FAMRC industry report 94-1
Physical Description: xviii, 102 p. : ill. ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Degner, Robert L.
Petrone, Carol
Publisher: Florida Agricultural Market Research Center, IFAS, University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: July, 1994
Copyright Date: 1994
 Subjects
Subject: Oysters -- Public opinion -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Clams -- Public opinion -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Cookery (Oysters) -- Public opinion   ( lcsh )
Cookery (Clams) -- Public opinion   ( lcsh )
Consumers -- Attitudes -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Genre: government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Statement of Responsibility: by Robert L. Degner and Carol Petrone.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references (p. 65).
General Note: "June, 1994"
General Note: "Submitted to the Levy County Board of County Commissioners"
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00026922
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: notis - AKC5277
oclc - 31215710
alephbibnum - 001948827

Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Front Cover
    Title Page
        Title Page
    Abstract
        Page i
        Page ii
        Page iii
        Page iv
    Table of Contents
        Page v
        Page vi
    List of Tables
        Page vii
        Page viii
        Page ix
        Page x
    List of Figures
        Page xi
        Page xii
    List of appendix tables
        Page xiii
        Page xiv
    Executive summary
        Page xv
        Page xvi
        Page xvii
        Page xviii
    Introduction and objectives
        Page 1
        Page 2
    Procedure
        Page 3
        Page 4
    Results
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
        Page 40
        Page 41
        Page 42
        Page 43
        Page 44
        Page 45
        Page 46
        Page 47
        Page 48
        Page 49
        Page 50
        Page 51
        Page 52
        Page 53
        Page 54
        Page 55
        Page 56
        Page 57
        Page 58
        Page 59
        Page 60
        Page 61
        Page 62
    Conclusion
        Page 63
        Page 64
    Reference
        Page 65
        Page 66
    Appendix A
        Page 67
        Page 68
        Page 69
        Page 70
        Page 71
        Page 72
        Page 73
        Page 74
        Page 75
        Page 76
    Appendix B
        Page 77
        Page 78
        Page 79
        Page 80
        Page 81
        Page 82
        Page 83
        Page 84
        Page 85
        Page 86
        Page 87
        Page 88
        Page 89
        Page 90
    Appendix C
        Page 91
        Page 92
        Page 93
        Page 94
        Page 95
        Page 96
        Page 97
        Page 98
        Page 99
        Page 100
        Page 101
        Page 102
Full Text
/&0-



J C Industry Report 94-1

FAMRC July1994


.P ?Z1994

Un'tersity ot Florida


Consumer and Restaurant Manager Reaction
to Depurated Oysters and Clams




A Report by
Robert L. Degner
Carol Petrone







Submitted to the
Levy County Board of County Commissioners
by the Florida Agricultural Market Research Center
part of the Food and Resource Economics Department
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences
University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611

100
F637fi
94-1














Consumer and Restaurant

Manager Reaction to

Depurated Oysters and Clams






submitted to the Levy County
Board of County Commissioners




June, 1994



by



Robert L. Degner
and
Carol Petrone



The Florida Agricultural
Market Research Center
IFAS
University of Florida











ABSTRACT

This study examines the need for safer oysters and clams as
expressed by consumers and restaurant managers. It documents the
continuing erosion of public confidence in the safety of molluscean
shellfish, particularly oysters, and explores the potential market
acceptance of depurated products. It also provides an indication
of depuration's economic oysters and clams.













































i





I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ii I

I
P










THE FLORIDA AGRICULTURAL MARKET RESEARCH CENTER

The Florida Agricultural Market Research Center is a service
of the Food and Resource Economics Department. Its purpose is to
provide timely, applied research on current and emerging marketing
problems affecting Florida's agricultural and marine industries.
A basic goal of the Center seeks to provide marketing research and
related information to producer organizations, trade associations,
and governmental agencies concerned with improving and expanding
markets for Florida's agricultural and marine producers.
Client organizations are required to pay direct costs
associated with their research projects. Such costs include labor
for personnel and telephone interviewing, mail surveys, travel, and
computer analyses. Professional time and support is provided at no
charge by IFAS.
Professional agricultural economists with specialized training
and experience in marketing participate in every Center project.
Cooperating personnel from other IFAS units are also involved
whenever specialized technical assistance is needed.



Dr. Robert L. Degner, Director
Florida Agricultural Research Center
1083 McCarty Hall
University of Florida
Gainesville, Florida 32611
(904) 392-1871
















iii





I
U
I
I
N
I
I
I
I
I


I

I
I
I
I
I
iv I











TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS . . . . . . . . . . . v

LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . ... . . vii

LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . ... . . xi

LIST OF APPENDIX TABLES . . . . . . . ... xiii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . .. xv

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . ... . . . 1

OBJECTIVES . . . . . . . . ... . . . 1

PROCEDURE . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Consumer Survey . . . . . . . . . . 3
Restaurant Manager Survey . . . . . . . 4

RESULTS . . .. . . . . . . . . . 5
Consumer Survey . . . . . . . . . 5
Composition Of The Sample . . . . . . 5
General Findings . . . . . .. . . 5
Health factors that could affect shellfish
consumption . .. . . ... . . . 6
Perceptions of health risks associated with
shellfish . . . . . . . . . 6
Current Oyster Consumption . . . . .. 11
Aversions to oysters by non-consumers . . .. 11
Frequency of oyster consumption . . . .. 12
Number of oysters eaten per occasion . . .. 14
Reported changes in oyster consumption . .. 14
Usual form of oysters eaten . . . . .. 17
Current Clam Consumption . . . . . . .. 17
Aversion To Clams . . .. . . . . 17
Frequency of clam consumption . . . . .. 20
Number of clams eaten per occasion . . .. 24
Reported changes in clam consumption . . .. 24
Usual form of clams eaten . . . . . .. 29
Consumers' Acceptance of Depurated Oysters and Clams 32
Respondents' willingness to buy depurated oysters 34
The impact of depurated oyster availability on
consumption .. . . . . . ... 34
Respondents' willingness to buy depurated clams 41
The impact of depurated clam availability on
consumption ... . . . . . ... 42
Naming the depuration process . . . . .. 49
The Restaurant Survey . . . . . . . .. 50
Oysters . . .. . . . . . . 50
Potential sales of depurated oysters . . .. 58
Clams . . . . . . . . ... . . 59

v











Potential sales of depurated clams . . .. 60

CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

APPENDIX A . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Table . . . . . . . . . . ... .69

APPENDIX B . . . . . .. . . . . . . .77
Consumer Oyster Questionnaire . . . . . .. 79

APPENDIX C . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
Restaurant Manager Questionnaire . . . . .. 93










































vi











LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Proportion of sample consuming seafood, all respondents
and by selected socio-demographic categories . 7

Table 2 Respondents' primary reasons for not eating any type of
seafood . . . . . . . . . . 8

Table 3 Proportion of sample with shellfish allergies or other
significant health problems . . . . . 8

Table 4 Consumers' perceptions of the relative safety of
oysters, clams and chicken . . . . . .. 10

Table 5 Consumers' perceived chances of getting sick from eating
one serving of raw and cooked oysters, raw and cooked
clams and chicken . . . . . . ... 13

Table 6 Proportion of sample that had eaten oysters at least
once . . . . . . . . . ... 15

Table 7 Respondents' primary reasons for never having eaten
oysters . . . . . . . . . . 15

Table 8 Proportion of sample that had tried oysters and liked
them . . . . . . . . . ... 16

Table 9 Primary reasons given for disliking oysters by
respondents who had tried them . . . . .. 16

Table 10 Frequency of oyster consumption in the past year by
respondents that like oysters . . . . .. 18

Table 11 Primary reasons given for not eating oysters during the
past year by respondents that like oysters . .. 18

Table 12 Number of oysters eaten per occasion in the past year
. . . . . . . . . . 1 9

Table 13 Consumers' reasons for changing their consumption of
oysters during the past three years . . .. 21

Table 14 Usual form of oysters consumed by respondents during the
past year . . . . . . . . . . 22

Table 15 Percentage of oysters currently eaten raw compared with
three years ago . . . . . . . . 23

Table 16 Proportion of sample that had eaten clams at least once
. . . . . . . . . . 25



vii











Table 17 Respondents' primary reasons for never having eaten
clams . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Table 18 Proportion of sample that had tried clams and liked them
. . . . . . . . . . 25

Table 19 Primary reasons given for disliking clams by respondents
who had tried them . . . . . . . . 26

Table 20 Frequency of clam consumption in the past year by
respondents that like clams . . . . .. 26

Table 21 Primary reasons given for not eating clams during the
past year by respondents that like clams . .. 27

Table 22 Number of clams consumed per occasion in past year
. . . . . . . . . . . 2 8

Table 23 Consumers' reasons for changing their clam consumption
patterns during the past three years . . .. 30

Table 24 Usual form of clams consumed by respondents during the
past year . . . . . . . . . 31

Table 25 Percentage of clams currently eaten raw compared with
three years ago . . . . . . . . 33

Table 26 Respondents' willingness to buy depurated oysters 36

Table 27 Consumers' willingness to pay for depurated oysters 37

Table 28 Estimated consumption of depurated and non-depurated
oysters by respondents at varying price levels for
depurated oysters . . . . . . . 43

Table 29 Estimated economic returns to depurated oysters at
various retail prices and depuration costs . .44

Table 30 Respondents' willingness to buy depurated clams .46

Table 31 Consumers' willingness to pay for depurated clams 47

Table 32 Consumption of depurated and non-depurated clams at
varying price levels for depurated clams . .. 51

Table 33 Estimated economic returns to depurated clams at various
retail prices and depuration costs . . . .. 54

Table 34 Respondents' initial reactions to the term "depuration"
. . . . . . . . . . 55



viii











Table 35 Respondents' reactions to the word "depuration" by
selected socio-demographic characteristics . .. 56

Table 36 Estimated effects of depurated oysters on sales of non-
depurated shellstock and non-depurated shucked oysters
. . . . . . . . . . 61

Table 37 Estimated effects of depurated clams on sales of non-
depurated shellstock and undepurated processed clams
. . . . . . . . . . . 61
















































ix

























































































X











LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Number of depurated and non-depurated oyster consumers at
various prices for depurated oysters. . . ... 39

Figure 2 Market share for depurated oysters at various price
levels. . . . . . . . . . . .. 40

Figure 3 Number of depurated and non-depurated clams consumers at
various prices for depurated clams. . . . ... 52

Figure 4 Market share for depurated clams at various price levels
. . . . . . . . . . 53










































xi

































































xii










LIST OF APPENDIX TABLES

Appendix Table 1 Number of interviews by county . . .. 69

Appendix Table 2 Socio-demographic characteristics of the sample
. . . . . . . . . 70

Appendix Table 3 Respondents' perceived health condition and
reported health problems . . . .. 71

Appendix Table 4 Consumers expressed odds of getting sick from
eating one serving of raw and cooked oysters,
clams and chicken . . . . ... .72

Appendix Table 5 Awareness of consumer advisory notices
describing health risks associated with eating
raw oysters by all respondents and selected
socio-demographic characteristics . .73

Appendix Table 6 Respondents' perceptions regarding the necessity
of selected types of consumer information 74

Appendix Table 7 Respondents' suggested names for the depuration
process . . . . . . . . 75





























xiii











































































xiv










EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

* Depuration, a process of flushing bacteria and viruses from
living mollusks with purified water, can provide consumers
with safer oysters and clams.

* This study examines the need for safer oysters and clams as
expressed by consumers and restaurant managers. It documents
the continuing erosion of public confidence in the safety of
molluscean shellfish, particularly oysters, and explores the
potential market acceptance of depurated oysters and clams.
It also provides an indication of the economic feasibility of
the depuration process for both types of shellfish.

* Two telephone surveys were conducted during May and June 1994
to meet the study's objectives. One surveyed 1,012 adults in
the seven metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) within a 100
mile radius of Cedar Key. The other surveyed 37 seafood
restaurant managers in the same geographic areas. These MSAs
contain over 5 million residents.

S Residents in the survey region have a high propensity to
consume seafood. About 85 percent eat one or more types of
seafood. Of those that do not consume seafood, about 9
percent have concerns about its safety and wholesomeness.

S There has been a dramatic loss of confidence in the safety of
oysters. In 1990, only 9 percent of survey respondents said
that oysters were "not safe at all." In the current survey,
this percentage increased to over 31 percent. Although clams
were not evaluated in 1990, nearly 20 percent currently rate
clams as "not safe at all."

S About 40 percent of the current respondents felt sickness from
eating one serving of raw oysters was "very likely". Only 4
percent felt illness from chicken was "very likely".

* Respondents recognized that cooked oysters and clams were
safer than raw. About six percent thought the chances of
getting sick from one serving of cooked oysters or clams were
"very likely."

* Two-thirds of all respondents were aware of consumption
advisories for raw oysters. Although advisory notices are
primarily intended for consumers that may have health
conditions that put them at greater risk, advisory notices may
have contributed to the loss of confidence in oyster safety.

* Approximately 47 percent of the overall sample said they liked
oysters, but nearly one-third of these respondents had not
eaten any within the previous year. About half of those that
had not eaten oysters in the past year cited fear of illness
as the primary reason. An additional 4 percent had been
cautioned by their doctors not to eat oysters.

xv










* Half of all oyster consumers said they had changed their
consumption patterns within the past three years; 90 percent
reduced consumption. The average frequency of consumption had
dropped from 19 times per year to 11. Adverse media
publicity, lack of availability, and health advisory notices
were the main reasons for the changes.

Consumers are now eating fewer raw oysters and more cooked.
Three years ago, 39 percent ate only cooked, today about 53
percent eat only cooked.

S About 47 percent of the overall sample said they liked clams,
but one-fifth of these had eaten none during the previous
year. One-fifth of those that had not eaten clams in the past
year mentioned fear of illness as the primary reason.
Although this percentage is lower than that observed for
oysters, it still represents a significant problem.

* One-fifth of those that said they liked clams had changed
their consumption patterns during the previous three years; 90
percent reported a decrease. Adverse publicity about
shellfish safety was the primary reason for changing
consumption.

* About 55 percent of all potential oyster consumers (36 percent
of the total sample) said they would buy depurated oysters.
Of those that had eaten oysters within the past year, 75
percent were willing to buy depurated oysters.

* When told that the prevailing "retail" price of oysters was
50 each, 70 percent of all those willing to buy depurated
oysters were willing to pay a premium of one to 50 each for
safer oysters. The simple average premium over the retail
price was about 184 per oyster.

* At a retail price of 55 for depurated oysters (a price which
assumes a five cent premium for depuration, sufficient to
cover costs only for large, efficient depuration facilities)
the number of oyster consumers would increase by 30 percent.
The total number of occasions oysters would be eaten would be
increased by nearly 60 percent, resulting in a 39 percent
increase in total oyster consumption.

* At higher retail prices for depurated oysters, the total
number of consumers willing to buy them declines slightly.
Even so, there are sufficient numbers of potential customers
to increase total oyster consumption by almost 25 percent over
current levels, even at 65 cents and 75 cents per depurated
oyster. These retail price levels would make depuration
economically feasible for even the least efficient plants.
However, in a competitive environment, the more efficient
plants would drive prices down.

xvi










* About 31 percent of the total sample expressed a willingness
to buy depurated clams, in contrast to 36 percent for oysters.
A possible reason for this lower percentage is that almost 90
percent of clams consumed are cooked rather than eaten raw,
and respondents perceived less of a health hazard from cooked
clams.

* Despite the somewhat lower acceptance rate of depurated clams
as compared to oysters, consumers are very positive. At a
retail price of 31 per depurated clam (sufficient to cover
depuration costs for large, efficient operations, assuming
non-depurated clams retail at 30) the total number of
occasions clams would be eaten would increase by 27 percnet,
and the total number of clams consumed by nearly one-third.

* The term "depuration" was not used in describing the cleansing
process to consumers for fear that it could adversely affect
their potential acceptance of safer oysters and clams. The
survey revealed that 57 percent of all respondents had
negative connotations with "depuration" and only 25 percent
had positive reactions. Because of the predominance of
negative reactions, the shellfish industry should avoid the
term in any educational or marketing programs for shellfish
treated with the depuration process and strive to develop a
name with more positive connotations.

* About 70 percent of the seafood restaurants surveyed currently
offer oysters on their menus. About half of all restaurants
sell raw and cooked oysters and roughly 20 percent serve only
cooked. Nearly 90 percent of the firms that do not sell raw
oysters cited fear of legal liability as a major reason.

* Overall, restaurant managers detected declining raw oyster
sales and increasing sales of cooked oysters.

S Slightly over 60 percent of the restaurants selling oysters
have consumer health advisories posted somewhere on the
premises or on their menus. About 80 percent thought the
notices had no effect on oyster sales, but 13 percent thought
sales had declined as a result of the notices.

* Restaurant managers were asked how their oyster purchases
would be affected if depurated oysters were available at $30
per bushel and non-depurated at $15. The number of
restaurants buying non-depurated shellstock would decline from
20 to 14. Weekly purchases of untreated shellstock would
decrease from 971 to 736 bushels, a 24 percent drop.

S Thirteen managers said they would buy a total of 255 bushels
of depurated oysters. Thus, the projected market share for
depurated shellstock would be about 21 percent. The
quantities of undepurated shucked oysters, most of which are

xvii










used for cooked products, would decline from 200 to 196
bushels per week, a 2 percent decrease. According to the
managers, the total quantity of oysters purchased by all
restaurants would increase only slightly, just over 1 percent.
It appears that most managers may underestimate consumer
reaction to depurated oysters.

S Clams were also sold by 70 percent of the seafood restaurants
surveyed. Only 16 percent sold raw clams, citing lack of
demand, "too much trouble" "too much waste" (shrink due to
spoilage) and "poor quality." Concerns about legal liability
were not mentioned.

S Nearly half of the restaurants serving raw clams noted
declining sales trends. On the other hand, 40 percent of
those serving cooked clams said cooked clam sales were
increasing, and only one firm said sales were declining.

* Ten of the 37 restaurants surveyed currently buy raw
shellstock. When asked how many depurated clams they would
buy at $60 per bushel if untreated clams sold for $44.00, five
of these firms said they would switch entirely to depurated
clams and five restaurants said they would continue to serve
undepurated shellstock. Six firms that are not currently
buying shellstock indicated they would if it were depurated.
Given this scenario, purchases of undepurated shellstock would
fall from 127 bushels per week to 40.5 bushels, a 68 percent
decline. Total shellstock would increase to 153 bushels per
week, an increase of about 20 percent. Undepurated processed
clams (strips, etc.) would remain virtually unchanged.

* Some, but not all, restaurant managers also appear willing to
buy depurated oysters and clams. Their primary motivation is
to reduce their legal liability. However, unless depuration
can be demonstrated to result in a product safety record
rivaling other food items, business liability underwriters
will continue their current reported practices of charging
higher premiums to restaurants that serve raw oysters. This
could continue to depress and reduce the number of restaurants
carrying raw oysters. Better quantitative data are needed to
convince restaurants, and more importantly their underwriters,
that depuration results in a safe, wholesome product.

* In summary, consumer confidence in the safety of shellfish,
particularly oysters, has greatly deteriorated during the past
few years. Frequent, adverse media coverage of seafood-borne
illness coupled with consumption advisory notices issued by
the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS)
have undermined public confidence. The promise of safer
oysters and clams has a broad-based appeal, and consumers
appear willing to pay the costs associated with the depuration
process.


xviii










INTRODUCTION


Depuration, a process of flushing living mollusks with
purified water, promises to provide consumers with safer oysters
and clams. Properly administered, depuration can reduce the total
numbers of bacteria and viruses present in oysters and clams. This
may reduce the incidence of illness caused by consumption of these
shellfish. The technical process and the production economics of
depuration are described in separate reports by IFAS researchers
(Tamplin, 1994; Adams, 1994). Although there has been considerable
research on the technical aspects of oyster and clam depuration,
little is known about the public's perceived need for safer oysters
and clams and the general acceptability of the depuration process.


OBJECTIVES


The basic objective of this study was to determine the market
potential for depurated oysters and clams. Specific objectives
were to: (1) determine the general public's perception of the
current safety of oysters and clams (2) Determine the economic
feasibility of depuration by examining consumers' willingness to
purchase depurated oysters and clams, their willingness to pay for
safer them, and potential sales volume at various price levels, and
(3) Examine acceptance of depurated oysters and clams by managers
of seafood restaurants, an important factor in the foodservice
sector.














1





































































2











PROCEDURE


Two telephone surveys were conducted during April and May of
1994. One was a consumer survey, the other a survey of seafood
restaurant managers.


Consumer Survey


A stratified sample of 1,012 households in central and north
central Florida was selected for a telephone survey. The strata
were defined as the seven metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs)
within approximately 100 miles of Cedar Key. The seven MSAs were
Tallahassee, Jacksonville, Gainesville, Ocala, Orlando,
Lakeland/Winter Haven and Tampa/St. Petersburg. These MSAs
encompass 17 counties and contain about 5 million residents. The
number of households surveyed in each county of each MSA was
proportionate to its total population (Appendix A, Appendix Table
1) Telephone households were randomly selected by using a random-
digit dialing technique. Within each household, an adult (age 18
and older) was randomly selected using the "last-birthday"
technique. Three callbacks were made to each randomly selected
telephone number before selecting an alternative number; initial
contacts and callbacks were made at three different times of the
day, i.e., 9:00 AM to 12:00 PM, 12:01 to 6:00 PM and 6:01 to 9:00
P.M. or on weekends.
Interviewing was done by professional interviewers of a
commercial field service using a computer assisted telephone
interviewing (CATI) program. Interviewers were monitored on-line
and 10 percent of all interviews were independently validated. The
questionnaire required approximately 10 minutes to complete. A
copy of the questionnaire is included in Appendix B.







3










Restaurant Manager Survey


A random sample of independent restaurants in the seven MSAs
was drawn from listings in the 1994-1995 Florida Business Directory
(American Business Directories, 1994). The sample included only
those listings that had a seafood oriented name or were known to
serve seafood. Florida Agricultural Market Research Center Staff
called approximately 100 firms and successfully interviewed 37
managers responsible for menu selection and purchasing decisions.
Calls were made during non-rush hour periods, i.e., mid-mornings
and mid-afternoons. Most interviews required from 15 to 20 minutes
each. A copy of the questionnaire is included in Appendix C.



































4










RESULTS


Consumer Survey


Composition Of The Sample


Socio-demographic information was obtained for each of the
1,012 adults interviewed. Despite the rigorous randomization
procedures, the sample contained somewhat greater proportions of
females, whites, high income households and older respondents than
the general population, but this is commonplace in telephone
surveys because of the lower incidence of telephone service among
low income and black households (Appendix Table 2). Because of the
disproportionate numbers of respondents in some of the socio-
demographic groups, care was taken to make sure that the effects of
gender, race, income, education, and age on key findings were
examined.


General Findings


Nearly 85 percent of all those surveyed said they ate some
type of seafood. Incidence of consumption was statistically
associated with age and education, but no other demographic
variables. Seafood consumption was greater among middle-aged (35-
64) and older consumers (65+) and lowest in the youngest age group.
Eighty-eight percent of the middle-aged group ate some type of
seafood compared with 83 percent of the older consumers and only 79
percent of the youngest (Table 1).
The incidence of seafood consumption was associated with
education. About 89 percent of the college graduates consumed some
type of seafood, compared with only 81 percent of those with a high
school education or less (Table 1). Respondents that ate no
seafood were asked why. Dislike for the taste of seafood was by
far the most frequent reason, cited by nearly 60 percent (9 percent
of the total sample). Allergic reaction to seafood was the next

5










most common reason, mentioned by about 10 percent. Concern about
the safety and wholesomeness was the next most frequent reason
given for not eating seafood, mentioned by about 9 percent of the
non-consumers (Table 2).


Health factors that could affect shellfish consumption


All 1,012 respondents were asked about health problems that
could adversely affect their consumption of shellfish. Seventy-
one, or seven percent, reported shellfish allergies (Table 3). A
total of 220, about 22 percent, reported one or more serious health
problems such as diabetes, heart disease, liver or stomach problems
or immune system disorders which could limit their consumption of
raw or partially cooked shellfish (Table 3, Appendix Table 3).
When respondents with shellfish allergies are included with those
reporting other significant health problems, 29 percent of the
total sample could be at risk from consuming raw or undercooked
shellfish.


Perceptions of health risks associated with shellfish


The subset of the sample that consumed some type of seafood
was asked to rate the relative "safety" of oysters, clams and
chicken. Safety was not defined nor was the form of the three
items; this was done so that the methodology would be similar to
that used in a previous shellfish safety study (Lin, 1991).
The previous study, conducted by Lin in 1990, included 11
coastal southeastern and mid-Atlantic states from Texas to Delaware
(inclusive). Responses in Lin's study were obtained from the
general population, including non-consumers of seafood. Because
the current safety ratings were obtained from seafood consumers
within a 100 mile-radius of Cedar Key, it was hypothesized that
safety ratings of the current target population would likely be
more favorable than those of the previous study because of greater
familiarity of seafood and because of closer geographic proximity

6











Table 1. Proportion of sample consuming seafood, all respondents
and by selected socio-demographic categories.


Socio-demographic Consume seafood
category n yes no Totala

(----------Percent----------)
All respondents 1012 84.5 15.5 100.0

Age (years)b
18-34 281 79.4 20.6 100.0
35-64 499 88.0 12.0 100.0
65+ 208 83.2 16.8 100.0

Education
High School or less 436 81.2 18.8 100.0
Some College 287 84.7 15.3 100.0
College graduate 289 89.3 10.7 100.0


Race
White 906 84.0 16.0 100.0
Black 99 89.9 10.1 100.0

Gender
Male 357 85.2 14.8 100.0
Female 655 84.1 15.9 100.0

Income
Under $20,000 174 83.3 16.7 100.0
$20,001 to $35,000 234 86.8 13.2 100.0
$35,001 to $50,000 181 87.8 12.2 100.0
$50,000 + 201 88.1 11.9 100.0


aTotals may not sum to 100.0 due to rounding.
bChi-square analysis indicates that this variable is statistically
significant, P < 0.05.
"cAll non-blacks were included in the white category.













7










Table 2. Respondents' primary reasons for not eating any type of
seafood.


Primary reason
for not eating Cumulative Cumulative
seafood Frequency Percent Frequency Percent


Taste 93 59.2 93 59.2
Seafood allergies 15 9.6 108 68.8
Food safety/quality 14 8.9 122 77.7
Vegetarian 11 7.0 133 84.7
Do not know 11 7.0 144 91.7
Too expensive 8 5.1 152 96.8
Smell 3 1.9 155 98.7
Other 2 1.3 157 100.0






Table 3. Proportion of sample with shellfish allergies or other
significant health problems.


Cumulative Cumulative
Response Frequency Percent Frequency Percent


Shellfish allergies
Yes 71 7.0 71 7.0
No 932 92.1 1003 99.1
Refused to answer 9 0.9 1012 100.0

Number of major
health problems
None 783 77.4 783 77.4
One 177 17.5 960 94.9
Two 40 4.0 1000 98.9
Three 3 0.3 1003 99.2
Refused 9 0.9 1012 100.0


"aShellfish allergies were excluded; major health problems included
diabetes, heart disease, liver ailments, stomach problems and
immune system disorders. When shellfish allergies are included, a
total of 29 percent of the total population could be at risk from
consuming raw or undercooked shellfish.



8










to major seafood production areas. However, comparison of the
current survey results with Lin's 1990 findings reveals a dramatic
erosion of the public's confidence in the safety of oysters.
Both the current and the 1990 surveys had respondents rate the
safety of oysters and chicken on a seven-point scale where "1"
represented "not safe at all" and "7" was "perfectly safe". The
current survey also had respondents rate the safety of clams. In
1990, nine percent indicated that oysters were not safe at all; in
the current survey, this percentage increased to over 31 percent.
Nearly 20 percent rated clams as "not safe at all". In contrast,
the ratings for chicken were very similar for the two surveys
(Table 4).
The current survey also explored respondents' perceptions as
to the likelihood of illness resulting from eating one serving of
raw and cooked oysters, raw and cooked clams, and chicken using a
four point semantic differential scale ranging for "very likely" to
"not at all likely". They were also asked for numerical
probabilities of getting sick from eating each of these products,
i.e., of getting sick once in what number of meals. Again, the
results showed little confidence in the safety of oysters or clams,
particularly when eaten raw. Over 40 percent of the respondents
felt sickness from raw oysters was very likely; the comparable
percentage was 38 percent for raw clams and only 3.7 percent for
chicken (Table 5). The perceived chances of getting sick from
cooked oysters or clams was much more favorable, with only 6.2 and
5.6 percent, respectively, expressing the opinion that they were
"very likely" to get sick from one serving of these items.
Although most respondents have difficulty in expressing reasonable
odds of getting sick from various foods, the expressed odds
exhibited the same lack of confidence in the safety of raw oysters
and clams, with cooked products faring somewhat better (Appendix
Table 4).
Approximately two-thirds of all respondents were also aware of
consumer advisory notices describing health risks associated with
eating raw oysters. Respondents that were middle-aged, more

9










Table 4. Consumers' perceptions of the relative safety of oysters,
clams and chicken.



Rating Oysters Clams Chicken
1991a 1994b 1994b 1991a 1994b


(-------------Percent-------------)
1 = Not safe at all 9.0 31.3 19.3 1.5 1.9
2 9.6 16.2 13.7 2.1 2.5
3 17.0 15.9 14.9 5.4 7.6
4 21.9 13.0 16.6 12.6 14.7
5 21.8 14.4 19.3 29.4 33.1
6 11.8 4.1 9.0 24.3 17.3
7 = Perfectly safe 8.8 5.1 7.2 24.6 22.8
Totals 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


"aPercentages are based upon 916 observations for oysters and 1,060
for chicken. These data were obtained in 1990 from 11 southeastern
and mid-Atlantic states (Lin, 1991).
bPercentages for the 1994 survey are based upon 748, 699 and 863
respondents for oysters, clams and chicken respectively. Those
that were vegetarians, suffered from seafood allergies, or did not
eat seafood because of its taste or smell were excluded.
Approximately 16, 22 and 3 percent of the respondents asked to rate
oysters, clams and chicken, respectively, were unable to do so;
they were also excluded.























10










educated, white, female, and those with higher incomes had a
greater awareness of advisory notices (Appendix Table 5). There
was also a substantial amount of consumer support for such advisory
notices, with nearly three-fourths of all respondents indicating
that they were necessary. Also, nearly 87 percent felt that
informational labels on proper cooking and handling practices were
necessary (Appendix Tables 5 and 6).
The high levels of awareness of consumption advisories for raw
oysters are no doubt reaching potential consumers of raw oysters
that may be at risk because of health conditions. However, these
awareness levels may have contributed to a loss of confidence in
oyster's safety among consumers that are at relatively low risk.


Current Oyster Consumption


Aversions to oysters by non-consumers


Approximately three fourths of the respondents that eat
seafood had eaten oysters at least once (Table 6). Nearly two-
thirds of those that had never eaten them said they had not because
of their appearance, with 15 percent explicitly mentioning their
"slimy" look. An additional 13 percent thought they would taste
bad (Table 7). Slightly over 7 percent had never eaten oysters
because of personal safety concerns, i.e., they were afraid of
illness. One person, representing a very small percentage of total
non-eaters, had been advised by a medical doctor to avoid oysters.
Other reasons given for not eating oysters included a general
aversion to new things, smell, and the thought of grit in the
oyster's digestive system. Price was also mentioned by several
respondents (Table 7).
Of the respondents that had eaten oysters, slightly over two-
thirds liked them (Table 8). Of those that said they disliked
them, taste was mentioned by about 37 percent. Texture was also a
big factor, with nearly 20 percent objecting to the slimy feel and
13 percent to the grit. General appearance was mentioned by 10

11










percent. Fear of illness was also cited by a total of 12 percent;
this includes several respondents that were concerned about
allergies and one that had been told by a medical doctor to avoid
oysters (Table 9).


Frequency of oyster consumption


Approximately 47 percent of the overall sample said they liked
oysters. However, nearly one-third of these respondents had not
eaten oysters within the past year. An additional 44 percent ate
oysters only four or less times within the preceding year.
Approximately one-fourth of those liking oysters constituted the
hard-core, frequent consumers. This group ate oysters at least
onceper month (Table 10). The 319 respondents that ate oysters at
least once during the past year averaged having oysters 11.1 times,
just under once per month.
Almost half of the respondents that liked oysters but had not
eaten any in the preceding year cited fear of illness as their
primary reason for not having eaten them. An additional four
percent had been cautioned by medical doctors not to eat them
(Table 11). The second most frequently mentioned reason was simply
"not in the mood" or "not hungry for them", given by 20 percent.
The next most frequent reason given was "lack of opportunity".
This is of particular concern because many restaurants are dropping
oysters from their menus because of liability considerations.
Unless this trend is halted or reversed, the aggregate demand for
oysters, particularly raw shellstock, could be drastically reduced
from traditional levels. Only two percent of oyster consumers
mentioned price or expense as the reason for not eating them in
previous year. A similar number said they had not eaten oysters
because of dietary concerns such as cholesterol (Table 11).






12











Table 5. Consumers' perceived chances of getting sick from eating
one serving of raw and cooked oysters, raw and cooked clams and
chicken.


Perceived chance of
getting sick from Raw Cooked Raw Cooked Chicken
one serving oysters oysters clams clams


(------------------Percenta------------------
Very likely 40.5 6.2 38.4 5.6 3.7
Somewhat likely 41.7 34.5 36.3 31.2 25.5
Not too likely 9.5 37.5 9.2 37.4 46.2
Not at all likely 2.8 14.4 3.5 14.2 23.0
Do not know 5.5 7.4 12.7 11.5 1.6

Totals 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


aPercentages are based upon 893 respondents. Those that were
vegetarians, suffered from seafood allergies or did not eat seafood
because of taste or smell were excluded.






























13










Number of oysters eaten per occasion


The most frequently mentioned quantity of oysters eaten per
occasion was 12, reported by nearly one-third of all those eating
oysters in the previous year. Other frequently mentioned
quantities were six and 24, reported by 19 and 12 percent,
respectively (Table 12). The average number eaten per occasion was
13.8.


Reported chances in oyster consumption
Nearly half of all respondents that like oysters said they had
changed their oyster consumption patterns within the past three
years. Ninety percent had reduced consumption. Although the
reported average quantity of oysters consumed per occasion in the
past was the same as for the past year, the frequency of
consumption dropped from about 19 times per year to only 11 times.
The leading reason for the adverse changes in oyster
consumption was negative media coverage, mentioned by nearly 55
percent of those responding. Lack of availability accounted for 13
percent. Health advisory warning signs or notices adversely
affected about 8 percent. Personal illness resulting from eating
oysters caused 7 percent to reduce oyster consumption. Doctors'
warnings affected about 4 percent, fear of contaminated or unsafe
oysters 3 percent, and friends' or relatives' illness resulting
from oysters about 2 percent. Dietary concerns and poor health
were mentioned by small percentages. Interestingly, price
increases were cited as a reason for negative changes in
consumption by about 5 percent (Table 13).
About 10 percent of those that changed their oyster
consumption patterns reported positive changes. The majority of
those increasing consumption did so because oysters were more
readily available or because they had learned to like them. Other
reasons for increased consumption included better quality, lower
prices, promise of improved sex life and the availability of
oysters from a preferred geographic source (Table 13).

14











Table 6. Proportion of sample that had eaten oysters at least
once.


Cumulative Cumulative
Response Frequencya Percent Frequency Percent


Yes, had eaten oysters 677 75.8 677 75.8
No, had not eaten oysters 216 24.2 893 100.0


"aExcludes those that do not eat any type of seafood because of
vegetarianism, seafood allergies, dislike of seafood because of
taste or smell or religious reasons.









Table 7. Respondents' primary reasons for never having eaten
oysters.


Primary reason
for never trying Cumulative Cumulative
oysters Frequency Percent Frequency Percent


Appearance 108 51.2 108 51.2
Slimy 31 14.7 139 65.9
Think they taste bad 28 13.3 167 79.1
Safety concerns 15 7.1 182 86.3
Aversion to new things 13 6.2 195 92.4
Smell 6 2.8 201 95.3
Think grit is bad 6 2.8 207 98.1
Price 2 0.9 209 99.1
Other physical concerns 1 0.5 210 99.5
Medical advice 1 0.5 211 100.0










15










Table 8. Proportion of sample that had tried oysters and liked
them.


Cumulative Cumulative
Response Frequency Percent Frequency Percent


Like 459 67.8 459 67.8
Dislike 206 30.4 665 98.2
Unsure 12 1.8 677 100.0












Table 9. Primary reasons given for disliking oysters by
respondents who had tried them.



Reasons for Cumulative Cumulative
disliking oysters Frequency Percent Frequency Percent


Taste 74 36.6 74 36.6
Slimy 40 19.8 114 56.4
Gritty 27 13.4 141 69.8
Appearance 21 10.4 162 80.2
Safety concerns 21 10.4 183 90.6
General dislike 14 6.9 197 97.5
Smell 2 1.0 199 98.5
Allergies 2 1.0 201 99.5
Medical advice 1 0.5 202 100.0












16










Usual form of oysters eaten


Respondents that had eaten oysters in the previous year were
asked what form was usually eaten. About 53 percent said they
usually ate them cooked, which included steamed, fried, baked,
stewed, etc. Approximately 41 percent usually ate them raw on the
halfshell. Only 4 percent ate them raw shucked oysters (from jars)
and only 2 percent eat processed canned oysters (Table 14). Chi-
square analysis did not reveal any statistically significant
relationships between the usual form of oysters eaten and
respondent's age, income, gender, education or race. In order to
determine what changes consumers had made in their consumption of
raw versus cooked oysters, they were asked to indicate what
proportion they currently ate raw compared with three years ago.
There has been a marked increase in the consumption of cooked
oysters. Three years ago, about 39 percent of the respondents ate
only cooked oysters; today, about 53 percent eat only cooked.
Similarly, three years ago 26 percent ate only raw oysters and
today the percentage has declined to about 23 percent (Table 15).
In the aggregate, about 23 percent of all those eating oysters in
the previous year said they had reduced the proportion of oysters
eaten raw; about 73 percent reported no change, and only 5 percent
increased the proportion eaten raw.


Current Clam Consumption


Aversion To Clams


Nearly three-fourths of the respondents that eat seafood had
tried clams at least once (Table 16). Of those that had not, about
39 percent objected to their general appearance, and an additional
7 percent did not like their "slimy" look. About one-fourth of
those that had never tried clams said they had an aversion to
trying new things. Personal safety concerns, i.e., a fear of


17











Table 10. Frequency of oyster consumption in the past year by
respondents that like oysters.


Cumulative Cumulative
Frequency Number Percent Frequency Percent


None 152 32.3 152 32.3
Once 46 9.8 198 42.0
Once/twice 6 months 161 34.2 359 76.2
Once per month 48 10.2 407 86.4
Twice per month 36 7.6 443 94.1
Three times per month 8 1.7 451 95.8
Four times per month 15 3.2 466 98.9
More than once a week 5 1.1 471 100.0











Table 11. Primary reasons given for not eating oysters during the
past year by respondents that like oysters.


Reasons for not Cumulative Cumulative
eating oysters Frequency Percent Frequency Percent


Fear of illness 70 47.3 70 47.3
Not in the mood 30 20.3 100 67.6
Lack of opportunity 22 14.9 122 82.4
Not readily available 13 8.8 135 91.2
Medical advice 6 4.1 141 95.3
Too expensive 3 2.0 144 97.3
Dietary concerns 3 2.0 147 99.3
Other 1 0.7 148 100.0










18











Table 12. Number of oysters eaten per occasion in the past year.


Number of oysters Cumulative Cumulative
eaten per occasional Frequency Percent Frequency Percent


1 1 0.3 1 0.3
2 1 0.3 2 0.6
3 9 2.8 11 3.4
4 10 3.1 21 6.6
5 15 4.7 36 11.3
6 61 19.1 97 30.4
7 1 0.3 98 30.7
8 11 3.4 109 34.2
10 15 4.7 124 38.9
12 95 29.8 219 68.7
13 1 0.3 220 69.0
15 5 1.6 225 70.5
17 1 0.3 226 70.8
18 8 2.5 234 73.4
20 8 2.5 242 75.9
24 37 11.6 279 87.5
25 5 1.6 284 89.0
30 3 0.9 287 90.0
36 7 2.2 294 92.2
40 3 0.9 297 93.1
45 1 0.3 298 93.4
48 4 1.3 302 94.7
50 3 0.9 305 95.6
60 1 0.3 306 95.9
Do not know 13 4.1 319 100.0


"aThe average number of oysters eaten per occasion over all
respondents was 13.8.


















19










illness, was mentioned by only 3 percent, about half the number
that expressed concern about oysters (Table 17).
Of the respondents that had tried clams, slightly over 70
percent liked them. About one-fourth disliked clams, and a small
percentage was ambivalent (Table 18). Over half the respondents
that said they disliked clams cited taste as the primary reason.
About 17 percent mentioned the gritty texture. Other textural
attributes were found objectionable by small numbers of
respondents; these objectional features were described as "slimy"
and "chewy" or "rubbery". Personal safety considerations, or fear
of food-borne illness, was mentioned by only 6 percent. This was
about half the number that expressed a similar concern about
oysters (Table 19).


Frequency of clam consumption


As was the case with oysters, about 47 percent of the overall
sample said they liked clams. Even so, nearly one-fifth had eaten
no clams within the preceding year. An additional 58 percent ate
clams only one to four times during the year. Slightly less than
one-fourth ate clams at least once per month (Table 20). The 379
respondents that ate clams at least once during the preceding year
had them an average of 11.8 times, approximately once per month.
Respondents that said they liked clams but had not eaten any
during the preceding year cited a number of reasons. Slightly over
one in five mentioned fear of food-borne illness as the main
reason. Although this percentage is lower than observed for
oysters, it still represents a significant problem. Very similar
proportions, roughly 20 percent for each, said they had no clams
because they had no appetite for them, had no opportunity to eat
them or that clams were not available where they usually shopped or
ate. About 9 percent said they had not eaten clams in the previous
year because they were too expensive, while approximately 7 percent




20










Table 13. Consumers' reasons for changing their consumption of
oysters during the past three years.


Percent of
positive or
Response Frequency negative reasons


Negative reasons
Media 101 54.9
Lack of availability 24 13.0
Warning signs 15 8.2
Personal illness 13 7.1
Price increases 9 4.9
Doctor's warning 8 4.4
Contamination 5 2.7
Relative/friends illness 4 2.2
Dietary concerns 3 1.6
Poor health 2 1.1
Total negative reasons 184 100.0

Positive reasons
More readily available 7 36.8
Learned to like them 5 26.3
Better quality 3 15.8
Lower prices 2 10.5
Promise of improved sex 2 10.5
Geographic source 1 5.3
Total positive reason 19 100.0

Overall total 203


"aPercentages may not sum to 100.0 because of rounding.
"bOf the 203 respondents that provided a reason for changing their
consumption of oysters, 90.6 gave negative and 9.4 percent gave
positive reasons.















21










Table 14. Usual form of oysters consumed by respondents during the
past year.


Usual form Cumulative Cumulative
consumed Frequency Percent Frequency Percent


Cooked 168 52.8 168 52.8
Raw on the half-shell 129 40.6 297 93.4
Raw from a jar 14 4.4 311 97.8
Canned, from a tin 7 2.2 318 100.0


"aAlthough Chi-square analyses were inconclusive because of sparse
data, it appears that blacks and females eat larger proportions
cooked rather than raw.




































22











Table 15. Percentage of oysters currently eaten raw compared with
three years ago.


Percent of Currently Three years ago
oysters Number of Percent of Number of Percent of
eaten rawa respondents respondents respondents respondents


0 150 53.2 109 38.7
1 3 1.1 8 2.8
2 2 0.7 1 0.4
5 2 0.7 6 2.1
8 1 0.4 1 0.4
10 7 2.5 9 3.2
12 0 0.0 1 0.4
20 1 0.4 0 0.0
25 3 1.1 6 2.1
30 4 1.4 2 0.7
33 1 0.4 2 0.7
40 0 0.0 1 0.4
50 21 7.4 32 11.3
60 0 0.0 2 0.7
66 0 0.0 1 0.4
75 6 2.1 9 3.2
80 5 1.8 3 1.1
85 0 0.0 1 0.4
90 5 1.8 8 2.8
95 0 0.0 1 0.4
99 5 1.8 5 1.8
100 66 23.4 74 26.2
Totals 282 100.0 282 100.0


"aThis table includes only those respondents that had eaten oysters
within the past year and were able to estimate the percentage eaten
raw for the previous year and three years previously. Sixty-three
of the 282 respondents (22.3 percent) reduced their consumption of
raw oysters. Approximately 73 percent did not change, and only 5
percent increased their consumption of raw oysters.













23










cited medical advice as their primary reason. Difficult
preparation and dietary concerns were also mentioned by a small
numbers of respondents (Table 21).


Number of clams eaten per occasion


Although one dozen, one-half dozen and two dozen were the most
frequently mentioned quantities eaten per occasion, there appeared
to be more dispersion around these traditional quantities.
Additionally, nearly 17 percent were unable to estimate the number
of clams eaten (Table 22) One explanation for the greater
dispersion and the inability of respondents to estimate the number
eaten compared with consumers of oysters is that clams are
frequently prepared as fried clam "strips" or in chowder. The
average number of clams eaten per occasion over all respondents was
13.2.


Reported changes in clam consumption


About one fifth of all those that liked clams said they had
changed their consumption habits within the past three years. As
with oysters, approximately 90 percent of those that had changed
reported a decline in consumption.
The major reason given for reducing clam consumption was
adverse media reports, mentioned by nearly one-fourth of the
respondents. Lack of availability was cited by nearly 19 percent.
About 18 percent simply said they did not feel like eating clams
and price increases caused about 11 percent to reduce their clam
consumption. Health advisory notices (warning signs) fear of food-
borne illness and doctor's advice accounted for almost equal
percentages, mentioned in total by just over 20 percent of the
negative change (Table 23). There were only two basic reasons why
a small number of respondents increased their consumption: they
learned to like them and clams were more readily available. These
two reasons were cited by equal numbers of respondents (Table 23).

24











Table 16. Proportion of sample that had eaten clams at least once.


Cumulative Cumulative
Response Frequency Percent Frequency Percent


Yes, had eaten clams 651 72.9 651 72.9
No, had not eaten clams 241 27.0 892 99.9
Unsure 1 0.1 893 100.0






Table 17. Respondents' primary reasons for never having eaten
clams.


Cumulative Cumulative
Reason Frequency Percent Frequency Percent


Appearance 83 38.6 83 38.6
Aversion to new things 56 26.0 139 64.7
Think taste would be bad 34 15.8 173 80.5
Slimy 16 7.4 189 87.9
Smell 9 4.2 198 92.1
Grit/internal waste 8 3.7 206 95.8
Safety concerns 7 3.3 213 99.1
Allergies, medical advice 2 0.9 215 100.0






Table 18. Proportion of sample that had tried clams and liked
them.


Cumulative Cumulative
Response Frequency Percent Frequency Percent


Like 466 71.5 466 71.5
Dislike 167 25.6 633 97.1
Unsure 19 2.9 652 100.0




25










Table 19. Primary reasons given for disliking clams by respondents
who had tried them.


Reasons for Cumulative Cumulative
disliking clams Frequency Percent Frequency Percent


Taste 84 52.5 84 52.5
Gritty texture 27 16.9 111 69.4
General dislike 16 10.0 127 79.4
Appearance 10 6.2 137 85.6
Safety concerns 10 6.2 147 91.1
Slimy 5 3.1 152 95.0
Smell 3 1.9 155 96.9
Chewy/Rubbery 3 1.9 158 98.7
Allergies 1 0.6 159 99.4
Medical advice 1 0.6 160 100.0









Table 20. Frequency of clam consumption in the past year by
respondents that like clams.


Cumulative Cumulative
Response Frequency Percent Frequency Percent


None 85 18.2 85 18.2
Once a year 59 12.7 144 30.9
Once or twice in 6 months 212 45.5 356 76.4
Once per month 55 11.8 411 88.2
Twice per month 25 5.4 436 93.6
Three times per month 5 1.1 441 94.6
Four times per month 16 3.4 457 98.1
More than once a week 7 1.5 464 99.6
Do not know 2 0.4 466 100.0









26










Table 21. Primary reasons given for not eating clams during the
past year by respondents that like clams.


Reasons for not Cumulative Cumulative
eating clams Frequency Percent Frequency Percent


Fear of illness 18 22.5 18 22.5
No appetite 17 21.3 35 43.7
No opportunity 15 18.8 50 62.5
Not available 15 18.8 65 81.2
Too expensive 7 8.8 72 90.0
Medical advice 6 7.5 78 97.5
Hard to prepare 1 1.3 79 98.7
Dietary concerns 1 1.3 80 100.0





































27











Table 22. Number of clams consumed per occasion in past year.


Number of clams Cumulative Cumulative
eaten per occasional Frequency Percent Frequency Percent


1 2 0.5 2 0.5
2 9 2.4 11 2.9
3 12 3.1 23 6.0
4 6 1.6 29 7.6
5 10 2.6 39 10.2
6 50 13.1 89 23.4
7 3 0.8 92 24.1
8 11 2.9 103 27.0
9 2 0.5 105 27.6
10 25 6.6 130 34.1
12 99 26.0 229 60.1
13 1 0.3 230 60.4
14 1 0.3 231 60.6
15 12 3.1 243 63.8
18 7 1.8 250 65.6
20 17 4.5 267 70.1
21 1 0.3 268 70.3
24 24 6.3 292 76.6
25 4 1.0 296 77.7
30 6 1.6 302 79.3
36 8 2.1 310 81.4
40 1 0.3 311 81.6
45 1 0.3 312 81.9
48 1 0.3 313 82.2
50 3 0.8 316 82.9
55 1 0.3 317 83.2
60 1 0.3 318 83.5
Do not know 63 16.6 381 100.0


"aThe average number of clams eaten per occasion over all
respondents was 13.2.















28










Usual form of clams eaten


Respondents that had eaten clams during the previous year were
asked what form was usually eaten. Eighty-nine percent said they
usually eat fresh clams cooked. Only 6 percent said they ate them
raw on the half-shell, and about 4 percent usually ate processed
(canned) clams (Table 24). There were no statistically significant
differences in the form of clams consumed by age, gender,
education, race or income. In order to determine what changes
consumers had made in their consumption of raw versus cooked clams,
they were asked to indicate what proportion they currently eat raw
compared with three years ago. Responses reveal a shift away from
consumption of raw clams toward cooked, although the change has not
been as great as has been the case with oysters. Three years ago,
about 84 percent of the respondents ate only cooked clams. Today,
about 89 percent eat only cooked. Similarly, three years ago 4
percent ate only raw clams, but that percentage is now about 3
percent. In the aggregate, 8 percent of the respondents said they
had reduced their consumption of raw clams. About 91 percent said
they had not changed the proportions eaten raw versus fresh and
only one percent reported an increase in the proportion eaten raw
(Table 25).




















29










Table 23. Consumers' reasons for changing their clam consumption
patterns during the past three years.


Percent of
positive or
Response Frequency negative reasons


Negative reasons
Adverse media reports 23 23.7
Lack of availability 18 18.6
Did not feel like eating 17 17.5
Clams
Price increases 11 11.3
Warning signs 7 7.2
Personal illness 7 7.2
Doctor's advice 6 6.2
Dietary concerns 5 5.2
Difficult to prepare 2 2.1
Illness of friend/relative 1 1.0
Total negative reasons 97 100.0

Positive reasons
Learned to like them 6 50.0
More readily available 6 50.0
Total positive reasons 12 100.0

Overall Total 109 100.0


aPercentages may not sum to 100.0 because of rounding.
"bOf the 109 respondents that provided a reason for changing their
consumption of clams, 89 percent gave negative and 11 percent gave
positive reasons.


















30











Table 24. Usual form of clams consumed by respondents during the
past year.


Usual form Cumulative Cumulative
consumed Frequency Percent Frequency Percent


Cooked fresh 340 89.2 340 89.2
Raw on the half-shell 24 6.3 364 95.5
Canned from a tin 17 4.5 381 100.0


"aChi-square analyses revealed no statistically significant
differences in the usual form of clams consumed by age, gender,
education, race or income.





































31










Consumers' Acceptance of Depurated Oysters and Clams


The portion of the overall sample that said they liked oysters
and clams plus non-consumers that had an aversion to seafood in
general, or oysters or clams in particular because of fear of
foodborne illness, was read a brief, non-technical description of
the depuration process. This description stated:

"There are organisms in saltwater, such as bacteria and
viruses, that may be present in oysters and clams. When large
numbers of these organisms are present in oysters and clams,
eating them may cause illness. A process has been developed
which reduces the number of bacteria and viruses present in
oysters and clams. This process removes most harmful bacteria
and viruses by flushing them with clean water. The process
does not use chemicals or irradiation and does not affect the
taste."

The term "depuration" was intentionally not used because it
was felt that the word could possibly carry negative connotations
and introduce a negative bias into stated acceptance of the
depurated products. Thus, instead of using and defining the term
depuration, the brief description was read and respondents were
asked to name the process. Their suggested names and reaction to
"depuration" are discussed in a later section.
After hearing the brief description of the process and naming
it, respondents were asked whether or not they would buy oysters or
clams treated by the process, and if so, at what price. They were
also asked to estimate the likely frequency of consumption and the
quantity consumed for each occasion.
The sample subgroup that was asked whether or not they would
buy treated (depurated) oysters or clams did not include
vegetarians, those that suffer from seafood allergies or these that
object to seafood in general because of its taste or to oysters in
particular because of their taste or other physical
characteristics. The subgroup did, however, include those that
currently eat no seafood or oysters because of fear of illness.



32











Table 25. Percentage of clams currently eaten raw compared with
three years ago.


Percent of Currently Three years ago
clams eaten Number of Percent of Number of Percent of
rawa respondents respondents respondents respondents


0 288 89.2 270 83.6
1 3 0.9 2 0.6
2 1 0.3 2 0.6
5 2 0.6 2 0.6
10 2 0.6 3 0.9
15 1 0.3 1 0.3
20 2 0.6 5 1.5
25 3 0.9 7 2.2
30 1 0.3 1 0.3
50 6 1.9 11 3.4
60 1 0.3 1 0.3
70 0 0.0 1 0.3
75 2 0.6 4 1.2
90 1 0.3 0 0.0
99 0 0.0 0 0.0
100 10 3.1 13 4.0
Totals 323 100.0 323 100.0


"aThis table includes only those respondents that had eaten clams
within the past year and were able to estimate the percentage eaten
raw for the preceding year and three years previously. Eight
percent reduced their consumption of raw clams, 91 percent made no
changes, and about one percent increased their consumption of raw
clams.



















33










The intent was to ask the largest possible sample subgroup that
could be potential consumers about their willingness to buy
depurated oysters or clams.


Respondents' willingness to buy depurated oysters


About 55 percent of the potential oyster consumers expressed
a willingness to buy the safer product. This represents
approximately 36 percent of the total sample. Approximately 38
percent said they would not, and nearly 7 percent were undecided.
Age was the only socio-demographic variable that was associated
with willingness to buy; 63 percent of the youngest age group (18-
34) were willing to buy, in contrast to only 43 percent of the 65
and older group. The oldest group also had the largest proportion
of undecided respondents (Table 26). Of those that had eaten
oysters within the past year, 75 percent were willing to buy
purated oysters. Respondents that expressed a willingness to buy
depurated oysters were asked how much they would be willing to pay
for each treated oyster if untreated oysters were selling for 50
cents each in retail seafood markets or restaurants. About 16
percent of those that said they would buy depurated oysters refused
to pay a premium for them, and 15 percent were unable or unwilling
to indicate what price they would pay. However, approximately 70
percent were willing to pay a premium ranging from one cent to 50
cents per oyster. Very few respondents indicated a willingness to
spend more than a dollar apiece for oysters (Table 27). The simple
average price that potential consumers of depurated oysters was
willing to pay was about 68 cents each.


The impact of depurated oyster availability on consumption


As mentioned earlier, the survey revealed that 319 respondents
out of the total sample of 1,012 had eaten oysters during the
previous year. Using their frequency of consumption and average
number of oysters eaten per occasion, it is estimated that this

34










group of respondents consumed about 62,200 oysters in a year (Table
28). This group, along with other respondents thought to be
potential oyster customers, was read the brief description of
depuration and asked about potential purchase of depurated oysters,
probable frequency of consumption, the likely number consumed, and
the price they would be willing to pay. Each person's responses
were analyzed independently to determine the total number of
depurated oysters that would be consumed annually and tabulated by
selected threshold price levels.
If respondents had eaten oysters in the previous year and were
unwilling to buy depurated oysters, it was assumed that they would
continue to buy undepurated oysters. Similarly, these respondents
were assumed to continue their purchase of undepurated oysters if
they indicated a willingness to buy depurated oysters, but at a
price that was lower than the various threshold price categories
that appear in Table 28. Thus, the number of potential depurated
oyster consumers varies by each price level. For example, at a
price of 55 cents per depurated oyster, 135 of the 319 current
oyster consumers would buy only undepurated oysters, because they
either did not want to buy depurated oysters at all, or they were
not willing to pay 55 cents each (reflecting a 5 cent premium) for
depurated oysters. Similarly, at a price of 55 cents, there would
be 270 potential customers of depurated oysters. This group
includes the balance of the 319 oyster consumers and other present
nonconsumers that would now be willing to buy depurated oysters at
a price of 55 cents each or more (Figure 1).
Examination of respondents' reaction to the availability of
depurated oysters reveals a strong potential demand for the safer
product. At a retail price of 55 cents per oyster, a price which
is sufficient to cover the costs of depuration only for large,
efficient depuration operations, the number of oyster consumers
would increase over present levels by nearly 30 percent. More
importantly, the total number of occasions when oysters would be
eaten would increase by nearly 60 percent, from 3,549 to 5,654 for
the sample. Total projected consumption would increase by 39

35











Table 26. Respondents' willingness to buy depurated oysters.


Socio-demographic Willingness to buy
group n yes no unsure Totalsa

(------------Percent-------------)


All potential 654 54.9 38.4 6.7 100.0
consumers

Age yearr)
18-34 162 63.0 32.1 4.9 100.0
35-64 341 55.1 38.7 6.2 100.0
65+ 136 43.4 45.6 11.0 100.0


"aTotals may not sum to 100.0 due to rounding.
bThis group does not include those that are vegetarians, those that
suffer from seafood allergies or object to seafood in general
because of its taste or to oysters in particular because of their
taste or other physical characteristics. It does include those
that currently eat no seafood or oysters because of fear of food-
borne illness.
"Chi-square analysis indicates statistically significant responses
by age groups, P < 0.05. No other socio-demographic variables were
found to be statistically significant.

























36











Table 27. Consumers' willingness to pay for depurated oysters.


Price Per Cumulative Cumulative
Oystera Frequencyb Percent Frequency Percentc


(Dollars)
0.50 47 15.6 47 15.6
0.51 26 8.6 73 24.2
0.52 2 0.7 75 24.8
0.53 2 0.7 77 25.5
0.55 40 13.2 117 38.7
0.60 52 17.2 169 56.0
0.65 9 3.0 178 58.9
0.70 11 3.6 189 62.6
0.75 65 21.5 254 84.1
0.80 3 1.0 257 85.1
0.85 1 0.3 258 85.4
0.90 1 0.3 259 85.8
1.00 37 12.3 296 98.0
1.50 2 0.7 298 98.7
2.00 4 1.3 302 100.0


"aRespondents were given a benchmark of 50 cents each as the current
"retail" or restaurant price.
bOne respondent indicated a willingness to pay $3.00 each and
another $5.00 each for oysters. Because these prices were so far
above the average, they were judged to be outliers and were
excluded from this frequency table. Also, 55 respondents that were
unable or unwilling to suggest a price are not shown.
"cPercentages may not sum to 100.0 due to rounding.




















37










percent, from about 62,200 oysters to nearly 86,500 (Table 28). At
55 cents each, depurated oysters would account for nearly 70
percent of total sales (Figure 2) and sales of non-depurated
-oysters would decline by slightly over 50 percent (Table 28).
At higher threshold prices, the total number of oyster
consumers declines. Even so, for example, there were 181
respondents willing to pay 65 cents or more; at this price 201
consumers would probably buy non-depurated oysters. This price
(assuming a 15 cent premium for depuration) would almost cover the
costs of even the least efficient depuration plant (Dunning and
Adams, 1994). At 65 cents, the total number of oyster consumers
would be 20 percent greater than current levels, and total oyster
sales about 23 percent greater (Table 28). Depurated oysters would
account for slightly over half of total sales (Figure 2). At even
higher prices, consumers expressed a continuing propensity to buy
depurated oysters. At 75 cents, the total number of oyster
consumers is still 12 percent greater than currently, the number of
occasions is one-third greater, and total oyster consumption is
nearly one-fourth greater than at present (Table 28).
The total market potential for depurated oysters was estimated
by taking the respondents' expressed willingness to buy and pay for
depurated oysters at retail price levels ranging from 55 cents each
to 75 cents and projecting it to the entire population in the 17
county market region. Estimated depurated oyster sales per 1,000
people and for the entire 5.6 million persons in the region were
calculated for each price level. Finally, net economic returns to
depurated oysters were calculated using the most and least
efficient depuration costs as determined by Dunning and Adams.
Using the most efficient cost figure of 3.3 cents per oyster at a
retail price of 55 cents and assuming a prevailing retail price of
50 cents for undepurated oysters, the net markup per oyster is 1.7
cents. Given the sample's expressed willingness to buy about
58,900 oysters per 1,000 respondents at this price level results in
a net return to depuration of $989 per 1,000 population, or
approximately $5.6 million for the entire region (Table 29). As

38










500

D Depurated

Non-depurated

cj" .___, -------------
S40 0 ..... ...... ................. .. ...... ......................



0
I-



C:


E 181
50 2o00 .
02 201
239
00

-0
E 135







0
50 55 60 65 70 75
Depurated oyster price, cents

Figure 1. Number of depurated and non-depurated oyster
consumers at various prices for depurated
oysters.

39











110
0 Depurated E Non-depurated

100 .. 0 65 70
100.0

90 .- .


80 .- .



38.1
a 39.3
a.

60.7







30

20 .-.


10


0











40











the price level increases to 75 cents, depurated oyster sales
decrease, but because of greater net markups, net returns exceed
$35 million.
The least efficient depuration cost reported by Dunning and
Adams was 15.3 cents per oyster, which was rounded to 15 cents for
this analysis. Using this cost, returns would be negative at any
price under 65 cents and zero at 65 cents. At prices of 70 and 75
cents, returns are estimated at $8.5 and $16.3 million for the
region (Table 29).
While the preceding sales and review projections appear very
positive, a word of caution is necessary on two points. First, the
annual sales projections are based upon what people said they would
do if depurated oysters were available. Respondents accepted the
brief description of the depuration process and made a very hurried
judgement as to the safety of the described oysters. Given
additional time to contemplate or assess the likely safety of
depurated oysters in a retail environment where consumer advisories
are still likely to be in effect, their actual purchase behavior
might be quite different from their survey response. Another
caution relates to the projected sales and revenue figures for the
region. The total revenues reflect total depurated oyster sales;
in reality, net revenues accruing to any one producing area would
depend on that area's market share. For the market region defined
in this study, there are a number of producing areas that compete
for market share, and a relatively small share may adversely affect
the efficiency level of any given area's depuration processing
facilities.


Respondents' willingness to buy depurated clams


About 47 percent of the potential clam consumers (current
users and those with concerns about seafood or shellfish-borne
illness) said they would be willing to buy depurated clams. This
represents about 31 percent of the total sample in contrast to 36
percent for oysters. A plausible reason for this somewhat lower

41










acceptance rate is that a very high proportion of clams are cooked
rather than eaten raw, and respondents perceive less of a health
hazard from cooked clams.
As with oysters, age was the only socio-demographic variable
that was associated with willingness to buy, again with younger
consumers more willing. About 57 percent of the 18 to 34 age group
were willing to buy depurated clams compared with 48 percent of the
35 to 64 group. Only 37 percent of those 65 years of age and older
were willing to buy them (Table 30).
Respondents that said they were willing to buy depurated clams
were asked how much they would pay for them, if untreated clams
were selling for 30 cents each in retail seafood markets or
restaurants. Although they were willing to buy depurated clams,
about 13 percent were unwilling to pay a premium for them.
However, nearly 75 percent were willing to pay a premium ranging
from one cent to twenty cents. An additional 12 percent said they
were willing to pay 55 cents or more for them (Table 31). The
simple average price respondents were willing to pay was about 44
cents each.


The impact of depurated clam availability on consumption


As mentioned previously, the survey found that 379 respondents
out of the total sample of 1,012 had eaten clams during the
previous year. Using their frequency of consumption and average
number of clams eaten per occasion, this group of respondents
consumed an estimated 62,400 clams during the year (Table 32).
This group of clam consumers, along with other potential clam
customers, was also read the brief description of the depuration
process and asked whether or not they would buy depurated clams.
Those that indicated a willingness to buy them were asked for their
anticipated frequency of consumption and number consumed per
occasion, and the price they would be willing to pay. The
analytical process used for potential purchases of depurated clams
was identical to that used for analyzing potential sales of

42









Table 28. Estimated consumption of depurated and non-depurated oysters by respondents at
varying price levels for depurated oysters.


Oyster price, each Number of Number of Average Total Number Average Annual Expenditures on Oysters
type of clams consumers occasions occasions of oysters number Total Average
Totals per year consumed eaten on oysters
per year (Dollars) (Dollars)


$0.75
Depurated 111 2,009 18.1 29,341 264 22,006 198
Non-depurated 245 2.761 11.2 47.650 194 23,825 97
Total 356 4,770 13.4 76,991 216 45,831 129

$0.70
Depurated 122 2,123 17.4 30,559 250 21,392 175
Non-depurated 239 2,716 11.4 47,230 198 23.615 99
Total 361 4,839 13.4 77,789 215 45,007 125

$0.65
Depurated 181 2,825 15.6 39,949 221 25,967 143
Non-depurated 201 2,210 11.0 36.553 181 18,277 91
Total 382 5,035 13.2 76,502 200 44,244 116

$0.60
Depurated 231 3,429 14.8 51,310 222 30,786 133
Non-depurated 165 1.890 11.4 30.196 183 15.098 92
Total 396 5,319 13.4 81,506 206 45,884 116

$0.55
Depurated 270 3,996 14.8 58,890 218 32,389 120
Non-depurated 135 1.658 12.3 27.600 204 13,800 102
Total 405 5,654 14.0 86,490 214 46,189 114

$0.50
Non-depurated 319 3,549 11.1 62,231 195 31,115 98
(Current situation)


"Prices shown greater than $0.50 are for depurated oysters only; the retail prices for untreated oysters are
assumed to be constant at $0.50 each.



43









Table 29. Estimated economic returns to depurated oysters at various retail prices and depuration costs.


Potential Sales Potential Returns at Depuration Potential returns of depuration
costs of 3.3t per oyster costs of 15 per oyster
Retail price Sample Market Net Per 1,000 Market Net Per 1,000 Market
region markup population region markup population region
per oyster per oyster


(Dollars) (1,000 (Million (cents) (Dollars) ($Million) (Cents) (Dollars) ($Million)
oysters) oysters)

0.55 58.9 326.6 1.7 989 5.6 -10 -a a

0.60 51.3 284.6 6.7 3.397 19.1 -5 -a -__a

0.65 39.9 221.6 11.7 4.619 25.9 0 0 0

0.70 30.6 169.5 16.7 5.043 28.3 5 1.510 8.5

0.75 29.3 162.7 21.7 6.291 35.3 10 2.899 16.3


aNegative returns are not calculated because it is assumed that depurated oysters would not be
produced at all where costs are greater than returns.

















44










oysters. If respondents had eaten clams during the previous year,
but were unwilling to buy depurated clams, it was assumed that they
would continue to buy untreated clams. Also, these respondents
were assumed to continue their purchases of undepurated clams if
they indicated a willingness to buy depurated clams, but at a price
that was lower than the various threshold price categories that
appear in Table 32. Thus, the number of potential depurated clam
consumers varies by price level. For example, at a price of 31
cents per depurated clam, 159 of the 379 current consumers would
buy undepurated clams, because they either did not want to buy
depurated clams at all, or they were not willing to pay the 31
cents each which reflects a one-cent premium for depurated clams.
Similarly, at a price of 31 cents, there would be 269 potential
customers of depurated clams. This group includes the balance of
the 379 consumers that had bought clams during the previous year
plus other current nonconsumers that said they would be willing to
buy depurated clams at a price of 31 cents each or more.
Respondents' reaction to the availability of depurated clams
was very positive. At 31 cents per clam, which is sufficient to
cover depuration costs for large, efficient operations, the number
of clam consumers would increase by about 13 percent, and the
number of occasions eaten by nearly 27 percent. The total
consumption of clams would increase by nearly one-third (Table 32).
As the price of depurated clams increases to 33 and 35 cents, the
total number of potential clam purchasers declines very slightly
(Table 32, Figure 3). At a price of 40 cents, the total number of
clam purchasers is still about 10 percent greater than the number
that bought clams in the past year, and total clam consumption is
21 percent greater. At 45 cents per clam, the total number of clam
consumers is still 6 percent greater than currently, the number
occasions is 9 percent greater, and the total number of clams
consumed is about 11 percent more (Table 32).
At a price of 31 cents, depurated clams' market share was
about two-thirds; at 35 cents, market share was just under 60
percent, and at 40 cents just over half. At 45 cents each, market

45











Table 30. Respondents' willingness to buy depurated clams.


Socio-demographic
group n yes No Unsure Totalsa

(--------------Percent---------------)
All potential 654 47.4 46.0 6.6 100.0
consumers

Age (years)c
18-34 162 56.8 41.4 1.8 100.0
35-64 341 47.5 45.4 7.0 100.0
65+ 136 36.8 52.2 11.0 100.0


aTotals may not sum to 100.0 due to rounding.
bThis group does not include those that are vegetarians, those that
suffer from seafood allergies or object to seafood in general
because of its taste or to oysters in particular because of their
taste or other physical characteristics. It does include those
that currently eat no seafood or oysters because of fear of food-
borne illness.
"cChi-square analysis indicates statistically significant responses
by age groups, P < 0.05. No other socio-demographic variables were
found to be statistically significant.



























46











Table 31. Consumers' willingness to pay for depurated clams.


Price per Cumulative Cumulative
clama Frequencyb Percent Frequency Percentc


(Dollars)
0.30 35 12.6 35 12.6
0.31 20 7.2 55 19.8
0.32 2 0.7 57 20.5
0.33 10 3.6 67 24.1
0.34 1 0.4 68 24.5
0.35 38 13.7 106 38.1
0.36 2 0.7 108 38.8
0.38 3 1.1 111 39.9
0.40 45 16.2 156 56.1
0.44 1 0.4 157 56.5
0.45 21 7.6 178 64.0
0.47 1 0.4 179 64.4
0.50 60 21.6 239 86.0
0.55 6 2.2 245 88.1
0.60 16 5.8 261 93.9
0.65 1 0.4 262 94.2
0.70 3 1.1 265 95.3
0.75 6 2.2 271 97.5
0.80 1 0.4 272 97.8
0.90 1 0.4 273 98.2
1.00 3 1.1 276 99.3
1.25 1 0.4 277 99.6
1.50 1 0.4 278 100.0


"aRespondents were given a benchmark of 30 cents each as the current
"retail" or restaurant price.
bThirty respondents were unable or unwilling to indicate a price
that they were willing to pay for depurated clams.
"cPercentages may not sum to 100.0 due to rounding.















47










share for depurated clams was just under 40 percent (Table 32,
Figure 4).
The total market potential for depurated clams as shown in
Table 33 was determined in the same manner as for oysters.
Respondents' expressed willingness to buy and pay for depurated
clams at retail price levels from 31 cents to 45 cents each was
calculated and projected to the entire population in the 17 county
market region. Economic net returns were calculated by using the
most and least efficient depuration costs as determined by Dunning
and Adams (Dunning and Adams, 1994).
Using the most efficient cost figure of 0.9 cents per clam at
a retail price of 31 cents and assuming a prevailing retail price
of 30 cents for undepurated clams, the net markup per clam is 0.1
cents. Given the sample's expressed willingness to buy about
55,400 oysters per 1,000 interviewees at this price level results
is a net return to depuration of $55 per 1,000 population, or
$300,000 for the entire region (Table 32). Holding depuration
costs constant at 0.9 cents and increasing retail prices to 33, 35,
40 and 45 cents results in substantial markups per clam. Even
though total depurated clam sales in the region decline from about
307 million at a price of 31 cents to 153 million at 45 cents, the
net returns to depuration jump to $21.6 million (Table 33).
At the least efficient depuration cost of 4.3 cents per clam,
returns at 31 and 33 cents would be negative,assuming a benchmark
price of 30 cents each for untreated clams. At a retail price of
35 cents, total market region returns to depuration would be just
under 2 million. At prices of 40 and 45 cents, net returns jump to
about $12 and $16 million, respectively (Table 33).
The sales and revenue projections for clams also appear to be
very positive, but the same precautions discussed for depurated
oysters apply to depurated clams. Although survey respondents
accepted the brief description of the depuration process and
responded in a positive manner, their actions in a real world
retail environment might be less enthusiastic, particularly where
consumer advisories are still likely to be present. Another

48











precaution relates to the projected sales and revenue figures for
the region. The total estimated revenues shown (Table 32) are
based upon total depurated clam sales in the region, which most
likely would be shared by a number of producing areas. A small
market share could adversely affect the efficiency level of a given
area's depuration processing facilities by reducing the scale of
operations or forcing the operation of a facility at less than
optimum volume.


Naming the depuration process


As mentioned earlier, the term "depuration" was not mentioned
in conjunction with the brief, non-technical description of the
cleansing process used with survey respondents because of concerns
that the term itself might negatively affect their willingness to
try treated shellfish. Instead, respondents were told "this
process removes most harmful bacteria and viruses by flushing them
(oysters and clams) with clean water. The process does not use
chemicals or irradiation and does not affect the taste." Then
respondents were asked to name this process. Because the
description used the terms "flushing" "clean" and "water", it comes
as no surprise that many of the suggested names contained these
words or were related to them in some way. Eight percent of the
suggestions were related to cleansing or cleaning; nearly 7 percent
were associated with "flush" or "flushing" and nearly 5 percent to
"washing". Four percent used "purification" or "purifying" in some
manner, and about 3 percent mentioned "water" in some way. Despite
being told that the process did not use irradiation, a small
percentage suggested radiation or irradiation as a name. While
most of the suggested names were uninspiring, some were just plain
wrong (i.e., pasteurization) and a few were humorous. The complete
list of suggestions is found in the Appendix (Appendix Table 7).
One of the very last questions of the survey used a projective
interviewing technique to gain insight into consumers' perceptions
of the term "depuration". Respondents were asked to say the "first

49










thing that comes to your mind" when they heard the word
"depuration." Nearly 70 percent were unable to verbalize a
response. Although 10 percent correctly associated the term with
a purification or cleansing process, even greater numbers had
negative associations such as "depurify" "deprived", "death",
"disease", "unclean", and "unsanitary." No matter what the
interviewees' spontaneous response, each was asked whether their
reaction to the word depuration was "positive" or "negative".
Nearly 57 percent had a negative reaction, while only 25 percent
responded favorably. Almost one out of five had difficulty
deciding whether their reaction was positive or negative (Table
34). Although respondents in the 18-34 and 35-64 age groups had
virtually identical reactions to the word, fewer of those in the
oldest group had a positive reaction and more were undecided.
Interestingly, college graduates had a less favorable reaction to
"depuration" than those with less education, and blacks had a more
favorable reaction than whites (Table 35). The spontaneous
reactions and positive vs. negative responses to the term
depuration can lead to only one conclusion: it is not a term that
should be used outside of technical research circles. Because of
its negative associations, the shellfish industry should avoid the
term in any educational or marketing programs for shellfish treated
with the depuration process and strive to develop a name with more
positive connectations.


The Restaurant Survey


Oysters


Of the 37 restaurant managers interviewed by telephone, 70
percent currently offered oysters of some type on their menus.
About half, 19 firms, sold both raw and cooked oysters, and seven
restaurants, roughly one in five, sold only cooked. There were no
firms that sold raw oysters exclusively. The remaining 11 firms,
30 percent, sold no oysters at all. Of the 18 firms that currently

50









Table 32. Consumption of depurated and non-depurated clams at varying price levels for
depurated clams.


Clam price, each Number of Number of Average Total Number Average Annual Expenditures on Clams
type of clams consumers occasions occasions of clams number Total Average
Totals per year consumed eaten on clams
per year (Dollars) (Dollars)


$0.45
Depurated 120 1,899 15.8 27,673 231 12,453 104
Non-depurated 283 2.982 10.5 41.784 148 12535 44
Total 403 4,881 12.1 69,457 172 24,988 62

$0.40
Depurated 196 2,788 14.2 38,485 196 15,394 79
Non-depurated 223 2.600 11.7 37,020 166 11.106 50
Total 419 5,388 12.9 75,505 180 26,500 63

$0.35
Depurated 238 3,301 13.9 46,970 197 16,439 69
Non-depurated 186 2,275 12.2 32.459 174 9.738 52
Total 424 5,576 13.2 79,429 187 26,177 62

$0.33
Depurated 249 3,576 14.4 52,545 211 17,340 70
Non-depurated 176 2.151 12.2 30.181 171 9.054 51
Total 425 5,727 13.5 82,726 195 26,394 62

$0.31
Depurated 269 3,739 13.9 55,397 206 17,173 64
Non-depurated 159 1.926 12.1 26.951 169 8.085 51
Total 428 5,665 13.2 82,348 192 25,258 59

$0.30
Non-depurated 379 4,463 11.8 62,389 165 18,718 49


"Prices shown are for depurated oysters only; the retail prices for untreated clams are assumed to remain
constant at $0.30 each.




51









500
L Depurated

Non-depurated


S400
II

t-4-
0
3 3 3 379



- 300 120

._)

196

S223
( 200 238
O 249
S269 186
o I176

-0

" 100






0
30 31 33 35 40 45
Depurated clam price, cents



Figure 3. Number of depurated and non-depurated clams
consumers at various prices for depurated
clams.

52










110
-- Depurated Non-depurated
100 .... ...


90 ... ...


8 0 . .....

"E 70 ..........-
70
39.8
60 60.2

-: 51.0
50 --..
49.0
59.1
S40 ""n 1 -1 63.5.. ....
40.9
67.3
36.5
30 .."... ... 327..-








0
2 0 .... ........




0 L"--

30 31 33 35 40 45
Depurated clam price, cents


Figure 4. Market share for depurated clams at various price levels.




53









Table 33. Estimated economic returns to depurated clams at various retail prices and depuration costs.


Potential Sales Potential Returns of Depuration Potential returns of depuration
at costs of 0.9 cents per clam at costs of 4.3 cents per clam
Retail price Sample Market Net Per 1,000 Market Net Per 1,000 Market
region markup population region markup population region
per clama per clam'

(Dollars) (1,000 (Million (cents) (Dollars) ($Million) (Cents) (Dollars) ($Million)
clams) clams)

$0.31 55.4 307.3 0.1 55 0.3 -3.3 -1,806 -10.1

0.33 52.5 291.4 2.1 1,090 6.1 -1.3 -675 -3.8

0.35 47.0 260.5 4.1 1,903 10.7 0.7 325 1.8

0.40 38.5 213.5 9.1 3,461 19.4 5.7 2,168 12.2

0.45 27.7 153.5 14.1 3,856 21.6 10.7 2,926 16.4


aAssumes a base retail price of 30 cents per undepurated clam.
"bMarket region sales are based upon potential sales as reported by the sample of 1,012 respondents,
adjusted for population in the 17 county region. Because of rapid growth in many counties in the
market region, a projected population of 5,613,303 (January 1995) was used.
















54












Table 34. Respondents' initial reactions to the term "depuration".


Response Number Percent


Do not know 700 69.2
Pure/purify/purifying 58 5.7
Cleansing/cleaning/sanitation/cleanliness/
to clean/washing 45 4.4
Depurify/unpurify/unpure 37 3.7
Deprived/deprivation/not having/deficiency 23 2.3
Death/disease/illness/virus/medical treatment 23 2.3
Unclean/unsanitary/unhealthy/unsafe/
contaminated 21 2.1
Deterioration/disintegrating/going bad/
spoiling/filth/rotten/yucky 16 1.6
Process for cleaning seafood 10 1.0
Food process/food/process/cooking 8 0.8
Something negative/something bad 7 0.7
Water 5 0.5
Other (listed below) 59 5.8
Total 1012 100.0

Other Responses:
Making something more or less pure Adding chemicals
Something internal Becomes smaller, weaker
Somebody put something in something Dividing
To deplete something Ventilation
Desperation Antipuration
Something done to you Banish
Scuba diving Independence
Make puration Deportation
It's been looked over & ok'd Sea/ocean
Dipping in liquid Deep freeze
Getting rid of chemicals Expiration date
Seafood Under sea
Duplication Sterilization
Making it safer Taking water out
Dehydration Purina dog food
Diapers Comedy
Depth Depute or Government
Depth of something Law or rule
My crystal water filter Small town girl going to
Put chemicals back in something fraternity party
Pureed Decorating
Milk
Separation
Irradiation
Freedom







55











Table 35. Respondents' reactions to the word "depuration" by selected
socio-demographic characteristics.


Socio-demographic Reaction
characteristic n Positive Negative Uncertain Totala

(---------------Percent---------------)

All respondents 1012 24.9 56.7 18.4 100.0

Ageb
18-34 305 26.6 59.0 14.4 100.0
35-64 499 25.4 59.1 15.4 100.0
65+ 208 21.2 47.6 31.2 100.0

Education
High school or less 436 28.4 50.7 20.9 100.0
Some college 287 26.1 58.5 15.3 100.0
College graduate 289 18.3 64.0 17.6 100.0

Raceb
White 906 23.8 57.5 18.6 100.0
Black 99 35.3 50.5 14.1 100.0


aTotals may not sum to 100.0 due to rounding.
bChi-square analyses indicated that age, education, and race were
statistically significant, P < 0.05, while gender and income were not.
Also, respondents' like or dislike for oysters or clams did not appear
to be associated with their reaction to depuration, X2 = 4.01 and 2.10,
P = 0.40 and 0.71 respectively.


























56











do not sell raw oysters, half had sold them in the past, and half had
not. The primary reason cited for either discontinuing or never serving
raw oysters was the fear of legal liability mentioned by 75 percent of
these firms. An additional 13 percent mentioned legal liability among
the top two or three reasons for not serving raw oysters. Thus, 88
percent of the non-servers were very concerned about the legal
implications of serving raw oysters to their clientele. In contrast,
the next most often mentioned reasons for discontinuing or not serving
raw oysters were "poor quality" (19 percent), and general "safety
concerns" (12 percent). Equally ranked in importance were "inadequate
supplies", "inadequate demand", "HRS information" and "small profit
margin", each mentioned by only two firms. If the "general safety
concerns" and the "HRS information" reasons are also interpreted to mean
"liability concerns", it further underscores the pervasive fear that
managers have of potential liabilities caused by oyster-borne illnesses.
Managers of restaurants currently serving raw oysters were asked
about sales trends over the past three years. Nearly 60 percent reported
a decrease in sales, about one-third had seen an increase in sales, and
one in ten saw no change. These responses tend to confirm the findings
of the consumer survey: raw oyster sales are generally declining.
Approximately 70 percent of all firms interviewed offered cooked
oysters on their menus. About 19 percent said they had served cooked
oysters in the past but had discontinued them, while 11 percent had never
served them. Nearly two-thirds of those currently not serving them
mentioned fear of legal liability as the primary reason. Small numbers
of managers also cited poor quality, HRS notices, inadequate demand,
small profit margins, and in-compatibility with other menu items as
reasons for not serving cooked oysters. When asked about the sales
trends of cooked oysters over the past three years, half of the
restaurants currently selling them detected no significant sales trend.
However, almost 35 percent reported an increase in cooked oyster sales
and only 15 percent felt that sales had declined. Of the restaurants
that currently served oysters, half of them bought both shellstock
oysters by the bushel or case and shucked oysters by the gallon. About
one-quarter of these firms buy shellstock exclusively and the remaining
one-quarter buy shucked oysters only. For the most part, those that
bought shucked oysters used them for cooking. However, there were



57











several firms that bought shucked oysters exclusively that served them
raw.
Of those firms that serve oysters, almost 62% indicated they have
consumer advisory notices posted in their facility. The most popular
place for such notices was reported to be at the "Front foyer/door"
(around 40 percent), "On the menu" (19 percent), and At the bar" (15
percent), while the remaining approximately 26 percent specified other
areas. In the opinions of the restaurant managers interviewed, more than
81 percent saw no change in the consumption of raw oysters as a result
of posting the advisory notices, while 13 percent thought consumption had
decreased as a result, and about 6 percent believed that raw oyster
consumption had increased as a result of the posting. When asked about
the advisory notices' affects on the consumption of cooked oysters, most
respondents (75 percent) saw no change in their customers' consumption
habits, while 25 percent thought that consumption had increased. Thus,
it appears that advisory notices may have had a slightly negative effect
on raw oyster consumption, but a positive effect on cooked consumption.


Potential sales of depurated oysters


Before any mention was made of the depuration process, each manager
was asked for their current weekly oyster purchases. The 20 firms that
bought shellstock oysters bought approximately 971 bushels each week.
The 19 firms that bought shucked oysters bought 200 bushel equivalents
weekly. In total, 26 restaurants bought 1,171 bushels of oysters each
week (Table 36). After hearing a brief, non-technical description of the
depuration process, each of the 37 restaurant managers was asked how many
depurated oysters would be bought at a price of $30 per bushel and how
many undepurated oysters would be bought at the prevailing price of $15
per bushel. After listening to the definition of depuration and weighing
the additional cost of depurated oysters, 13 of the managers said they
would buy a total 255 bushels of the safer oysters, an average of just
under 20 bushels per week. These 13 included three firms that do not
sell oysters at present.
The number of restaurants that would buy undepurated shellstock
dropped to 14 from 20. However, these 14 firms would buy a total of 736
bushels, an average of nearly 53 bushels per week. The total quantity
of undepurated shellstock would decline by about one-fourth (24 percent).

58











However, it appears that smaller firms would be more likely to buy
depurated oysters. The reason for this may be a greater aversion to risk
among smaller firms.
The quantity of undepurated shucked oysters bought by restaurants
in the sample would decline by only two percent if depurated oysters were
available. Although the number of firms buying undepurated shucked
oysters would decline by two, their combined weekly purchases only
amounted to four bushels.
Although a few restaurant managers felt that depurated oysters
would stimulate overall consumer demand, others judged that higher costs
would necessitate higher retail prices and result in reduced demand.
Thus, in the aggregate, the total oyster purchases by the restaurants
surveyed would increase by only 1.4 percent, from 1,171 to 1,187 bushels
per week (Table 36).


Clams


Clams were sold by 26 (70 percent) of the 37 restaurants surveyed.
Of the 26 restaurants selling clams, 20 sold only cooked clams, and 6
offered cooked and raw. Thus, only 6 of 37 (16 percent) sold raw clams.
There were no restaurants that sold raw clams exclusively. Five firms
(13%) had offered raw clams on their menus in the past, but had
discontinued them, and about 70 percent had never sold raw clams.
The most important reason cited for either discontinuing or never
serving raw clams was "lack of demand", mentioned by 28 percent. The
next most frequently cited reasons were "too much trouble", mentioned by
15 percent. Other reasons, each mentioned by several managers, included
"too much waste" (shrink due to spoilage), and "poor quality".
Surprisingly, concerns about legal liability were not mentioned. When
asked about sales trends of raw clams during the past three years, nearly
43 percent of those currently serving them reported decreases. Equal
proportions (about 29 percent) thought sales had increased or remained
stable. It appears from these aggregate responses that sales of raw
clams have probably declined overall.
Of the 13 restaurants not serving cooked clams, two had sold them
in the past, but the remainder had not. The two most important reasons
for either discontinuing or never having served cooked clams were "fear
of legal liability" and "inadequate profit margin", each mentioned by

59










three managers. Additional concerns included "information from HRS",
"poor quality" and too much waste (shrink), each mentioned by one firm.
Of the firms currently selling cooked clams, 56 percent saw no change in
their sales of cooked clams during the past three years. However, 40
percent reported increasing sales and only 1 firm decreasing sales during
the time period in question.
Of those restaurants currently offering clams, either cooked or
raw, 38 percent reported purchasing clam tenders, while only 10 firms (27
percent) bought raw shellstock. Seven restaurants regularly bought
frozen and/or breaded clams, and only one bought canned.
Of the 10 restaurants that had been buying raw shellstock, only
four said they usually bought farm raised clams; four others said they
did not typically buy farm produced clams and the remaining two did not
know the source of their clams.
Three of the four firms buying farm raised clams used relatively
small quantities; they used an average of about two bushels of raw
shellstock per week, but the fourth firm used about 75 bushels per week.


Potential sales of depurated clams


Restaurant managers were asked for their weekly clam purchases
before any mention was made of the depuration process. After hearing a
brief, non-technical description of depuration, they were asked how many
bushels of the treated clams they would buy per week.
Ten restaurant managers out of the 37 interviewed were currently
buying a total of 127 bushels of raw shellstock weekly. When offered
depurated clams at a cost of $60.00 per bushel compared to $44.00 for
untreated clams, 11 managers indicated a willingness to buy 112.5 bushels
of depurated clams. Five others said they would prefer to continue
purchasing undepurated oysters at the lower price. These five firms buy
a total of 40.5 per week. As a result of half the restaurants shifting
to depurated clams, the total quantity of undepurated shellstock dropped
from 127 per week to 40.5 bushels, a 68 percent decline (Table 37). As
the total number of firms buying shellstock increased from 10 to 166, the
total quantity of raw shellstock increased from 127 bushels to 153
bushels, an increase of slightly over 20 percent (Table 37). The impact
on processed clam product, i.e., fresh and frozen strips or tenders, was
nil. The likely reason is that virtually all of these items are served
cooked, which greatly reduces the incidence of food-borne illness.


60











Table 36. Estimated effects of depurated oysters on sales of non-
depurated shellstock and non-depurated shucked oysters.


Type of oysters Currently weekly Projected weekly Percentage
purchasers and purchasers and change in
quantities quantities quantity


(Firms) (Bushels) (Firms) (Bushels)

Undepurated shellstock 20 971 14 736 -24

Undepurated shucked 19 200 17 196 -2

Depurated shellstock N.A. 0 13 255a N.A.

Totals N.A. 1,171 --b 1,187 1.4


"aThe projected market share for depurated shellstock is about 21 percent.
"bThe number of firms is not additive because most restaurants buy more
than one type of oyster. The total number of firms selling oysters
increases from 26 to 29, but the three additional firms' volume is
extremely small, averaging less than two bushels per week.




Table 37. Estimated effects of depurated clams on sales of non-depurated
shellstock and undepurated processed clams.


Type of clams Current weekly Projected weekly Percentage
Purchasers and purchasers and change in
quantities quantities quantity


(Firms) (Bushels) (Firms) (Bushels)

Undepurated shellstock 10 127.0 5 40.5 -68.1

Undepurated processed 16 461.0b 16 461.0b 0.0

Depurated shellstockc 0 0.0 11 112.5 N.A.

Total shellstockd 10 127.0 16 153.0 20.5


"aIncludes raw and frozen clam tenders (breaded and unbreaded). Excludes
600 whole frozen clams and 9 gallons of raw shucked clams bought by four
restaurants.
bPounds, not bushels.
"cThe market share for depurated shellstock is about 74 percent.
dExcludes undepurated processed shown above.



61



































































62











CONCLUSIONS


Consumer confidence in shellfish, particularly oysters has greatly
deteriorated over the past few years. Today, over 30 percent of the
adult population in the Cedar Key market region said oysters were "not
safe at all". Nearly 20 percent said the same about clams.
Additionally, about 40 percent felt that the likelihood of getting sick
from eating one serving of raw oysters or raw clams was "very likely".
As a result of these concerns, consumers are eating fewer oysters and
clams. Despite their concerns about safety and their changing
consumption patterns, nearly half of the adult population still like
oysters.
Given the opportunity to buy safer (depurated) oysters or clams,
large numbers of consumers expressed an interest in buying them.
Furthermore, most were willing to pay a sufficient premium to more than
cover the costs of depuration. Unless truly safer oysters and clams are
available soon, a substantial portion of the market could be lost.
Recapturing lost customers or gaining new ones would require large
expenditures on advertising or educational programs.
Restaurant managers are also very aware of the public's concern
over shellfish safety particularly as reflected in declining sales trends
for raw oysters. Restaurant managers are very concerned about the
potential legal liabilities associated with serving oysters and clams,
either raw or cooked. Managers of firms that are not currently selling
oysters or clams frequently made comments such as "if I put oysters or
clams on the menu, I can't afford the insurance premiums" and "if someone
was to get sick (from eating oysters or clams) I would lose my business."
Thus, most restaurants that are not selling oysters or clams at present
have little desire to offer products with a high perceived risk. Also,
because of a lack of factual information about the incidence of oyster
or clam related illness and the size of financial settlements in
oyster/clam/food poisoning lawsuits, it is very probable that insurance
companies will continue to either exclude oysters and clams from
liability insurance, raise premiums for coverage of these items, to
exhorbitant levels, or refuse to write liability coverage for restaurants
offering raw molluscan shellfish. In any case, the net effect will be
to dissuade restauranteurs from selling oysters and clams, further
restricting their availability. This could conceivably happen even if

63











restaurants purchase depurated shellfish, if underwriters are not fully
convinced of their safety. Thus, it is very important to develop
credible safety statistics for depurated products, if at all possible.




















































64











REFERENCES

Dunning, R. D. and C. M. Adams. Economic Analyses of the Potential For
Oyster and Hard Clam Depuration in Dixie and Levy Counties,
Florida. Florida Sea Grant Program, Food and Resource Economic
Department Program, Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of
Florida, Gainesville, June, 1994

Tamplin, Mark. Controlled Purification Studies. (Progress Report).
Home Economics Department, Institute of Food and Agricultural
Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, March, 1994.

Florida Business Directory. American Business Directories, American
Business Information, Inc., Omaha, Nebraska, 1994.

Florida Statistical Abstract 1993. Bureau of Economic and Business
Research, College of Business Administration, University of
Florida, University Press of Florida, Gainesville, 1993.

Lin, C.-T. Jordan. Consumer Shellfish Safety Perceptions and Consumption
Behavior. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Florida,
1991.



































65


































































66








































APPENDIX A





































































68












Appendix Table 1. Number of interviews by county.


Cumulative Cumulative
Response Frequency Percent Frequency Percent


Alachua 35 3.5 35 3.5
Bradford 5 0.5 40 4.0
Clay 21 2.1 61 6.0
Duval 132 13.0 193 19.1
Nassau 9 0.9 202 20.0
St Johns 19 1.9 221 21.8
Polk 79 7.8 300 29.6
Marion 41 4.1 341 33.7
Orange 136 13.4 477 47.1
Osceola 23 2.3 500 49.4
Seminole 63 6.2 563 55.6
Hernando 21 2.1 584 57.7
Hillsborough 162 16.0 746 73.7
Pasco 55 5.4 801 79.2
Pinellas 165 16.3 966 95.5
Gadsden 8 0.8 974 96.2
Leon 38 3.8 1012 100.0




































69











Appendix Table 2. Socio-demographic characteristics of the sample.


Socio-demographic Cumulative Cumulative
Characteristic Frequency Percent Frequency Percent


Gender
Male 357 35.3 357 35.3
Female 655 64.7 1012 100.0

Race
White 848 83.3 848 83.3
Black 99 9.8 947 93.6
American Indian 9 0.9 956 94.5
Asian/Pacific Islander 18 1.8 974 96.2
Other 31 3.1 1,005 99.3
Refused 7 0.7 1,012 100.0

Hispanic
Yes 77 7.6 77 7.6
No 929 91.8 1006 99.4
Refused to answer 6 0.6 1012 100.0

Income
Under $20,000 174 17.2 174 17.2
$20,001 to $35,000 234 23.1 408 40.3
$35,001 to $50,000 181 17.9 589 58.2
More than $50,000 201 19.9 790 78.1
Refused to answer 222 21.9 1,012 100.0

Age
18 to 34 305 30.1 305 30.1
35 to 64 499 49.3 804 79.4
Over 65 208 20.6 1012 100.0

Education
High School or Less 436 43.1 436 43.1
Some College 287 28.4 723 71.4
College Graduate 289 28.6 1012 100.0

"aThe survey region contains 48.4 and 51.6 males and females, respectively.
It also contains 14.1 percent blacks. Approximately 16.6 percent of the
residents in the survey region are 65 years of age or older. The
questionnaire obtained respondents' ages as a continuous variable. The
mean age of all respondents was 47.7 years. Statewide, 18.3 percent of
residents are college graduates, substantially lower than included in the
sample. In 1990, the region contained 5.8 percent Hispanics (Florida
Statistical Abstract, 1993).








70











Appendix Table 3. Respondents' perceived health condition and reported
health problems.



Overall reported
health condition
and major health Cumulative Cumulative
problems Frequency Percent Frequency Percent


Overall condition
Excellent 427 42.2 427 42.2
Good 437 43.2 864 85.4
Fair 115 11.4 979 96.7
Poor 24 2.4 1003 99.1
Refused to answer 9 0.9 1012 100.0

Diabetes
Yes 59 5.8 59 5.8
No 943 93.2 1002 99.0
Refused to answer 10 1.0 1012 100.0

Heart disease
Yes 103 10.2 103 10.2
No 896 88.5 999 98.7
Refused to answer 13 1.3 1012 100.0

Liver ailment
Yes 23 2.3 23 2.3
No 977 96.5 1000 98.8
Refused to answer 12 1.2 1012 100.0

"Stomach" problems
Yes 114 11.3 114 11.3
No 885 87.5 999 98.7
Refused to answer 13 1.3 1012 100.0

Immune system disorder
Yes 26 2.6 26 2.6
No 974 96.2 1000 98.8
Refused to answer 12 1.2 1012 100.0
















71











Appendix Table 4. Consumers expressed odds of getting sick from eating
one serving of raw and cooked oysters, clams and chicken.


Odds of getting Raw Cooked Raw Cooked Chicken
sick oysters oysters clams clams


(------------------Percenta------------------
1:10 or greater 47.3 31.5 42.6 28.3 18.9
1:11 to 1:100 38.4 38.9 31.5 38.1 48.9
1:101 to 1:1,000 9.0 13.4 8.2 13.1 21.1
1:1,001 to 1:10,000 1.3 4.9 2.4 4.8 6.5
Less than 1:10,000 0.4 0.4 0.1 0.4 0.6
Do not know 3.6 10.9 15.3 15.2 4.0

Totals 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


"aPercentages are based upon 893 observations. Totals may not sum to 100.0
due to rounding.





































72












Appendix Table 5. Awareness of consumer advisory notices describing
health risks associated with eating raw oysters by all respondents and
selected socio-demographic characteristics.


Socio-demographic Response
characteristic n yes, have no, have not Totala
seen notices seen notices

(--------------Percent---------------)
All respondents 1,001b 64.3 35.7 100.0

Age (years)e
18-34 302 57.3 42.7 100.0
35-64 494 70.2 29.8 100.0
65+ 205 60.5 39.5 100.0

Education
High school or less 431 56.6 43.4 100.0
Some college 284 66.9 33.1 100.0
College graduate 286 73.4 26.6 100.0

Racecd
White 895 66.7 33.3 100.0
Black 99 43.4 56.6 100.0

Gender
Male 351 61.0 39.0 100.0
Female 650 66.2 33.8 100.0

Income
Under $20,000 170 55.9 44.1 100.0
$20,001 to $35,000 232 64.7 35.3 100.0
$35,001 to $50,000 180 62.8 37.2 100.0
$50,000+ 201 75.1 24.9 100.0


"aTotals may not sum to 100.0 due to rounding.
bRespondents that were uncertain as to whether or not they had seen
advisory notices were excluded; there were only 11, or 1.1 percent.
"cChi-square analysis indicates that this variable is statistically
significant, P < 0.05.
dAll non-blacks were included in the white category.















73











Appendix Table 6. Respondents' perceptions regarding the necessity of
selected types of consumer information.


Type of consumer Necessity of information
information n Necessary Unnecessary Unsure Totalsa

(---------------Percent---------------)

Consumer advisory 1,012 73.8 23.8 2.4 100.0
notices for health
risks"

Informational labels 1,012 86.7 11.7 1.7 100.0
on cooking and
handling practices


"aTotals may not sum to 100.0 due to rounding.
bRespondents were told that these consumer advisory notices would be
"posted in restaurants and on restaurant menus"...and would "caution
people with health problems to not eat raw or partially cooked seafood,
red meats and eggs."
"cRespondents were asked about USDA mandated package labels which give
"information on proper handling and cooking practices."
































74











Appendix Table 7. Respondents' suggested names for the depuration process.


Response category/percentagesa Response category/percentagesa
specific suggestions specific suggestions


Flush/Flushing 6.6% Radiation/irradiation 1.1%
Flushing Irradiation(3)
Flushing out Radiation(3)
The flush Radiation process
Fresh flush Natural irradiation
Soaking or flushing
Flushing it with water Rinse/rinsing 1.8%
Fresh water flush(2) Rinsing(8)
Saniflush Rinsing the oysters
Washing, rinsing, flushing Water rinse(2)
Clean water flush Health rinse
Flush(2)
Flusher Irrigation/irrigating 1.1%
Flush your oyster Irrigation(6)
Water flushing Irrigating
Waterflush
Flushed oysters & clams Water 2.8%
Flushing system Water cleansing
Aqua flush Clean by running water
Hydro flush Water treatment
Fresh water(2)
Washing 4.6% Water cleaning(2)
Washing(24) Water infusion
Washed Water purification
Oyster washing Water washing
Backwash Water removal system
Wash Water-cleaned seafood(2)
Fresh water wash Boiling water
Fresh wash Clean water processing
Water irrigation
Cleansing/cleaning 8.0% Sea wash
Natural cleansing Watering oysters
Cleansing(16)
Natural water cleansing Sterilizing/sterilization 1.1%
Nature's cleansing Sterilization(6)
Cleansing process Sterilizing
Hydrocleansing
Social cleansing Purifying/purification 4.0%
Cleaning(13) Purification(19)
Oyster safety cleaning Purifying(3)
Cleaning oysters(2) Clam & oyster purification
Cleaning process(2) Purifier(2)
Oyster cleaning(2) Seafood purifier
Clam cleaning(2) Water purification
Cleaning or stripping
Cleaning up clams Pasteurization 0.5%
Clean clams(2) Pasteurization(2)
Clean shell Pasteurized
Cleaning of the clams
Swish cleaning
Hydro cleaning
Salt water cleaning




75












Continued



Other 8.3%
Decaffeinating Germ safe
Miracle(2) Fresh
Wipe out Desalinization
Decontamination Clamo
Name after self to become rich Detox
Filterization Irrigation
Hydrologization Oyster & clam distilling
No red tide Car wash (I'd take my clams to the
Purging(2) clam wash)
Rigged Aqua filter
Natural process Renewal
Environmental process Declammer
Safe seafood A way to make oysters taste better
Select process oysters Filtering clams
Seafood safe Seafood safety service
Detoxing Safety net oysters
Draining Crushterization
"Love those safe oysters" Desirable clams & oysters
Disinfecting Healthy choice for clams & oysters
Natural process Process of refining
Naturally processed Filtration
Preparing Oxygenated
Hydrolizing Steaming
Pure clean Hydromatic
Sanitation(2) Stupid
Sanitized Enema



aSummary percentages are based upon 654 responses, of which 395 (60.4 percent)
were unable or unwilling to suggest a name for the process.



























76







































APPENDIX B





































































78








CONSUMER OYSTER QUESTIONNAIRE

MSA-Code:
County Code: Interviewer
Household Code:
Date-MM/DD/YY: / /
Time Started: : AM / PM

Introduction

Hello, my name is I am conducting a survey about food safety for a
University of Florida research project. I am not selling any product and I am not asking for contributions. Your
telephone number was randomly selected by a computer to participate in this study, and your responses will
remain strictly confidential since we will have no way to associate your telephone number with your answers.
Although we would like for you to answer every question, you are under no obligation to answer those that make
you feel uncomfortable. If you have any questions about the survey, I will be happy to give you the phone
number of the professor that is responsible for the study.

Household Composition & Randomization Screener

S-1. First of all, how many members of your household are 18 years of age or older? (number).
If ZERO, thank respondent and TERMINATE.

S-2. In order to determine whom to interview, could you tell me, among the people who regularly live in your
household (including yourself), who is 18 years or older and had the most recent birthday?

1= I did. [CONTINUE INTERVIEW AND GO TO Q1.]
2= (XXX) did. [SAY: COULD I SPEAK TO (XXX)?]
[IF THAT PERSON COMES TO THE PHONE, REPEAT INTRODUCTION.
THEN GO TO Q1.J
[IF THAT PERSON IS NOT AVAILABLE, GO TO S-3.]
8= I don't know all birthdays. [GO TO S4.]

S-3. Could I speak to the person who is 18 or older and had the next most recent birthday, (including
yourself)?

1= [IF RESPONDENT IS, CONTINUE INTERVIEW AND GO TO Ql.]
0= [IF NO ONE ELSE IS AVAILABLE, THANK RESPONDENT AND TERMINATE THE
INTERVIEW.]

[IF S2=8 THEN ASK:]
S-4. Of the ones you do know, who is 18 or older and had the most recent birthday?

1= I did [CONTINUE INTERVIEW, GO TO Q.]
2= (XXX) did. [SAY: "Could I speak to (XXX)?]
[IF THAT PERSON COMES TO THE PHONE, REPEAT INTRODUCTION.
THEN GO TO Q1.]
[IF THAT PERSON IS NOT AVAILABLE, GO TO S5.]

S-5. Could I speak to anyone who is 18 or older that had the next most recent birthday, including yourself?

1= [IF RESPONDENT IS, CONTINUE INTERVIEW, GO TO Q1.]
0= [IF NO ONE ELSE IS AVAILABLE, THANK RESPONDENT AND TERMINATE
INTERVIEW.]


79









1. Do you or do you not eat any type of seafood?

(1) Yes, I do eat seafood.
(2) No What is the main reason you do not eat seafood?

(1) Vegetarian
(2) Seafood allergies
(3) Taste
(4) Religious purposes
For responses 1-4 skip to Q39

(5) Food safety and quality concerns
(6) Other (specify)

2. Think about food safety. On a scale of 1 to 7 where 7 is perfectly safe and 1 is not safe at all,

a. How would you rate the safety of chicken?
b. How would you rate the safety of oysters?
c. And how do you rate the safety of clams?




3. Suppose a person were to eat one serving of chicken, oysters or clams at home or in a restaurant.

3a. Would you say a person's chance of getting sick from a serving of chicken is... (Read
list)

(1) Very likely
(2) Somewhat likely
(3) Not too likely
(4) Not at all likely
(5) Don't know (Don't read)

3b. Would you say a person's chance of getting sick from a serving of raw oysters
is...(Read list)

(1) Very likely
(2) Somewhat likely
(3) Not too likely
(4) Not at all likely
(5) Don't know (Don't read)

3c. The chance of getting sick from eating cooked or steamed oysters is... (Read list)

(1) Very likely
(2) Somewhat likely
(3) Not too likely
(4) Not at all likely
(5) Don't know (Don't Read)



80





University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs