• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Front Cover
 Title Page
 Table of Contents
 List of Tables
 List of Figures
 List of appendices
 Abstract
 Acknowledgement
 Executive summary
 Introduction
 Objectives
 General methodological conside...
 Procedure
 Findings
 Conclusions
 Reference
 Appendix
 State sample
 Paper mill sample
 HRS sample
 Seafood consumption questionnaire,...
 Seafood consumption questionnaire,...














Group Title: Industry report - University of Florida Florida Agricultural Market Research Center ; 94-2
Title: Per capita fish and shellfish consumption in Florida
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00027555/00001
 Material Information
Title: Per capita fish and shellfish consumption in Florida
Series Title: Industry report - University of Florida Florida Agricultural Market Research Center ; 94-2
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
Creator: Degner, Robert L.
Adams, Charles M.
Moss, Susan D.
Mack, Stephanie K.
Publisher: Florida Agricultural Market Research Center, Food and Resource Economics Dept., Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida
Publication Date: 1994
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00027555
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.

Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Front Cover
    Title Page
        Title Page
    Table of Contents
        Page i
        Page ii
    List of Tables
        Page iii
        Page iv
    List of Figures
        Page v
        Page vi
    List of appendices
        Page vii
        Page viii
        Page ix
        Page x
        Page xi
        Page xii
        Page xiii
        Page xiv
        Page xv
        Page xvi
        Page xvii
        Page xviii
        Page xix
        Page xx
    Abstract
        Page xxi
        Page xxii
    Acknowledgement
        Page xxiii
        Page xxiv
    Executive summary
        Page xxv
        Page xxvi
        Page xxvii
        Page xxviii
    Introduction
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
    Objectives
        Page 5
        Page 6
    General methodological considerations
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
    Procedure
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
    Findings
        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
        Page 63
        Page 64
        Page 65
        Page 66
        Page 67
        Page 68
        Page 69
        Page 70
        Page 71
        Page 72
        Page 73
        Page 74
    Conclusions
        Page 75
        Page 76
    Reference
        Page 77
        Page 78
        Page 79
        Page 80
    Appendix
        Page 81
        Page 82
        Page 83
        Page 84
        Page 85
        Page 86
        Page 87
        Page 88
    State sample
        Page 89
        Page 90
        Page 91
        Page 92
        Page 93
        Page 94
        Page 95
        Page 96
        Page 97
        Page 98
        Page 99
        Page 100
        Page 101
        Page 102
        Page 103
        Page 104
        Page 105
        Page 106
        Page 107
        Page 108
        Page 109
        Page 110
        Page 111
        Page 112
        Page 113
        Page 114
        Page 115
        Page 116
        Page 117
        Page 118
        Page 119
        Page 120
        Page 121
        Page 122
        Page 123
        Page 124
        Page 125
        Page 126
        Page 127
        Page 128
        Page 129
        Page 130
        Page 131
        Page 132
        Page 133
        Page 134
        Page 135
        Page 136
        Page 137
        Page 138
        Page 139
        Page 140
        Page 141
        Page 142
        Page 143
        Page 144
        Page 145
        Page 146
        Page 147
        Page 148
        Page 149
        Page 150
        Page 151
        Page 152
        Page 153
        Page 154
        Page 155
        Page 156
        Page 157
        Page 158
        Page 159
        Page 160
        Page 161
        Page 162
        Page 163
        Page 164
        Page 165
        Page 166
        Page 167
        Page 168
        Page 169
        Page 170
        Page 171
        Page 172
        Page 173
        Page 174
        Page 175
        Page 176
        Page 177
        Page 178
    Paper mill sample
        Page 179
        Page 180
        Page 181
        Page 182
        Page 183
        Page 184
        Page 185
        Page 186
        Page 187
        Page 188
        Page 189
        Page 190
        Page 191
        Page 192
        Page 193
        Page 194
        Page 195
        Page 196
        Page 197
        Page 198
        Page 199
        Page 200
        Page 201
        Page 202
        Page 203
        Page 204
        Page 205
        Page 206
        Page 207
        Page 208
        Page 209
        Page 210
        Page 211
        Page 212
        Page 213
        Page 214
        Page 215
        Page 216
        Page 217
        Page 218
        Page 219
        Page 220
        Page 221
        Page 222
        Page 223
        Page 224
        Page 225
        Page 226
        Page 227
        Page 228
        Page 229
        Page 230
        Page 231
        Page 232
        Page 233
        Page 234
        Page 235
        Page 236
        Page 237
        Page 238
        Page 239
        Page 240
        Page 241
        Page 242
        Page 243
        Page 244
        Page 245
        Page 246
        Page 247
        Page 248
        Page 249
        Page 250
        Page 251
        Page 252
        Page 253
        Page 254
        Page 255
        Page 256
        Page 257
        Page 258
        Page 259
        Page 260
        Page 261
        Page 262
        Page 263
        Page 264
        Page 265
        Page 266
        Page 267
        Page 268
    HRS sample
        Page 269
        Page 270
        Page 271
        Page 272
        Page 273
        Page 274
        Page 275
        Page 276
        Page 277
        Page 278
        Page 279
        Page 280
        Page 281
        Page 282
        Page 283
        Page 284
        Page 285
        Page 286
        Page 287
        Page 288
        Page 289
        Page 290
        Page 291
        Page 292
        Page 293
        Page 294
        Page 295
        Page 296
        Page 297
        Page 298
        Page 299
        Page 300
        Page 301
        Page 302
        Page 303
        Page 304
        Page 305
        Page 306
        Page 307
        Page 308
        Page 309
        Page 310
        Page 311
        Page 312
        Page 313
        Page 314
        Page 315
        Page 316
        Page 317
        Page 318
        Page 319
        Page 320
        Page 321
        Page 322
        Page 323
        Page 324
        Page 325
        Page 326
        Page 327
        Page 328
        Page 329
        Page 330
        Page 331
        Page 332
        Page 333
        Page 334
        Page 335
        Page 336
        Page 337
        Page 338
        Page 339
        Page 340
        Page 341
        Page 342
        Page 343
        Page 344
        Page 345
        Page 346
        Page 347
        Page 348
        Page 349
        Page 350
        Page 351
        Page 352
        Page 353
        Page 354
    Seafood consumption questionnaire, telephone
        Page 355
        Page 356
        Page 357
        Page 358
        Page 359
        Page 360
        Page 361
        Page 362
        Page 363
        Page 364
        Page 365
        Page 366
        Page 367
        Page 368
        Page 369
        Page 370
        Page 371
        Page 372
        Page 373
        Page 374
        Page 375
        Page 376
        Page 377
        Page 378
        Page 379
        Page 380
        Page 381
        Page 382
        Page 383
        Page 384
        Page 385
        Page 386
        Page 387
        Page 388
        Page 389
        Page 390
        Page 391
        Page 392
        Page 393
        Page 394
        Page 395
        Page 396
        Page 397
        Page 398
    Seafood consumption questionnaire, HRS
        Page 399
        Page 400
        Page 401
        Page 402
        Page 403
        Page 404
        Page 405
        Page 406
        Page 407
        Page 408
        Page 409
        Page 410
Full Text
r'6I) 3


FAMRC


Industry Report 94-2
August 1994
Price: $25.00


Per Capita Fish and

Shellfish Consumption in Florida





A Report by
Robert L. Degner
Charles M. Adams
Susan D. Moss
Stephenie K. Mack


Submitted to the
Florida Department of Environmental Protection
in Fulfillment of Contract WM-475
by the Florida Agricultural Market Research Center
Food and Resource Economics Department
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences
University of Florida. Gainesville, FL 32611-0240


Q


S-
,,
^''
i? -^


100
F637fi
94-2


0ij













Per Capita Fish and


Shellfish Consumption in Florida






Contract WM-475






Submitted to the

Florida Department of
Environmental Protection



by



R.L. Degner, C.M. Adams,
S.D. Moss and S.K. Mack


August 31, 1994




Florida Agricultural Market Research Center
a part of the
Food and Resource Economics Department
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL 32611-0240




This report is printed on recycled paper.


giSiTY OF FLORIDA UBRRAIS










TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES . . . . . iii

LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . v

LIST OF APPENDICES . . . . .. vii

ABSTRACT . . . . . . xxi

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . .. xxiii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . xxv

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . 1
Previous Work . . . . . 2

OBJECTIVES . . . . . . 5

GENERAL METHODOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS . . . 7
Historical Perspective of Food Intake Studies . 7
Rationale For The Present Methodology . . 8
Rationale for a Telephone Survey . . 8
Rationale for a 7-day Recall Period . . 9
Proxy Interviews . . . . 12

PROCEDURE . . . . . . 13
Sample Terminology . . . . 13
Phase I. Telephone Surveys . . . .. 13
Sampling . . . . . 14
The Questionnaire . . . . 15
Interviewing Procedures . . .. 18
Phase II: Face-To-Face Survey . . .. 19
Sampling . . . . . 19
The Questionnaire . . . . 20
Interviewing Procedures . . .. 21

FINDINGS . . . . . . 23
Demographic Characteristics For The Three Samples 23
State Sample . . . . 24
Paper Mill Sample . . . . .25
HRS Sample . . . . 27
Seafood Consumption Estimates. . . 28
Total Annual Consumption Across All Demographic
Strata and Species . . .29
Total annual consumption . . .. 29
Away-from-home . . . 30
At-home . . . . 30
Summary of total consumption findings 34
Annual Consumption by Gender . . .. 34
Total annual consumption by gender .. 34
Mode of consumption . . .. 36









Annual Consumption by Race . . .. 36
Total annual consumption by race . .. 36
Mode of consumption . . .. 43
Annual Consumption by Ace . . .. 52
Total annual consumption by ace . .. 52
Consumption by mode . . .. 52
Annual Consumption by Income Level . .. 59
Total annual consumption by income level 59
Consumption by mode .. . 60
Annual Consumption of Saltwater and Freshwater Species 68

CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . 75

REFERENCES . . . . . . 77

APPENDIX A . . . . . . 81

APPENDIX B, State Sample .. . . . 89

APPENDIX C, Paper Mill Sample .. . . 179

APPENDIX D, HRS Sample . .. . . 269

APPENDIX E, Seafood Consumption Questionnaire, Telephone 355

APPENDIX F, Seafood Consumption Questionnaire, HRS . 399










LIST OF TABLES


Table i.

Table 2.


Table 3.

Table 4.

Table 5.

Table 6.

Table 7.

Table 8.


Basic data sets obtained through telephone and
face-to-face surveys. . . . .
Comparison of demographic characteristics of
randomly selected adults in the study samples with
published estimates. . ...
Annual seafood consumption estimates for the
various samples. . . . .
Annual seafood consumption estimates for various
subsamples, by gender. . . . .
Annual seafood consumption estimates for the
various subsamples, by race. . . .
Annual seafood consumption estimates for the
various subsamples, by age category. . .
Annual seafood consumption estimates for the
various subsamples, by income category. . .
Annual seafood consumption estimates for the
various subsamples, by income category. . .






























































iv










LIST OF FIGURES


Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.


Figure 4.


Figure 5.

Figure 6.


Figure 7.

Figure 8.


Figure 9.

Figure 10.

Figure 11.

Figure 12.


Figure 13.

Figure 14.

Figure 15.


Figure 16.


Figure 17.


Figure 18.


Figure 19.


Total Annual Finfish and Shellfish Consumption,
by Randomly Selected Adults, All Three Samples.
Annual Away-from-home Seafood Consumption, by
Randomly Selected Adults, All Three Samples.
Annual At-home Consumption of Finfish and
Shellfish, by Randomly Selected Adults and
Householders, All Three Samples. . .
Total Annual Finfish and Shellfish Consumption,
by Randomly Selected Adults, by Gender, All Three
Samples. . . . . .
Annual Finfish and Shellfish Consumption by
Gender, Randomly Selected Adults, State Sample.
Annual Finfish and Shellfish Consumption by
Gender, Randomly Selected Adults, Paper Mill
Sample . . . . .
Annual Finfish and Shellfish Consumption At Home,
by HRS Householders, by Gender . .
Total Annual Finfish and Shellfish Consumption,
by Randomly Selected Adults, by Race, All Three
Samples. . . . . .
Annual Finfish and Shellfish Consumption by Race,
Randomly Selected Adults, State Sample. .
Annual Finfish and Shellfish Consumption by Race,
Randomly Selected Adults, Paper Mill Sample.
HRS Householders At Home Consumption of Finfish
and Shellfish, by Race . . .
Annual Finfish and Shellfish Consumption by Age,
Randomly Selected Adults, State Sample and Paper
Mill Sample. . . . . .
Annual Finfish and Shellfish Consumption by Age,
Randomly Selected Adults, State Sample. .
Annual Finfish and Shellfish Consumption by Age,
Randomly Selected Adults, Paper Mill Sample.
Annual At Home Consumption, by Householder of
Finfish and Shellfish by Age, State Sample and
Paper Mill Sample. . . . .
Total Annual Finfish and Shellfish Consumption by
Randomly Selected Adults, by Income Level, State
Sample and Paper Mill Sample . . .
Annual Finfish and Shellfish Consumption by
Various Income Groups, Randomly Selected Adults,
State Sample . . . .
Annual Finfish and Shellfish Consumption by
Various Income Groups, Randomly Selected Adults,
Paper Mill Sample. . . . .
Annual Consumption of Saltwater and Freshwater
Finfish and Shellfish Species, RSA's All Three
Samples. . . . . .
























































































vi










LIST OF APPENDICES


Appendix Table A.1.


Appendix Table A.2.


Appendix Table A.3.


Appendix Table A.4.

Appendix Table A.5.

Appendix Table A.6.


Appendix Table B.1.

Appendix Table B.2.

Appendix Table B.3.

Appendix Table B.4.

Appendix Table B.5.

Appendix Table B.6.

Appendix Table B.7.


Appendix Table B.8.

Appendix Table B.9.

Appendix Table B.10.

Appendix Table B.11.

Appendix Table B.12.

Appendix Table B.13.

Appendix Table B.14.

Appendix Table B.15.

Appendix Table B.16.


Socio-demographic characteristics of
randomly selected adult respondents
for the state and paper mill samples.
Socio-demographic characteristics of
householders for the state and paper
mill samples. . . .
Cooked product yields from selected
shellfish and finfish, by cooking
method. . . .
Edible weight estimates for selected
shellfish of various sizes. .
Approximate cooked weights of selected
shellfish species and products. .
Finfish species categorized as "other
marine", "other freshwater" or
"panfish." . . . .
Total seafood consumption by RSAs in
the state sample. . . .
Away-from-home seafood consumption by
RSAs in the state sample. . .
At-home seafood consumption by RSAs in
the state sample. . . .
Total seafood consumption by RSAs in
the state sample, all males .. .
Total seafood consumption by RSAs in
the state sample, all females. .
Away-from-home seafood consumption by
RSAs in the state sample, all males.
Away-from-home seafood consumption by
RSAs in the state sample, all
females . . . .
At-home seafood consumption by RSAs in
the state sample, all males .. .
At-home seafood consumption by RSAs in
the state sample, all females. .
Total seafood consumption by RSAs in
the state sample, Whites. .
Total seafood consumption by RSAs in
the state sample, Blacks. .
Total seafood consumption by RSAs in
the state sample, Hispanics .. .
Total seafood consumption by RSAs in
the state sample, Asians......
Total seafood consumption by RSAs in
the state sample, American Indians.
Away-from-home seafood consumption by
RSAs in the state sample, Whites.
Away-from-home seafood consumption by
RSAs in the state sample, Blacks.


vii


83


84


85

86

87


88

91

92

93

94

95

96


97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106









Appendix Table B.17.

Appendix Table B.18.

Appendix Table B.19.


Appendix Table B.20.

Appendix Table B.21.

Appendix Table B.22.

Appendix Table B.23.

Appendix Table B.24.

Appendix Table B.25.

Appendix Table B.26.

Appendix Table B.27.

Appendix Table B.28.

Appendix Table B.29.

Appendix Table B.30.

Appendix Table B.31.

Appendix Table B.32.


Appendix Table B.33.

Appendix Table B.34.

Appendix Table B.35.

Appendix Table B.36.

Appendix Table B.37.


Appendix Table B.38.


Appendix Table B.39.


Away-from-home seafood consumption by
RSAs in the state sample, Hispanics.
Away-from-home seafood consumption by
RSAs in the state sample, Asians.
Away-from-home seafood consumption by
RSAs in the state sample, American
Indians . . . .
At-home seafood consumption by RSAs in
the state sample, Whites. . .
At-home seafood consumption by RSAs in
the state sample, Blacks. . .
At-home seafood consumption by RSAs in
the state sample, Hispanics .. .
At-home seafood consumption by RSAs in
the state sample, Asians. . .
At-home seafood consumption by RSAs in
the state sample, American Indians.
Total seafood consumption by RSAs in
the state sample, ages 18-34. .
Total seafood consumption by RSAs in
the state sample, ages 35-49. .
Total seafood consumption by RSAs in
the state sample, ages 50-64. .
Total seafood consumption by RSAs in
the state sample, ages 65 and older.
Away-from-home seafood consumption by
RSAs in the state sample, ages 18-34.
Away-from-home seafood consumption by
RSAs in the state sample, ages 35-49.
Away-from-home seafood consumption by
RSAs in the state sample, ages 50-64.
Away-from-home seafood consumption by
RSAs in the state sample, ages 65 and
older . . . .
At-home seafood consumption by RSAs in
the state sample, ages 18-34. .
At-home seafood consumption by RSAs in
the state sample, ages 35-49. .
At-home seafood consumption by RSAs in
the state sample, ages 50-64. .
At-home seafood consumption by RSAs in
the state sample, ages 65 and older.
Total seafood consumption by RSAs in
the state sample with household
incomes of $20,000 or less. .
Total seafood consumption by RSAs in
the state sample with household
incomes of $20,001 to $35,000. .
Total seafood consumption by RSAs in
the state sample with household
incomes of $35,001 to $50,000. .


viii


107

108


109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121


122

123

124

125

126


127


128


129










Appendix Table B.40.


Appendix Table B.41.


Appendix Table B.42.



Appendix Table B.43.



Appendix Table B.44.


Appendix Table B.45.


Appendix Table B.46.


Appendix Table B.47.


Appendix Table B.48.


Appendix Table B.49.

Appendix Table B.50.


Appendix Table B.51.


Appendix Table B.52.


Appendix Table B.53.


Appendix Table B.54.


Appendix Table B.55.


Appendix Table B.56.


Total seafood consumption by RSAs in
the state sample with household
incomes of $50,001 or more. .
Away-from-home seafood consumption by
RSAs in the state sample with
household incomes of $20,000 or less.
Away-from-home seafood consumption by
RSAs in the state sample with
household incomes of $20,001 to
$35,000 . . . .
Away-from-home seafood consumption by
RSAs in the state sample with
household incomes of $35,001 to
$50,000 . . . .
Away-from-home seafood consumption by
RSAs in the state sample with
household incomes of $50,001 or more.
At-home seafood consumption by RSAs in
the state sample with household
incomes of $20,000 or less. .
At-home seafood consumption by RSAs in
the state sample with household
incomes of $20,001 to $35,000. .
At-home seafood consumption by RSAs in
the state sample with household
incomes of $35,001 to $50,000. .
At-home seafood consumption by RSAs in
the state sample with household
incomes of $50,001 or more. .
At-home seafood consumption by
householders in the state sample.
At-home seafood consumption by
householders in the state sample, all
males . . . .
At-home seafood consumption by
householders in the state sample, all
females . . . .
At-home seafood consumption by
householders in the state sample,
children ages 5 and under. . .
At-home seafood consumption by
householders in the state sample,
children ages 6-11. . .
At-home seafood consumption by
householders in the state sample,
children 12-17. . . .
At-home seafood consumption by
householders in the state sample,
adults ages 18-34 . .
At-home seafood consumption by
householders in the state sample,
adults ages 35-49 .. .. . .


130


131



132



133


134


135


136


137


138

139


140


141


142


143


144


145


146










Appendix Table B.57.


Appendix Table B.58.


Appendix Table B.59.


Appendix Table B.60.


Appendix Table B.61.


Appendix Table B.62.


Appendix Table B.63.


Appendix Table B.64.


Appendix Table B.65.


Appendix Table B.66.


Appendix Table B.67.


Appendix Table B.68.


Appendix Table B.69.


Appendix Table B.70.


Appendix Table B.71.


Appendix Table B.72.


Appendix Table B.73.


At-home seafood consumption by
householders in the state sample,
adults ages 50-64. . .
At-home seafood consumption by
householders in the state sample,
adults ages 65 and older. . .
At-home seafood consumption by male
householders in the state sample, ages
5 and under. . . .
At-home seafood consumption by male
householders in the state sample, ages
6-11 . . . .
At-home seafood consumption by male
householders in the state sample, ages
12-17 . . . .
At-home seafood consumption by male
householders in the state sample, ages
18 and older. . . .
At-home seafood consumption by female
householders in the state sample, ages
5 and under. . . .
At-home seafood consumption by female
householders in the state sample, ages
6-11 . . .
At-home seafood consumption by female
householders in the state sample, ages
12-17 . . . .
At-home seafood consumption by female
houhuseholders in the state sample, ages
18 and older. . . .
At-home seafood consumption by
householders in the state sample,
Whites. .. . . .
At-home seafood consumption by
householders in the state sample,
Blacks. . .
At-home seafood consumption by
householders in the state sample,
Hispanics . . . .
At-home seafood consumption by
householders in the state sample,
Asians. . . .
At-home seafood consumption by
householders in the state sample,
American Indians. . . .
At-home seafood consumption by
householders in the state sample with
household incomes of $20,000 or less.
At-home seafood consumption by
householders in the state sample with
household incomes of $20,001 to
$35,000 . . . .


147


148


149


150


151


152


153


154


155


156


157


158


159


160


161


162



163










Appendix Table B.74.



Appendix Table B.75.


Appendix Table B.76.



Appendix Table B.77.


Appendix Table B.78.


Appendix Table B.79.


Appendix Table B.80.


Appendix Table B.81.


Appendix Table B.82.


Appendix Table B.83.


Appendix Table B.84.



Appendix Table B.85.


Appendix Table B.86.


Appendix Table B.87.



Appendix Table B.88.


Appendix Table C.1.


At-home seafood consumption by
householders in the state sample with
household incomes of $35,001 to
$50,000. . . . .
At-home seafood consumption by
householders in the state sample with
household incomes of $50,001 or more.
Saltwater and Freshwater seafood
consumption by RSAs in the state
sample, away-from-home, at-home and in
total . . . .
Saltwater and Freshwater seafood
consumption by RSAs in the state
sample, in total, by gender .. .
Saltwater and Freshwater seafood
consumption by RSAs in the state
sample, away-from-home, by gender.
Saltwater and Freshwater seafood
consumption by RSAs in the state
sample, at-home, by gender. .
Saltwater and Freshwater seafood
consumption by RSAs in the state
sample, in total, by race. . .
Saltwater and Freshwater seafood
consumption by RSAs in the state
sample, away-from-home, by race. .
Saltwater and Freshwater seafood
consumption by RSAs in the state
sample, at-home, by race. . .
Saltwater and Freshwater seafood
consumption by RSAs in the state
sample, in total, by age category.
Saltwater and Freshwater seafood
consumption by RSAs in the state
sample, away-from-home, by age
category. . . . .
Saltwater and Freshwater seafood
consumption by RSAs in the state
sample, at-home, by age category.
Saltwater and Freshwater seafood
consumption by RSAs in the state
sample, in total, by income category.
Saltwater and Freshwater seafood
consumption by RSAs in the state
sample, away-from-home, by income
category. . . . .
Saltwater and Freshwater seafood
consumption by RSAs in the state
sample, at-home, by income category.
Total seafood consumption by RSAs in
the paper mill sample. . .


164


165



166


167


168


169


170


171


172


173



174


175


176



177


178

181









Appendix Table C.2.

Appendix Table C.3.

Appendix Table C.4.

Appendix Table C.5.

Appendix Table C.6.


Appendix Table C.7.


Appendix Table C.8.

Appendix Table C.9.

Appendix Table C.10.

Appendix Table C.11.

Appendix Table C.12.

Appendix Table C.13.

Appendix Table C.14.


Appendix Table C.15.


Appendix Table C.16.


Appendix Table C.17.


Appendix Table C.18.


Appendix Table C.19.


Appendix Table C.20.

Appendix Table C.21.

Appendix Table C.22.

Appendix Table C.23.


Away-from-home seafood consumption by
RSAs in the paper mill sample. .
At-home seafood consumption by RSAs in
the paper mill sample . .
Total seafood consumption by RSAs in
the paper mill sample, all males.
Total seafood consumption by RSAs in
the paper mill sample, all females.
Away-from-home seafood consumption by
RSAs in the paper mill sample, all
males . . . .
Away-from-home seafood consumption by
RSAs in the paper mill sample, all
females. . . . .
At-home seafood consumption by RSAs in
the paper mill sample, all males.
At-home seafood consumption by RSAs in
the paper mill sample, all females.
Total seafood consumption by RSAs in
the paper mill sample, Whites. .
Total seafood consumption by RSAs in
the paper mill sample, Blacks. .
Total seafood consumption by RSAs in
the paper mill sample, Hispanics.
Total seafood consumption by RSAs in
the paper mill sample, Asians. .
Total seafood consumption by RSAs in
the paper mill sample, American
Indians . . . .
Away-from-home seafood consumption by
RSAs in the paper mill sample,
Whites.
Whites. . . . .
Away-from-home seafood consumption by
RSAs in the paper mill sample,
Blacks. . . . .
Away-from-home seafood consumption by
RSAs in the paper mill sample,
Hispanics . . .
Away-from-home seafood consumption by
RSAs in the paper mill sample,
Asians. . . .
Away-from-home seafood consumption by
RSAs in the paper mill sample,
American Indians. . .
At-home seafood consumption by RSAs in
the paper mill sample, Whites. .
At-home seafood consumption by RSAs in
the paper mill sample, Blacks. .
At-home seafood consumption by RSAs in
the paper mill sample, Hispanics.
At-home seafood consumption by RSAs in
the paper mill sample, Asians.


xii


182

183

184

185


186


187

188

189

190

191

192

193


194


195


196


197


1.98


199

200

2,01

202

203










Appendix Table C.24.


Appendix Table C.25.

Appendix Table C.26.

Appendix Table C.27.

Appendix Table C.28.


Appendix Table C.29.


Appendix Table C.30.


Appendix Table C.31.


Appendix Table C.32.


Appendix Table C.33.

Appendix Table C.34.

Appendix Table C.35.

Appendix Table C.36.


Appendix Table C.37.


Appendix Table C.38.


Appendix Table C.39.


Appendix Table C.40.


Appendix Table C.41.


Appendix Table C.42.


At-home seafood consumption by RSAs in
the paper mill sample, American
Indians . . . .
Total seafood consumption by RSAs in
the paper mill sample, ages 18-34.
Total seafood consumption by RSAs in
the paper mill sample, ages 35-49.
Total seafood consumption by RSAs in
the paper mill sample, ages 50-64.
Total seafood consumption by RSAs in
the paper mill sample, ages 65 and
older . . . .
Away-from-home seafood consumption by
RSAs in the paper mill sample, ages
18-34 . . . .
Away-from-home seafood consumption by
RSAs in the paper mill sample, ages
35-49 . . . .
Away-from-home seafood consumption by
RSAs in the paper mill sample, ages
50-64 . . . .
Away-from-home seafood consumption by
RSAs in the paper mill sample, ages 65
and older . . .
At-home seafood consumption by RSAs in
the paper mill sample, ages 18-34.
At-home seafood consumption by RSAs in
the paper mill sample, ages 35-49.
At-home seafood consumption by RSAs in
the paper mill sample, ages 50-64.
At-home seafood consumption by RSAs in
the paper mill sample, ages 65 and
older . . . .
Total seafood consumption by RSAs in
the paper mill sample with household
incomes of $20,000 or less. .
Total seafood consumption by RSAs in
the paper mill sample with household
incomes of $20,001 to $35,000. .
Total seafood consumption by RSAs in
the paper mill sample with household
incomes of $35,001 to $50,000. .
Total seafood consumption by RSAs in
the paper mill sample with household
incomes of $50,001 or more. .
Away-from-home seafood consumption by
RSAs in the paper mill sample with
household incomes of $20,000 or less.
Away-from-home seafood consumption by
RSAs in the paper mill sample with
household incomes of $20,001 to
$35,000. . . . .


xiii


204

205

206

207


208


209


210


211


212

213

214

215


216


217


218


219


220


221



222










Appendix Table C.43.



Appendix Table C.44.


Appendix Table C.45.


Appendix Table C.46.


Appendix Table C.47.


Appendix Table C.48.


Appendix Table C.49.


Appendix Table C.50.


Appendix Table C.51.


Appendix Table C.52.


Appendix Table C.53.


Appendix Table C.54.


Appendix Table C.55.


Appendix Table C.56.


Appendix Table C.57.


Appendix Table C.58.


Appendix Table C.59.


Away-from-home seafood consumption by
RSAs in the paper mill sample with
household incomes of $35,001 to
$50,000 . . . .
Away-from-home seafood consumption by
RSAs in the paper mill sample with
household incomes of $50,001 or more.
At-home seafood consumption by RSAs in
the paper mill sample with household
incomes of $20,000 or less. ..
At-home seafood consumption by RSAs in
the paper mill sample with household
incomes of $20,001 to $35,000. .
At-home seafood consumption by RSAs in
the paper mill sample with household
incomes of $35,001 to $50,000. .
At-home seafood consumption by RSAs in
the paper mill sample with household
incomes of $50,001 or more. .
At-home seafood consumption by
householders in the paper mill
sample. . . .
At-home seafood consumption by
householders in the paper mill sample,
all males . .. . .
At-home seafood consumption by
householders in the paper mill sample,
all females. . .. . .
At-home seafood consumption by
householders in the paper mill sample,
children ages 5 and under. . .
At-home seafood consumption by
householders in the paper mill sample,
children ages 6-11. . .
At-home seafood consumption by
householders in the paper mill sample,
children 12-17. . . .
At-home seafood consumption by
householders in the paper mill sample,
adults ages 18-34. . .
At-home seafood consumption by
householders in the paper mill sample,
adults ages 35-49. . .
At-home seafood consumption by
householders in the paper mill sample,
adults ages 50-64. . .
At-home seafood consumption by
householders in the paper mill sample,
adults ages 65 and older. . .
At-home seafood consumption by male
householders in the paper mill sample,
ages 5 and under. . . .


xiv


223


224


225


226


227


228


229


230


231


232


233


234


235


236


237


238


239










Appendix Table C.60.


Appendix Table C.61.


Appendix Table C.62.


Appendix Table C.63.


Appendix Table C.64.


Appendix Table C.65.


Appendix Table C.66.


Appendix Table C.67.


Appendix Table C.68.


Appendix Table C.69.


Appendix Table C.70.


Appendix Table C.71.


Appendix Table C.72.



Appendix Table C.73.



Appendix Table C.74.



Appendix Table C.75.


At-home seafood consumption by male
householders in the paper mill sample,
ages 6-11. . . . .
At-home seafood consumption by male
householders in the paper mill sample,
ages 12-17. . . .
At-home seafood consumption by male
householders in the paper mill sample,
ages 18 and older. . .
At-home seafood consumption by female
householders in the paper mill sample,
ages 5 and under. . . .
At-home seafood consumption by female
householders in the paper mill sample,
ages 6-11. . . .
At-home seafood consumption by female
householders in the paper mill sample,
ages 12-17. . . .
At-home seafood consumption by female
householders in the paper mill sample,
ages 18 and older. . .
At-home seafood consumption by
householders in the paper mill sample,
Whites. . . . .
At-home seafood consumption by
householders in the paper mill sample,
Blacks. . . . .
At-home seafood consumption by
householders in the paper mill sample,
Hispanics. . . .
At-home seafood consumption by
householders in the paper mill sample,
Asians. . . . .
At-home seafood consumption by
householders in the paper mill sample,
American Indians. . . .
At-home seafood consumption by
householders in the paper mill sample
with household incomes of $20,000 or
less.
less . . . .
At-home seafood consumption by
householders in the paper mill sample
with household incomes of $20,001 to
$35,000 . . . .
At-home seafood consumption by
householders in the paper mill sample
with household incomes of $35,001 to
$50,000 . . . .
At-home seafood consumption by
householders in the paper mill sample
with household incomes of $50,001 or
more. . . . .


240


241


242


243


244


245


246


247


248


249


250


251



252



253



254



255









Appendix Table C.76.



Appendix Table C.77.


Appendix Table C.78.


Appendix Table C.79.


Appendix Table C.80.


Appendix Table C.81.


Appendix Table C.82.


Appendix Table C.83.


Appendix Table C.84.



Appendix Table C.85.


Appendix Table C.86.


Appendix Table C.87.



Appendix Table C.88.


Appendix Table D.1.

Appendix Table D.2.

Appendix Table D.3.

Appendix Table D.4.

Appendix Table D.5.


Saltwater and Freshwater seafood
consumption by RSAs in the paper mill
sample, away-from-home, at-home and in
total . . ... .
Saltwater and Freshwater seafood
consumption by RSAs in the paper mill
sample, in total, by gender .. .
Saltwater and Freshwater seafood
consumption by RSAs in the paper mill
sample, away-from-home, by gender.
Saltwater and Freshwater seafood
consumption by RSAs in the paper mill
sample, at-home, by gender. ..
Saltwater and Freshwater seafood
consumption by RSAs in the paper mill
sample, in total, by race. . .
Saltwater and Freshwater seafood
consumption by RSAs in the paper mill
sample, away-from-home, by race. .
Saltwater and Freshwater seafood
consumption by RSAs in the paper mill
sample, at-home, by race. . .
Saltwater and Freshwater seafood
consumption by RSAs in the paper mill
sample, in total, by age category.
Saltwater and Freshwater seafood
consumption by RSAs in the paper mill
sample, away-from-home, by age
category. . . . .
Saltwater and Freshwater seafood
consumption by RSAs in the paper mill
sample, at-home, by age category.
Saltwater and Freshwater seafood
consumption by RSAs in the paper mill
sample, in total, by income category.
Saltwater and Freshwater seafood
consumption by RSAs in the paper mill
sample, away-from-home, by income
category. . . . .
Saltwater and Freshwater seafood
consumption by RSAs in the paper mill
sample, at-home, by income category.
Socio-demographic characteristics of
RSAs in the HRS sample. . .
Socio-demographic characteristics of
householders in the HRS sample. .
Total seafood consumption by RSAs in
the HRS sample. . . .
Away-from-home seafood consumption by
RSAs in the HRS sample. . .
At-home seafood consumption by RSAs in
the HRS sample. . . .


xvi


256


257


258


259


260


261


262


263



264


265


266



267


268

271

272

273

274

275










Appendix Table D.6.

Appendix Table D.7.


Appendix Table D.8

Appendix Table D.9.

Appendix Table D.10.


Appendix Table D.11.

Appendix Table D.12.

Appendix Table D.13.


Appendix Table D.14.

Appendix Table D.15.

Appendix Table D.16.


Appendix Table D.17.

Appendix Table D.18.

Appendix Table D.19.

Appendix Table D.20.

Appendix Table D.21.

Appendix Table D.22.

Appendix Table D.23.

Appendix Table D.24.

Appendix Table D.25.

Appendix Table D.26.

Appendix Table D.27.

Appendix Table D.28.

Appendix Table D.29.


Total seafood consumption by RSAs in
the HRS sample from Apalachicola.
Away-from-home seafood consumption by
RSAs in the HRS sample from
Apalachicola. . . .
At-home seafood consumption by RSAs in
the HRS sample from Apalachicola.
Total seafood consumption by RSAs in
the HRS sample from Clewiston. .
Away-from-home seafood consumption by
RSAs in the HRS sample from
Clewiston . . .
At-home seafood consumption by RSAs in
the HRS sample from Clewiston. .
Total seafood consumption by RSAs in
the HRS sample from Florida City.
Away-from-home seafood consumption by
RSAs in the HRS sample from Florida
City . . . .
At-home seafood consumption by RSAs in
the HRS sample from Florida City.
Total seafood consumption by RSAs in
the HRS sample from Panama City. .
Away-from-home seafood consumption by
RSAs in the HRS sample from Panama
City . . . .
At-home seafood consumption by RSAs in
the HRS sample from Panama City. .
Total seafood consumption by RSAs in
the HRS sample from Tavares .. .
Away-from-home seafood consumption by
RSAs in the HRS sample from Tavares.
At-home seafood consumption by RSAs in
the HRS sample from Tavares .. .
Total seafood consumption by RSAs in
the HRS sample, all males .
Away-from-home seafood consumption by
RSAs in the HRS sample, all males.
At-home seafood consumption by RSAs in
the HRS sample, all males .
Total seafood consumption by RSAs in
the HRS sample, all females .. .
Away-from-home seafood consumption by
RSAs in the HRS sample, all females.
At-home seafood consumption by RSAs in
the HRS sample, all females .. .
Total seafood consumption by RSAs in
the HRS sample, Whites. . .
Away-from-home seafood consumption by
RSAs in the HRS sample, Whites. .
At-home seafood consumption by RSAs in
the HRS sample, Whites. . .


xvii


276


277

278

279


280

281

282


283

284

285


286

287

288

289

290

291

292

293

294

295

296

297

298

299









Appendix Table D.30.

Appendix Table D.31.

Appendix Table D.32.

Appendix Table D.33.

Appendix Table D.34.

Appendix Table D.35.

Appendix Table D.36.

Appendix Table D.37.

Appendix Table D.38.

Appendix Table D.39.

Appendix Table D.40.

Appendix Table D.41.

Appendix Table D.42.

Appendix Table D.43.

Appendix Table D.44.

Appendix Table D.45.

Appendix Table D.46.


Appendix Table D.47.

Appendix Table D.48.

Appendix Table D.49.


Appendix Table D.50.


Appendix Table D.51.


Appendix Table D.52.


Total seafood consumption by RSAs in
the HRS sample, Blacks. . .
Away-from-home seafood consumption by
RSAs in the HRS sample, Blacks. .
At-home seafood consumption by RSAs in
the HRS sample, Blacks. . .
Total seafood consumption by RSAs in
the HRS sample, Hispanics. . .
Away-from-home seafood consumption by
RSAs in the HRS sample, Hispanics.
At-home seafood consumption by RSAs in
the HRS sample, Hispanics. . .
Total seafood consumption by RSAs in
the HRS sample, ages 18-34. ..
Away-from-home seafood consumption by
RSAs in the HRS sample, ages 18-34.
At-home seafood consumption by RSAs in
the HRS sample, ages 18-34. .
Total seafood consumption by RSAs in
the HRS sample, ages 35-49. .
Away-from-home seafood consumption by
RSAs in the HRS sample, ages 35-49.
At-home seafood consumption by RSAs in
the HRS sample, ages 35-49. .
Total seafood consumption by RSAs in
the HRS sample, ages 50-64. .
Away-from-home seafood consumption by
RSAs in the HRS sample, ages 50-64.
At-home seafood consumption by RSAs in
the HRS sample, ages 50-64. .
Total seafood consumption by RSAs in
the HRS sample, ages 65 or older.
Away-from-home seafood consumption by
RSAs in the HRS sample, ages 65 or
older . . .. .
At-home seafood consumption by RSAs in
the HRS sample, ages 65 or older.
At-home seafood consumption by all
householders in the HRS sample.
At-home seafood consumption by all
householders in the HRS sample from
Apalachicola. . .
At-home seafood consumption by all
householders in the HRS sample from
Clewiston . . ... .
At-home seafood consumption by all
householders in the HRS sample from
Florida City. . .
At-home seafood consumption by all
householders in the HRS sample from
Panama City . . .


xviii


300

301

302

303

304

305

306

307

308

309

310

311

312

313

314

315


316

317

318


319


320


321


322










Appendix Table D.53.


Appendix Table D.54.


Appendix Table D.55.


Appendix Table D.56.


Appendix Table D.57.


Appendix Table D.58.


Appendix Table D.59.


Appendix Table D.60.


Appendix Table D.61.


Appendix Table D.62.


Appendix Table D.63.


Appendix Table D.64.


Appendix Table D.65.


Appendix Table D.66.


Appendix Table D.67.


Appendix Table D.68.


Appendix Table D.69.


At-home seafood consumption by all
householders in the HRS sample from
Tavares . . . .
At-home seafood consumption by
householders in the HRS sample, all
males . . . .
At-home seafood consumption by
householders in the HRS sample, all
females . . . .
At-home seafood consumption by
householders in the HRS sample,
Whites. . . . .
At-home seafood consumption by
householders in the HRS sample,
Blacks. . . . .
At-home seafood consumption by
householders in the HRS sample,
Hispanics . . .
At-home seafood consumption by
householders in the HRS sample, ages 5
and under . . . .
At-home seafood consumption by
householders in the HRS sample, ages
6-11 . . . .
At-home seafood consumption by
householders in the HRS sample, ages
12-17 . . . .
At-home seafood consumption by
householders in the HRS sample, ages
18-34 . . . .
At-home seafood consumption by
householders in the HRS sample, ages
35-49 . . . .
At-home seafood consumption by
householders in the HRS sample, ages
50-64 . . . .
At-home seafood consumption by
householders in the HRS sample, ages
65 or older . . .
At-home seafood consumption by male
householders in the HRS sample, ages 5
and under . . .
At-home seafood consumption by male
householders in the HRS sample, ages
6-11 . . . .
At-home seafood consumption by male
householders in the HRS sample, ages
12-17 . . . .
At-home seafood consumption by male
householders in the HRS sample, ages
18 and older. . . .


xix


323


324


325


326


327


328


329


330


331


332


333


334


335


336


337


338


339










Appendix Table D.70.


Appendix Table D.71.


Appendix Table D.72.


Appendix Table D.73.


Appendix Table D.74.


Appendix Table D.75.


Appendix Table D.76.


Appendix Table D.77.


Appendix Table D.78.


Appendix Table D.79.


Appendix Table D.80.


Appendix Table D.81.


Appendix Table D.82.


Appendix Table D.83.


At-home seafood consumption by female
householders in the HRS sample, ages 5
and under . . .. .
At-home seafood consumption by female
householders in the HRS sample, ages
6-11 . . .
At-home seafood consumption by female
householders in the HRS sample, ages
12-17 . . . .
At-home seafood consumption by female
householders in the HRS sample, ages
18 and older. . . .
Saltwater and Freshwater seafood
consumption by RSAs in the HRS sample,
away-from-home, at-home and in total.
Saltwater and Freshwater seafood
consumption by RSAs in the HRS sample,
in total, by gender . .
Saltwater and Freshwater seafood
consumption by RSAs in the HRS sample,
away-from-home, by gender. . .
Saltwater and Freshwater seafood
consumption by RSAs in the HRS sample,
at-home, by gender. . .
Saltwater and Freshwater seafood
consumption by RSAs, HRS sample, in
total, by race. . . .
Saltwater and Freshwater seafood
consumption by RSAs, HRS sample, away-
from-home, by race. . .
Saltwater and Freshwater seafood
consumption by RSAs, HRS sample, at-
home, by race . . .
Saltwater and Freshwater seafood
consumption by RSAs, HRS sample, in
total, by age . . .
Saltwater and Freshwater seafood
consumption by RSAs, HRS sample, away-
from-home, by age . .
Saltwater and Freshwater seafood
consumption by RSAs, HRS sample, at-
home, by age. . . .


340


341


342


343


344


345


346


347


348


349


350


351


352


353










ABSTRACT


This study provides estimates of annual per capital seafood
consumption for Florida residents in general and for two population
subgroups. An aided recall questionnaire was utilized for
telephone and face-to-face interviews. Estimates of at-home and
away-from-home consumption are provided by species group for
several demographic strata. Estimates of per capital seafood
consumption by Florida residents was found to be considerably
higher than previously published estimates for the U.S. Major
findings also suggest that seafood consumption is highest for
males, the 35-49 age group, and Asians. Consumption levels are
also positively related to income. Saltwater finfish species
comprise the majority of seafood consumed.


xxi





































































xxii









ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


We would like to express our appreciation to Ms. Nancy Turner,
Project Supervisor, Florida Department of Environmental Protection
(DEP) for the gracious manner in which she handled administrative
details associated with this lengthy and complex project. We are
also grateful for the financial support provided by DEP.

Thanks are also due to Dr. H. Joseph Sekerke, Toxicologist,
Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, for his
helpful suggestions throughout the project. He was instrumental in
forging the cooperative link between DEP and the University of
Florida during the formative stages of the study. Dr. Sekerke's
professional expertise was of particular benefit in the development
of the survey instruments.

We are also indebted to Dr. Laura K. Guyer, Assistant
Professor of Food Science and Human Nutrition at the University of
Florida, for her invaluable assistance in developing the research
methodology. Thanks also go to Dr. W. Steven Otwell, Professor of
Food Science and Human Nutrition, University of Florida, for his
guidance in the development stages of the project and his technical
input throughout the study.

We also appreciate the input of Dr. C.-T. Jordan Lin, former
Research Associate, Food and Resource Economics Department,
University of Florida, in developing and protesting the survey
instruments.

Finally, gratitude is expressed to Vivian Thompson for typing
much of the final manuscript.


xxiii







































































xxiv










EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


* Recent concerns regarding chemical contamination and bacterial
and viral pathogens in seafood have prompted interest in
obtaining more accurate estimates of seafood consumption for
Florida residents.

* This study provides improved estimates of per capital seafood
consumption by Florida residents in general and for population
subgroups of particular interest. Estimates are also reported
by seafood species, and the proportions of each caught
recreationally are documented.

* The study was organized into two phases. Phase I consisted of
two comprehensive telephone surveys. The telephone surveys
targeted two populations, residents statewide (State Sample)
and residents of five counties where industrial pollution from
bleached kraft paper mills could result in chemically
contaminated fish and shellfish (Paper Mill Sample). Phase II
utilized face-to-face interviews of food stamp recipients
conducted in five food stamp offices (HRS Sample).

* For the State Sample, 8,000 households were selected via a
random digit dialing procedure. The sample was stratified by
county, with each county represented in proportion to its
population. The Paper Mill Sample contained 1,000 households,
200 per county. A randomly selected adult in both telephone
samples was asked for detailed away-from-home seafood
consumption data for the previous seven days. If the primary
meal preparer was available, he [or she] was asked to provide
at-home seafood consumption data for every member of the
household.

* At-home and away-from-home consumption data were obtained for
8,000 randomly selected adults (RSA's) for the State Sample.
The Paper Mill Sample provided similar data for 1,000 RSA's.

* At-home consumption data were obtained for 15,672 household
members (State Sample) and 2,099 households in the Paper Mill
Sample.

* Telephone interviews were conducted on a constant quota basis
throughout a 52 week period beginning March 15, 1993 and
ending March 13, 1994.

* Five hundred face-to-face interviews of food stamp recipients
were conducted in State Department of Health and
Rehabilitative Services (HRS) offices in Apalachicola, Panama
City, Tavares, Clewiston and Florida City.


xxV









* The one hundred food stamp recipient interviews were conducted
at each location in four waves of 25 during the Spring,
Summer, Fall and Winter. Respondents reported at-home and
away-from-home consumption for themselves and at-home
consumption for all household members for the previous seven
days. Data were obtained for 1,701 householders.

* Questionnaires used for the telephone surveys and the face-to-
face survey utilized an aided recall approach. Portion size
recall was based upon familiar food-related items, i.e., a
slice of sandwich bread and an 8 oz. beverage cup.

* Total annual per capital seafood consumption was estimated to
be 16.80 kg (36.97 pounds) for RSA's in the State Sample,
19.04 kg (41.89 pounds) for RSA's in the Paper Mill Sample and
8.35 kg (18.36 pounds) for RSA's in the HRS Sample.

* RSA's in both the State Sample and the Paper Mill Sample
consumed approximately half of their total seafood at home and
half away-from-home. RSA's in the HRS Sample consumed the
majority of their seafood at home.

* Finfish represented approximately 80 percent of total seafood
consumption by RSA's in all three samples.

* For all three samples, total annual consumption was higher for
male than female RSA's and householders.

* Asian and American Indians reported the highest levels of
seafood consumption in the State Sample, followed by Blacks,
Whites and Hispanics. In the Paper Mill Sample, Asians and
Whites had the highest consumption levels, followed by Blacks,
American Indians and Hispanics. In the HRS Sample, seafood
consumption by Blacks and Whites was similar. Consumption by
Hispanics was lowest. There were too few observations of
Asians and American Indians in the HRS Sample to draw any
meaningful conclusions.

* Total annual consumption of seafood by RSA's was found to be
highest for ages 35-49 for the State and Paper Mill Samples.
Consumption for ages 18-34 and 50-64 were approximately equal.
The lowest consumption was found for ages 65 and over.

* Consumption of seafood was positively related to income for
the State and Paper Mill Samples. It appears that low income
individuals, as a group, do not consume disproportionately
large quantities of finfish or shellfish as a result of
subsistence fishing.


xxvi









* The majority of the finfish and shellfish consumed was of
saltwater origin. Respondents in State Sample indicated that
approximately 90 percent of consumption was comprised of
saltwater species. About 80 percent of the consumption
reported by the Paper Mill and HRS samples consisted of
saltwater species.

* This study provides strong evidence that Floridians consume
more seafood per capital than previously assumed on the basis
of published estimates for the U.S.


xxvii






























































xxviii









INTRODUCTION


According to published estimates, the average annual U.S. per
capital consumption of commercially produced fish and shellfish
increased from 5.7 to 6.7 kg (12.5 to 14.8 pounds) during the 1980
through 1992 period (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1993). An
additional 1.4 to 1.8 kg (3 to 4 pounds) (edible meat basis) of
recreationally caught fish and shellfish were consumed annually by
the average American (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1985). Thus, on
an annual per capital basis, the average U.S. resident consumed
about 8.0 to 8.5 kg (17.8 to 18.8 pounds) of seafood in 1992.
There is reason to believe that Floridians may consume
substantially greater quantities of seafood than the average U.S.
resident because of the state's unique geographical characteristics
and the presence of very large recreational and commercial
fisheries. Florida has 1,350 statute miles of general coastline
and 8,426 statute miles of tidal shore line. In contrast,
California has only 840 and 3,427 statute miles of general
coastline and tidal shore line, respectively. Most coastal states
have only a small fraction of Florida's coastal resources.
Additionally, Florida has over 4,500 square miles of inland (fresh)
water (Bureau of Economic and Business Research, 1989, 1993).
These vast water resources, coupled with a favorable climate, have
resulted in a multi-billion dollar recreational fishing industry
(Bell and Leeworthy, 1982).
The state's commercial seafood industry is also quite large.
In 1991, finfish and shellfish landings amounted to 163 million
pounds and were valued at $162 million (U.S. Department of
Commerce, 1992). In 1990, Florida had 482 seafood processors and
wholesalers, more than any other state (Bureau of Economic and
Business Research, 1993).
Recent concerns regarding chemical contamination and bacterial
and viral pathogens in seafood have prompted interest in obtaining
more accurate estimates of seafood consumption for Florida
residents. Methyl mercury has been found in many popular fish









species, including bass, seatrout, and shark (Hand and Friedman,
1990; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1992; Hueter et al.,
1994; Foulke, 1994). Dioxin has also been found in species caught
in waters near the state's five bleached kraft paper mills. The
presence of large quantities of contaminated fish could pose
serious health risks for Florida residents. Recreational and
subsistence fishermen may be subject to increased health risks due
to the possibility of greater frequency of consumption and larger
total quantities consumed relative to the overall population.
Further, adverse media attention to seafood-borne illness is of
concern to the seafood industry. Fish and shellfish constitute
only 3.6 percent of all food-borne illnesses and the total number
of cases is lower than for any animal meat category (National
Academy of Sciences, 1991). Yet, there have been numerous media
stories which question the safety and wholesomeness of seafood
(Consumer Reports, 1992; Judd, Vreeland, 1992; 1991; Wilson, 1993).
Such stories have had adverse effects on consumption, particularly
shellfish consumption (Degner and Petrone, 1994).
While there are few definitive studies linking chemically
contaminated seafood to specific human health problems, the mere
presence of certain toxins such as methyl mercury and dioxin are
sufficient to cause alarm because of the serious human health risks
associated with ingestion of these compounds (Klaassen, et al.,
1986). Improved consumption estimates are needed to assess
potential health risks associated with seafood consumption by
specific population segments. This information will provide a
basis for more effective targeting of any future state and federal
health related seafood consumption advisories. Additionally,
findings from this study can be used to develop nutrition and
health education programs.


Previous Work


The National Marine Fisheries Service of the U.S. Department
of Commerce and the Economic Research Service of the U.S.









Department of Agriculture both publish annual estimates of per
capital fish and shellfish consumption (U.S. Department of Commerce,
1992; Putnam and Allshouse, 1991). However, these estimates are
usually aggregated over all areas of the U.S. and over all species
of finfish and shellfish. Thus, while they provide an indication
of general consumption trends, the level of aggregation precludes
any analyses of seafood consumption by geographic area, seafood
species, or consumer demographics.
In recent years, many concerns have arisen about the
wholesomeness and safety of some seafood items because of
harvesting of finfish and shellfish from contaminated environments.
Many federal and state health and environmental regulatory agencies
have studied this problem, and a 1989 survey revealed that 37
states had some type of advisory restricting some types of finfish
or shellfish consumption (Reinert, 1991). Most, if not all,
seafood consumption advisories are based upon risk assessment
methods which assume levels of ingestion, because of the lack of
definitive consumption data. As a result, there have been numerous
studies in recent years which have sought to improve seafood
consumption estimates (Peters, et. al., 1992; Hughes and Woernle,
1991). Unfortunately, none of the detailed studies included
Florida.
This study provides improved estimates of per capital seafood
consumption by Florida residents in general and for population
subgroups of particular interest. Estimates are also reported by
seafood species, and the proportions of each caught recreationally
are documented. Findings from this study should be useful to
regulatory agencies such as the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, (USEPA) the Florida Department of Environmental Protection
(FDEP) and the Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative
Services (HRS).




































































4









OBJECTIVES


The basic objective of this study was to determine the
quantities of finfish, mollusks, and crustaceans consumed by
Florida residents on an annual basis so that dietary risks
associated with seafood consumption can be assessed. Specific
objectives were to:
(1) Estimate the quantities of specific classes of
finfish and shellfish consumed at-home and away
from home by adult Floridians and measure seafood
consumption for selected socio-demographic segments
of the population.
(2) Estimate at-home consumption of specific classes of
finfish and shellfish by all Floridians, measure
seafood consumption for selected socio-demographic
segments of the population.
(3) Estimate quantities of specific types of seafood
consumed at home by source, i.e., recreationally
caught vs. commercially caught and freshwater vs.
saltwater.
(4) Estimate seafood consumption for two subgroups of
Florida residents that may be at particular risk
because of local water pollution or excessive
seafood consumption patterns induced by low incomes
and consequent "subsistence" fishing. Two groups
of particular interest are (a) residents in
counties where bleached kraft paper mills are
located and (b) households participating in the
food stamp program.




































































6









GENERAL METHODOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS


During the developmental stages of this research, many
technical publications were reviewed to assist in the formulation
of an appropriate methodology. Peters' and Houseknecht's
comprehensive checklist of issues and information requirements for
fish consumption surveys proved helpful (Peters and Houseknecht,
1992). Also, their work provided an excellent overview of related
survey methods. Smith's treatment of cognitive process in long-
term dietary recall was also invaluable, as was Anderson's general
guidelines for the collection and use of dietary intake data
(Smith, 1991; Anderson, 1988).


Historical Perspective of Food Intake Studies


Traditionally, food intake studies for epidemiological,
nutritional and toxicological purposes have been based upon weighed
food records, i.e. actual observation of intake, or on diet
histories recorded during lengthy personal interviews conducted by
professional dietitians. Other traditional food intake research
methods have utilized the food record (diary), usually self-
administered by respondents for one, three or seven days. These
methods, while reasonably accurate, are tedious, time consuming and
expensive. Because of these limitations, sample sizes for these
methods are generally quite small.
During the past 20 to 30 years the food frequency
questionnaire approach was developed and refined. This technique
assesses usual intake rather than intake for a specific period.
This enables data to be collected by non-dietitians at a faster
pace and at considerably less cost. In the 1970's and 1980's the
food frequency approach was modified to include the use of food
models or photographs to assist respondents in estimating usual
portion sizes (Medlin and Skinner, 1988). Although the food
frequency approach has been used for large-scale studies, it too
requires face-to-face interviewing, which is increasingly
expensive.









Rationale For The Present Methodology


Because of the ambitious nature of this study, a novel
methodology was required to meet the objectives within the
prescribed time and budgetary constraints. The survey protocol
incorporated the advantages of large scale probability sampling
with the efficiency of a telephone survey. Many of the features of
traditional food intake research were utilized, but the current
study was designed to reduce sources of bias that affect small
scale, short-term studies.


Rationale for a Telephone Survey


A telephone survey approach was chosen because of its
relatively low cost and the ease of probability sampling. Although
Peters' and Houseknecht's methodological review did not reveal any
studies on fish consumption which relied exclusively on telephone
surveys, they cited USEPA's report which indicates the telephone
survey approach is "rapidly becoming the principal method of
collecting survey data in research situations where probing or in-
depth exploration of issues is not required." Peters and
Houseknecht also suggest that "Telephone surveys may minimize
recall bias and achieve a better overall response than mail surveys
because the personal contact involved may encourage the
respondent's participation and jog his [or her] memory." Further,
in a comparison of a weighed record food intake study and telephone
recall by elderly subjects, Dubois and Boivin (1990) conclude that
"telephone contact is an acceptable way to obtain short term (24
hour) dietary recall from elderly subjects". Thus, one could
conclude that recall by younger subjects would probably be even
better.









Rationale for a 7-day Recall Period


Although many food intake studies have used 24 hour or three-
day recall periods, there is substantial agreement that short
recall periods are less representative of individuals' usual
consumption because of high day-to-day variability in intake,
particularly in affluent countries such as the U.S. where diets are
extremely varied (Block, 1982; Medlin and Skinner, 1988). Further,
short-term recall periods may yield biased results if consumption
data are not obtained for both weekend and weekday periods (Medlin
and Skinner, 1988).
A seven-day period has also been widely used for both the food
record and food recall approaches. Although it can be argued that
the food record approach is more accurate, it has been found that
there is a high degree of agreement between seven day food records
and subjects' ability to recall their consumption of foods,
particularly those either commonly or rarely eaten (Block, 1982).
One of the most frequent criticisms of the recall approach is
the fallibility of human memory. Where total recall of all food
items consumed is sought, respondents tend to omit some items, even
in short-term recall situations. The resulting omissions can
produce estimates of intake that are lower than those obtained by
diary methods (Stuff, et al., 1983). On the other hand, long-term
recall studies have found that respondents tend to report items
that they usually eat, but may not have actually eaten during the
specific recall period in question (Dwyer, et al., 1987).
Fortunately, accuracy of recall can be enhanced in several ways.
This study used one of the most effective mechanisms known for
enhancing recall, that of aided recall. Psychologists have
determined that specific and meaningful memory cues or aids are
more effective than vague categories, and food intake studies have
documented the effectiveness of specific cues (Krall and Dwyer,
1987; Dubois and Boivin, 1990). Accordingly, the questionnaires
used for our study used six commonly eaten types of finfish and
five major types of shellfish as memory cues to screen for finfish









and shellfish consumers. Respondents that had eaten finfish were
then read a list of 27 species to determine which ones they had
eaten during the previous seven days. Subjects that had eaten some
type of shellfish were read a list of 13 shellfish species to
determine consumption. The lists of finfish and shellfish included
those most commonly consumed in Florida (Teehan, 1991).
The review of food intake research literature also revealed
that subjects' recall accuracy was best for foods that were major
components of a meal and eaten in relatively large quantities.
Flesh foods, meats, meat substitutes and casseroles had the
greatest recall accuracy in several studies (Mullen, et al., 1984;
Eck, et al., 1989; Dubois and Boivin, 1990). In other studies
where fish intake was sought, recall for fish was among the most
accurate of any foods (Guthrie, 1984; Yuhas, et al., 1989; Jensen,
et al., 1984). Jensen postulated that the high degree of accuracy
of recall for fish could be partially explained by traditional or
habitual consumption on a particular day of the week.
Another potential source of error with food intake recall
stems from respondents' estimates of portion sizes. Many studies,
particularly those using the food frequency approach, do not
solicit portion size estimates from respondents. Instead, a
"standard" portion, as defined by professional dietitians or
others, is assumed. Some researchers defend the use of a
"standard" portion by arguing that intraindividual variability is
greater than interindividual variability (Hunter, et al., 1988).
Others counter that standard portions reflect "measurement
convenience and approximation rather than any behavioral truth
about the portions people actually consume" (Block, et al., 1986).
Clapp concluded that standard portion sizes "reduce interview time
and respondent burden but systematic error may result in serious
underestimates" (Clapp, et al., 1991). One alternative to using
one standard portion size is to use a range of sizes such as
"small," "medium" and "large"; this method has been shown to
improve portion size estimates by introducing personal variability
in respondents' intake estimates (Block, et al., 1986). This









technique was used in a modified manner in our study for estimating
consumption of some shellfish and is described in greater detail
below.
Obtaining reasonably accurate estimates of portion sizes
directly from respondents' recall has been a continuing challenge.
It has been shown, however, that portion size estimates for solid
foods have been more accurate than for amorphous items. For
example, in a recent study, portion sizes for fish were more
accurate than for spaghetti or applesauce (Bolland, et. al., 1990).
While there are a few exceptions, most of the seafood items for
which estimates were sought in this study are usually served in a
solid form.
Another important consideration in obtaining accurate
estimates of portion sizes from respondents is the unit of
measurement used. Webb and Yuhas reported that participants in a
welfare program had difficulty estimating portion sizes in cups or
in ounces (Webb and Yuhas, 1988). In another study which used
ounces as a response measurement for portion sizes, participants
estimates were also very inaccurate (Blake, et al., 1989).
Because of respondents' inability to estimate accurate portion
sizes in terms of units of weight, researchers utilizing face-to-
face interviews have resorted to using various tangible objects to
represent food portions rather than abstract measurements such as
ounces. Such objects include food replicas, measuring spoons,
cups, rulers and even photographs (Journal of the American Dietetic
Association, Medlin and Skinner, 1988). These aids have been
effective in improving respondents' estimates of quantities eaten.
According to some, "three-dimensional food models permit the
questionnaire to more closely approximate the behavioral truth"
(Block, et al., 1986).
Obviously, portion recall aids such as food replicas or
photographs could not be used in a telephone survey, so an
alternative form of communication had to be devised. For finfish
items, respondents were told to "imagine one slice of sandwich
bread." They were then asked to provide an estimate of portion









size in fractions or multiples of the bread slice. The rationale
for using a slice of bread was that it was a familiar, common item
that a large proportion of the population would be able to
visualize, particularly in the context of eating. Respondents'
portion estimates in terms of fractions or multiples of the bread
slice were converted to a finfish weight consumption figure using
a volume estimate for a bread slice and the average specific
gravity for finfish flesh.


Portion sizes for shellfish items were based upon counts and
known industry size standards whenever possible. For example,
respondents that had eaten shrimp were simply asked for the number
eaten and the approximate size. Size options .were "jumbo",
"large", "medium" and "small", all commonly used size
classifications for which edible yield data are available.


Proxy Interviews


In addition to obtaining recall data from randomly selected
adults, at-home intake data for finfish and shellfish were sought
for all members of households contacted. Information on seafood
intake for all householders except for the randomly selected adult
was provided by the primary meal preparer. The primary meal
preparer was selected because research has shown that recall is
enhanced when the respondent is actively involved in food shopping
and preparation (Dwyer, et al., 1987). Other studies have shown
that individuals were able to recall spouse's food intake with
reasonable accuracy and that mothers were able to recall intake of
their children. Further, mothers' recall was not affected by
socioeconomic status or time spent with the child or children
(Block, 1982; Baranowski, et al., 1991). Additionally, mothers'
recall for their children was more accurate for entrees (Eck, et
al., 1989).










PROCEDURE


Sample Terminology


To meet the research objectives, the study was organized into
two phases. Phase I consisted of two comprehensive telephone
surveys. The telephone surveys targeted two populations, residents
statewide and residents of five counties where industrial pollution
from bleached kraft paper mills could result in chemically
contaminated fish and shellfish. Phase II utilized face-to-face
interviews of food stamp recipients conducted in five food stamp
offices. These two phases resulted in three large samples of
respondents.
For brevity and ease of reference, the sample resulting from
the statewide telephone survey is referred to as the "State
Sample." The sample of five counties with paper mills is called
the "Paper Mill Sample". The third major sample, i.e., food stamp
recipients interviewed at Department of Health and Rehabilitative
Services (HRS) offices, is termed the "HRS Sample." Within each of
the three samples, there were two major categories of respondents:
randomly selected adults ("RSA's") and all household members,
referred to as "Householders." A summary of these samples and
respondent categories appears in Table 1.


Phase I. Telephone Surveys


The research procedures for the two telephone surveys were
virtually identical, with the only significant difference being in
their scope. As mentioned above, the State Sample includes
respondents from all 67 counties while the Paper Mill Sample only
includes respondents from five counties where bleached kraft paper
mills are located. These mills are located in Escambia, Nassau,
Putnam, Gulf and Taylor counties.









Sampling :e
,11

For the State Sample, 8,000 households were selected via a w
random digit dialing procedure to assure inclusion of unlisted
telephone numbers. The sample was stratified by county, with each .ip
county represented in proportion to its population as reported by npt
the 1990 Census (Bureau of Economic and Business Research, -93). e a
Within each household, the "next birthday" method of respondent
selection was used to randomly select an adult (age 18 or older)


for interviewing (Salmon and Nichols, 1983). E-d
i" 5,' b

The Paper Mill Sample contains 1,000 households, 200 per sks
county. Some of the households were initially selected as part of lcon-
the stratified State Sample. However, because all five of. the .rr..
target counties had relatively small populations, additional e a
households had to be selected to assure a sufficiently large
sample. In order for each of the paper mill counties to have a
minimum of 200 households represented in the Paper Mill Sample, 838
additional households were selected in Escambia County, 17a-, ih :i ri
Nassau, 160 in Putnam, 193 in Gulf and 89 in Taylor County. As ,l
with the State Sample, the random digit dialing technique was.used rm
to select households, and the "next birthday" method used to oml3
randomly select an adult within each household for interviewing. T
The randomly selected adult in both telephone samples was iowi
asked for detailed away-from-home seafood consumption data for the-ea
previous seven days. After this information had been obtained, the -st.
interviewer asked to speak to the primary meal preparer. In many s I
cases, the randomly selected adult was also the primary meal to
preparer. If the primary meal preparer was available, he or she is
was asked to provide at-home seafood consumption data for every ch
member of the household, including the randomly selected adult. ti
The rationale for asking the primary meal preparer for data on
every member of the household was simple: The meal preparer was
likely to be the one that was most aware of individual householders
seafood preferences and consumption. Away-from-home consumption









was not sought for household members, because even the primary meal
preparer would not have adequate knowledge of what had been
consumed during the previous week by householders other than pre-
schoolers. It is quite likely that school aged children and older
members of the household could have eaten seafood in cafeterias or
other foodservice establishments without the knowledge of the
primary meal preparer.


The Questionnaire


The same questionnaire was used for the State Sample and the
Paper Mill Sample. It was developed in conjunction with personnel
from the Department of Environmental Protection and the Department
of Health and Rehabilitative Services. The questionnaire was
thoroughly pre-tested in the Gainesville area prior to actual use.
A copy of the questionnaire is found in Appendix E.
As mentioned in the General Methodological Considerations
section, particular attention was given to questioning procedures
related to recall and portion size estimates. Respondents' recall
of seafood consumption was enhanced by recognized aided recall
techniques. These included the liberal use of specific cooking
methods and familiar species of finfish and shellfish in the
initial screening questions to determine whether or not they had
consumed any seafood. Additionally, respondents' were assisted in
bracketing the seven day period in question by having the
interviewer state the day of the week that began the recall period.
Portion size estimates for finfish were obtained by having
respondents visualize a slice of sandwich bread and then express
the cooked, boneless portion size consumed as a fraction of the
slice, or as a multiple. Slices of a widely available type of
sandwich bread measure 11.0 cm x 10.0 cm x 1.3 cm, or 143.0 cc.
Using this volume and an average specific gravity of 1.06 gm for
all finfish, results in a portion the size of a slice of bread
weighing approximately 151.6 gm (Considine and Considine, 1982).
Cooked portion estimates were then converted to raw edible weight









equivalents using published yield figures for specific methods of
cooking (Sullivan and Otwell, 1992).
Because of the extremely variable nature of shellfish, several
methods were used to estimate portion sizes. For oysters,
scallops, shrimp (except for the very small salad shrimp) and stone
crab claws, items that are typically graded by size by wholesalers
and frequently sold at retail by size categories, respondents were
simply asked how many units they had eaten and what size they were.
Published estimates of edible yield for the stated sizes were then
used to calculate intake (Sullivan and Otwell, 1992).
Three distinctly different types of lobster are commonly
available in Florida, the "Maine" or cold water lobster, the
Florida spiny and the slipper (or bulldozer) lobster. Cold water
lobsters are typically sold by the pound and served whole. Because
the size of cold water lobsters can vary a great deal, respondents
were asked for the whole lobster weight. Edible weight was then
calculated from their response using published yield figures (USDA,
1975). If respondents reported eating a "lobster tail," it most
likely came from a Florida spiny or slipper lobster. Because the
most common size of tail for this lobster is 6-8 ounces,
respondents were asked for the number of tails eaten and the
appropriate conversions were made to estimate the quantity
consumed.
For items that are usually eaten in an irregular or amorphous
product form, such as crab meat, imitation crabmeat, and conch,
respondents were asked to visualize a "standard 8 ounce measuring
cup or 8 ounce Styrofoam coffee or teacup." They were than asked to
estimate the quantity eaten relative to the size of the described
cup.
Imitation crab meat was included in the shellfish section of
the questionnaire because questionnaire pre-testing revealed that
respondents associated it with crab rather than the finfish from
which it is derived. However, the volume of imitation crab meat
consumed is included in total finfish consumption estimates rather
than shellfish.











Table 1. Basic data sets obtained through telephone and face-to-face surveys.


Data Set Description Sample Size


TELEPHONE INTERVIEWS


STATE SAMPLE





Randomly Selected
Adult (RSA) within
each household

Householders




PAPER MILL SAMPLE







Randomly Selected
Adult (RSA) within
each household

Householders

FACE-TO-FACE INTERVIEWS

HRS Sample


Randomly Selected
Adult (RSA) within
each household



Householders


A stratified random sample of households
statewide, strata weighted by each
county's population. Telephone numbers
were generated using a random digit
dialing technique.

One adult was selected within each
household for interviewing, by using
the "next birthday" selection technique.

After interviewing the randomly selected
adult (RSA), the interviewer obtained
at-home consumption from the primary
meal preparer for each household member.

Two hundred households were randomly
selected in each county where industrial
pollution is a potential problem, namely
Escambia, Nassau, Putnam, Gulf and Taylor
counties. The household selection process
was identical to that used for the state
sample.

Same as RSA for State Sample.



Same as householder data for State Sample.


Primary meal preparers were randomly
selected from patrons of (HRS) food
stamp offices in Apalachicola, Panama
City, Clewiston, Tavares and Florida
City.

Same as householder data for State
Sample.


'The primary meal preparer was available in 6,617 of the 8,000 households interviewed. Consumption data were
obtained for 14,289 individuals within these 6,617 households. These households contained an average of 2.2
persons, compared with a published estimate of 2.5 for the state. This difference is likely caused by the
telephone survey methodology discussed in a later section.
bThe primary meal preparer was available in 861 of the 1,000 households interviewed. Consumption data were obtained
for 1,960 individuals within these 861 households. These households contained an average of 2.3 persons, compared
with a published estimate of 2.7 for the five counties. This difference is likely caused by the telephone survey
methodology discussed in a later section.
CThe 500 respondents interviewed had been screened to include only those that had served seafood at home in the
previous week; thus, in calculating aggregate seafood consumption values, total respondent numbers had to be
adjusted to include individual primary respondents and members of their respective households that did not eat
seafood at home during the previous week or those that reportedly ate seafood but refused to participate in the
study. The adjusted number of adults was 1,295; this includes the 500 respondents for which detailed data were
obtained, 42 respondents that said they served seafood at home during the previous week (for which average
consumption was assumed) and 753 respondents that served and ate no seafood at home in the preceding week.
dThe number of householders (4,403) reflects the same incidence of at home seafood consumers described in footnote
"a" above, adjusted for the observed household size (3.4 persons) from the 500 participating households.


8,000





8,000



15,672a




1,000







1,000



2,099b


500
(1,295)c




1,701
(4,403)d










Because of the complexity of the questionnaire, a computer
assisted telephone interviewing (CATI) system was used. The length
of the interview varied considerably, depending on whether or not
the randomly selected adult had eaten seafood away from home,
whether seafood had been served at home, and the number of
household members that had eaten seafood. Where no seafood
consumption had occurred, interview time averaged approximately 6
minutes. Whenever seafood had been eaten, the time required per
interview took 15 minutes or longer. The average time required
over all households was approximately 10 minutes.


Interviewing Procedures


Interviews were conducted by the survey research unit of the
Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR) at the University
of Florida. A briefing and detailed, written interviewer
instructions were provided to BEBR supervisors immediately prior to
initiation of the fieldwork. BEBR supervisory staff members
trained and monitored interviewers. Each randomly generated
working telephone number was contacted a maximum of six times
before selecting an alternative number. Attempts were made twice
in the morning, twice in the afternoon, and twice at night or on
weekends.
Interviews were conducted on a constant quota basis throughout
a 52 week period beginning March 15, 1993 and ending March 13,
1994. Approximately 168 interviews were conducted each week during
this period. The year-long interviewing period was used to
minimize bias that could arise from seasonal variation in the
consumption of specific types of seafood caused by species
availability or seasonal consumption habits. Interviewing quotas
for individual counties were not randomized, but set so that
interviews would be distributed throughout the weeks of the year on
a constant basis, if permitted by the total number of interviews.
For counties with small numbers of interviews, quotas were arranged
so that interviews were distributed equally across the four seasons
of the year, if possible.










Phase II: Face-To-Face Survey


It was hypothesized that low-income residents consumed
relatively large quantities of finfish and possibly shellfish
because of subsistence fishing. To test this hypothesis, face-to-
face interviews of primary meal preparers of 500 low-income
respondents were conducted in counties where subsistence fishing
was thought to be prevalent.


Sampling


The five counties selected for this phase of the study were
Franklin, Bay, Lake, Hendry and Dade. Cities chosen within these
five counties were Apalachicola, Panama City, Tavares, Clewiston
and Florida City. Franklin and Bay counties were chosen because of
their relatively low per capital incomes, and because they are
coastal counties which provide residents with beaches, piers,
bridges, etc. for fishing activities. Lake and Hendry counties
also have average money incomes below the state average; they were
also selected because of their proximity to fresh water lakes.
Lake county and neighboring counties in central Florida have
numerous small lakes which provide many opportunities for fishing.
Hendry county is adjacent to Lake Okeechobee, the largest
freshwater lake in Florida which is also noted for recreational
fishing. Florida City, in Dade County, has an average annual money
income which is less than half that of the state average (Bureau of
Economic and Business Research, 1993). Located at the southern tip
of the state's peninsula, residents of the Florida City area have
ready access to saltwater fishing near the Keys, and freshwater
fishing in numerous drainage canals near the Everglades.
Five hundred face-to-face interviews of food stamp recipients,
100 per county, were conducted in the State Department of Health
and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) offices. The sample was selected
on a convenience basis from the flow of patrons as they visited the
offices to apply for or obtain food stamps. Interviewers were









instructed to attempt to interview every adult entering the office
as possible. If the patron flow was too great, they were told to
select every other or every third patron in an attempt to introduce
an element of randomness into the selection process.
Every adult approached was screened to determine whether he or
she was the primary meal preparer and whether or not they had eaten
or served finfish or shellfish during the previous week. Records
were kept of the numbers of primary meal preparers that had not
eaten or served any type of seafood so that the overall incidence
of seafood consumption for food stamp recipients could be
calculated.
Detailed information on finfish and shellfish was then obtained
from the primary meal preparer for himself or herself. The primary
meal preparer then provided at-home consumption estimates for every
person living in the household.


The Questionnaire


The questionnaire used for the State Sample and Paper Mill
Sample was modified slightly to facilitate face-to-face
interviewing, but no substantive changes were made in the type or
quantity of data collected. Questionnaires were available in
English and Spanish. A copy of the English version is found in
Appendix E.
One significant departure in interviewing protocol was the use
of physical aids to help respondents estimate the portion sizes.
An actual slice of sandwich bread, cut into quarters with the four
pieces pushed together as a whole slice, was placed in the center
of a paper plate 23 cm in diameter. This allowed the respondent to
visualize and recall various portion sizes for finfish. To
facilitate portion estimates for the amorphous shellfish items,
respondents were shown an 8 ounce Styrofoam cup as a benchmark
quantity. For other shellfish, namely oysters, scallops, shrimp,
stone crab claws and lobster, numbers and sizes were obtained, just
as in the telephone questionnaire.









Interviewing Procedures


Interviews were conducted by professional staff members of the
Florida Agricultural Marketing Research Center (FAMRC) and by
professional interviewers from commercial market research field
services in Tallahassee, Leesburg, West Palm Beach and Miami. All
interviewers were trained by FAMRC staff and interviewers'
performance was monitored during the first day of interviewing to
assure quality control. Interviews were conducted in English,
Spanish and Creole as local conditions demanded.
The 100 interviews conducted at each location were conducted in
four waves of 25 at different times of the year to reduce seasonal
bias. Interviews were obtained in March, June, September and
December to provide observations in the spring, summer, fall and
winter seasons. All interviews were obtained during the first week
of the respective month to coincide with the peak traffic flows in
the HRS offices, and most were obtained within the first three days
of the month. This timing was also thought to provide a recall
period for seafood consumption which would coincide with the time
period when subsistence fishing is greatest.




































































22









FINDINGS


This section provides a brief overview of the findings of the
three survey samples, namely the State Sample (general population
survey), the Paper Mill Sample (five counties where bleached kraft
paper mills are located) and the HRS Sample (food stamp recipients
thought to be subsistence fishermen). The demographic
characteristics and the respective seafood consumption estimates of
the randomly selected adult respondents (RSA's) and household
members (householders) for each sample are discussed below. Data
were collected for a total of 8,000 RSA's and 15,672 householders
via the State Sample, 1,000 RSA's and 2,099 householders via the
Paper Mill Sample, and 500 RSA's and 1701 householders via the HRS
Sample.
Additional detail on per capital consumption estimates for
individual fish and finfish species are found in Appendices B, C
and D for the State Sample, the Paper Mill Sample and the HRS
Sample, respectively.


Demographic Characteristics For The Three Samples


The demographic characteristics collected for each sample
included sex and age of RSA's and householders, as well as
education, race, and income of the RSA's. A comparison of the
State Sample and Paper Mill Sample RSA distributions to published
distributions of the same demographic characteristics for the
Florida population is given in Table 2. The State Sample is
compared to the general Florida population, while the Paper Mill
Sample RSA's are compared to estimates relative to populations of
only the five counties of concern, namely Escambia, Nassau, Putnam,
Gulf and Taylor. Given that the HRS Sample was collected in only
five specific HRS offices in the state, a comparison to published
estimates is not appropriate.
The distribution of these same characteristics for each sample,
but disaggregated for both the survey RSA's and householders, are









presented in Appendix Tables A.1 and A.2. For the sake of brevity,
these data will not be discussed explicitly. The reader may refer
to these Appendices for additional detail regarding the demographic
characteristics of the RSA and householder components of each
sample. The following discussion refers only to the demographic
characteristics of the RSA's for each sample.


State Sample


Of the total State Sample of RSA's, 41.6% were male and 58.4%
were female (Table 2). This compares to published estimates for
the Florida population of 48.4% male and 51.6% female. The
apparent disparity in the gender composition of the sample is
commonplace in telephone surveys despite rigorous callback
procedures and randomization methods for selecting respondents
within households (Salmon and Nichols, 1983). For example a recent
telephone survey of adult Alabama residents, where the true ratio
of males to females is virtually identical to Florida, resulted in
a sample comprised of 41.4 percent males and 58.6 percent females
(Hughes and Woernle, 1991).
The distribution across races for the RSA's in the sample was
reasonably similar to the race distribution within the general
Florida population. However the sample contained slightly more
whites and fewer blacks than published estimates. This discrepancy
is probably due to lack of telephone service in the black
population. Approximately 88% of the RSA's were white, while 9.8%,
0.8%, and 1.5% were black, American Indian, and Asian,
respectively. Also, 9.9% percent of the State Sample were
Hispanic, a cultural distinction which may include more than one
race. This compares to 12.2% for the Florida population.
The distribution of RSA age also closely mirrors the
distribution for the statewide population. The 18-24 age group
represented 10.7% of the RSA's, while the same age group represents
11.5% of the statewide population of individuals of age 18 and
over. The percentage distribution of the remaining age categories










was also very similar to that found for the general Florida
population. The age distribution of the sample was slightly skewed
toward older individuals, which was expected since older residents
are more likely to be at home. For example, the age category with
the largest representation was "50+", which accounted for 38.8% of
the sample of RSA's.
The income distribution for the sample respondents was somewhat
different, though not dramatically, than that found for the general
Florida population. The sample contained slightly higher
percentages of individuals with relatively higher incomes.
According to published income estimates, about one-third of all
Florida households have incomes of $20,000 or less, but only 27
percent of the statewide sample respondents reported incomes in
this category. The difference is probably due to the telephone
survey methodology, since low income households are less likely to
have telephones. Despite the slight under sampling of low income
households, the large sample numbers provide an adequate number of
observations in this category. Further, the HRS sample of food
stamp recipients provides a detailed picture of fish and shellfish
consumption among respondents with very low incomes.


Paper Mill Sample


With the exception of gender, the demographic distributions
closely resembled those found for the five counties of concern. Of
the total number of RSA's, 38% were male and 62% were female. This
contrasted somewhat with published estimates for the five counties,
which indicates that 48.8% and 51.2% of the local population are
male and female, respectively (Table 2).
The distribution across races more closely resembled that found
for the five counties in published estimates. However, the Paper
Mill Sample contained slightly more whites and less blacks than
published estimates. The sample contained 83.8% white and 11.9%
black, compared to published estimates of 77.3% white and 18.2%
black. Again, this divergence is probably the result of lack of
telephone service in black households. The sample also contained











Table 2. Comparison of demographic characteristics of randomly selected adults
in the study samples with published estimates.


Demographic State Paper Mill Counties
Characteristic Sample Published Sample Published
Estimates Estimates

(-----------------------Percent -----------------------)
Gender
Male 41.6 48.4 38.0 48.8
Female 58.4 51.6 62.0 51.2
Totals 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Racea
White 87.9 83.1 83.8 77.3
Black 9.8 13.6 11.9 18.2
Am. Indian 0.8 0.3 2.9 0.8
Asian 1.5 1.1 1.3 1.4
Other --- 1.8 --- 0.5
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Hispanicb 9.9 12.2 2.9 1.9

Age c
18-24 10.7 11.5 8.6 14.0
25-34 22.0 20.0 19.6 20.8
35-49 28.5 26.4 29.4 28.2
50+ 38.8 42.1 42.3 37.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Income
Under $20,000 27.0 33.5 33.6 39.2
$20,001 $35,000 28.3 27.4 29.2 26.9
$35,001 $50,000 22.0 18.1 20.6 17.5
Over $50,000 22.7 21.0 16.6 16.3
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


aPercentages may not sum to 100.0 due to rounding.

bPublished estimates were taken from the 1993 Florida Statistical Abstract
(Bureau of Economic and Business Research, 1993).

CPublished estimates were taken from the 1993 Survey of Buying Power (Sales and
Marketing Management, 1993).

dPublished estimates were adjusted to reflect only the age distribution of
persons 18 years of age or older.









a slightly higher percentage of American Indians and Hispanics than
found in published estimates.
The sample contained a lower percentage of RSA's in the "18-24"
age group (8.6%) than found in published estimates (14.0%). This
is common in telephone surveys, because younger people tend to be
away from home more. The sample contained a slightly higher
percentage in the "50+" age group (42.3% in the sample compared to
37.0% for published estimates). For the other age categories, the
sample and published estimates were very similar.
The distribution of income categories for the sample and
published estimates were also very similar. Unlike the State
Sample, the ordinal rankings of the categories were identical for
both the sample and the published estimates. As with the State
Sample, however, the Paper Mill Sample has relatively fewer
individuals in the "under $20,000" category as compared to
published estimates, while also containing a higher percentage of
individuals in each of the two middle income categories. The
under-representation of low-income respondents is probably a
reflection of telephone service.


HRS Sample


The following discussion will focus only on characteristics
of the randomly selected adult respondent for the total HRS sample.
As mentioned earlier, no valid comparison to published estimates is
possible for the HRS sample.
In the HRS sample, the distribution by gender is heavily
skewed toward females. For the total sample, 84.2% of the RSA's
were female and only 15.8% were male. This is most likely caused
by screening potential respondents for the primary meal preparer in
the household, since meal preparation has traditionally been a task
handled by females. This contrasts sharply with the other two
samples. Another factor that could have increased the proportion
of female could be that the males of the household are more
frequently involved in employment activities than the females,









leaving the job of visiting the HRS office to the female of the
household. This explanation, however, cannot be corroborated with
empirical evidence.
As with the other two samples, a greater percentage of RSA's
are white (51.8%), with blacks and Hispanic representing 35.2% and
13.0% of the sample, respectively. However, the HRS Sample did
contain a much higher percentage of blacks than either the State
Sample or Paper Mill Sample. No Asians were interviewed in the HRS
Sample, and the one American Indian was included with whites.
Also in contrast to the other two samples, the HRS Sample
contained a larger percentage of RSA's in the younger age
categories. For example, 55.9% of the RSA's were in the 18-34 age
category, while a total of only 16.8% were represented by the two
categories of age 50 and over (eg., 50-64 and 65+). The percentage
of RSA's in the 35-49 category (27.3%) is somewhat comparable to
that found for the other two categories.
Information on income was not collected for the low-income
individuals interviewed for the HRS Sample. However, information
on respondent weight was collected. These data are found in
Appendix Tables D.1 and D.2.


Seafood Consumption Estimates


Estimates for average away-from-home, at-home, and total
seafood consumption were generated for RSA's in each of the three
samples. As mentioned previously, the underlying assumption was
that the RSA's would have little knowledge of the away-from-
consumption of seafood by other members of the household. At-home
consumption, however, was estimated for both RSA's and
householders. Therefore, total consumption estimates for the three
samples were derived only for the RSA's.
The estimates are presented for all three samples in units of
uncooked, edible meat weight (kilograms) for all species consumed,
on a per capital, annual basis. For the sake of brevity, however,
only the total finfish and shellfish consumption estimates are









referred to in the following discussion. However, consumption data
for individual species in grams are given in Appendices B, C, and
D. The discussion below will focus on how estimates for the two
consumption modes (i.e., away-from-home and at-home) vary across
the three samples in total and by selected demographic
characteristics (gender, race, age, and income). The following
discussion will address consumption estimates for each demographic
characteristic. The format will be to examine total consumption
for each demographic characteristic, then compare consumption
estimates by mode and species group finfishh and shellfish) across
samples by stratum for each demographic characteristic. Where
possible, differences in consumption estimates for RSA's and
householders will be addressed. A brief summary will discuss any
salient differences in consumption patterns across demographic
strata, samples, consumption modes, and species groups.


Total Annual Consumption Across All Demographic Strata and Species



This discussion describes findings for annual average per
capital seafood consumption away-from-home, at home, and total,
across all species and demographic strata (Table 3, Figures 1-3).
The consumption estimates apply only to RSA's.


Total annual consumption


Total consumption by RSA's across all modes, species groups,
and demographic strata was 19.04 kg (41.89 pounds) for the Paper
Mill Sample, 16.80 kg (36.97 pounds) for the State Sample, and 8.35
kg (18.36 pounds) for the HRS Sample (Figure 1). In addition, both
shellfish and finfish consumption estimates were higher for the
Paper Mill Sample and lowest for the HRS Sample.
There was a lot of variation in total annual consumption
across locations where the HRS data were collected. For example,
Clewiston (Hendry County), Florida City (Dade County), and Tavares









(Lake City County) had relatively low annual consumption estimates,
6.50, 6.91 and 7.95 kg (14.3, 15.2 and 17.5 pounds), respectively.
Apalachicola (Franklin County) and Panama City (Bay County) the two
highest consumption areas, estimates of 13.82 and 12.05 kg (30.4
and 26.5 pounds) respectively, considerably below the annual per
capital estimate for the State Sample. Thus, it appears that food
stamp recipients, as a group, do not consume disproportionately
large quantities of finfish and shellfish as a result of
subsistence fishing.


Away-from-home


Total away-from-home seafood consumption for the State Sample
RSA's was 8.85 kg (19.48 pounds) per capital, of which 6.32 kg
(13.91 pounds) was finfish and 2.53 kg (5.57 pounds) was shellfish
(Figure 2). The estimate for the Paper Mill RSA's was slightly
higher at 9.57 kg (21.05 pounds), of which 6.54 kg (14.38 pounds)
was finfish and 3.03 kg (6.67 pounds) was shellfish. The estimate
of away-from-home consumption for the HRS Sample was significantly
less. The HRS Sample estimate was 1.63 (3.59 pounds), of which
1.17 kg (2.57 pounds) was finfish and 0.46 kg (1.02 pounds) was
shellfish.


At-home


Estimates of at-home consumption were greatest for the Paper
Mill Sample, for both RSA's and householders (Figure 3). As with
away-from-home consumption, finfish was the dominant species group
consumed for all three samples. Total at-home consumption of
seafood by RSA's and householders was 9.47 kg (20.84 pounds) and
9.70 kg (21.33 pounds), respectively. Total at-home consumption of
seafood by State Sample RSA's and householders was 7.95 kg (17.49
pounds) and 8.10 kg (17.81 pounds) respectively. Although a
greater average quantity than away-from-home consumption for the
HRS Sample, total at-home seafood consumption by HRS Sample RSA's






Table 3. Annual seafood consumption estimates for the various samples.


State Sample State Sample Paper Mill Sample Paper Mill Sample HRS Sample HRS Sample
Seafood RSA's Householders RSA's Householders RSA's Householders
Consumption Category (n = 8,000) (n = 15,672) (n = 1,000) (n = 2,099) (n = 500) (n = 1,701)


(----------------------------------- -----------Kilograms------------ -----------------------------)-

Away From Home
Finfish 6.38 --- 6.60 --- 1.24 ---
Shellfish 2.48 --- 2.97 --- 0.49
Subtotal 8.85 --- 9.57 --- 1.72 ---

At Home
Finfish 6.82 6.98 7.93 8.14 6.10 5.05
Shellfish 1.13 1.12 1.54 1.55 1.01 0.63
Subtotal 7.95 8.10 9.47 9.69 7.10 5.67

All Finfish 13.20 --- 14.53 --- 7.33 ---
All Shellfish 3.60 --- 4.51 --- 1.50 ---
Grand Total 16.80 --- 19.04 --- 8.83 ---


Note: A dash indicates data
totals because of rounding.


were not collected, in keeping with study methodology. Elements may not sum exactly to subtotals and















20





|15 -

.0
5.


o10

C


State Sample
RSA's
(n=8,000)


I
Paper Mill Sample
RSA's
(n=1,000)


HRS Sample
RSA's
(n=500)


Figure 1.


Total Annual Finfish and Shellfish Consumption,
by Randomly Selected Adults, All Three Samples.


19.04


Finfish S Shellfish

















8.83


5





0









E Finfish [ Shellfish
* Does not sum to total shown due to rounding


1.72


State Sample
RSA's
(n=8,000)


Paper Mill Sample
RSA's
(n=1,000)


HRS Sample
RSA's
(n=500)


Figure 2.


Annual Away-from-home Seafood Consumption,
by Randomly Selected Adults, All Three Samples.









and householders was less than for the other two samples. Total
at-home consumption by HRS Sample RSA's and householders was 6.71
kg (14.77 pounds) and 5.68 kg (12.49 pounds), respectively.


Summary of total consumption findings


Total seafood consumption levels were highest for the Paper
Mill Sample and lowest for the HRS Sample. Also, at-home
consumption was higher than away-from-home consumption for all
three samples. At-home consumption estimates for householders were
greater than at-home estimates for RSA's in the State and Paper
Mill Samples. In all samples, consumption was dominated by
finfish, with the highest levels of finfish and shellfish being
associated with the Paper Mill Sample.


Annual Consumption by Gender


Consumption estimates were generated by gender for all three
samples and, where possible, consumption mode (Table 4, Figures 4-
7). RSA consumption estimates were not generated for each mode in
the HRS Sample because of the small numbers of males interviewed.
However, total RSA consumption and householder at-home estimates
are presented for the HRS Sample.


Total annual consumption by gender


Total annual consumption of seafood was generally higher for
male than for female RSA's. This was true for all three samples.
Total consumption estimates for males for the State Sample, Paper
Mill Sample, and HRS Sample were 19.09, 23.90 and 10.83 kg (42.00,
52.57, and 23.82 pounds), respectively (Figure 4). Total
consumption estimates for females for the same samples were 15.22,
16.07 and 8.44 kg (33.49, 35.35, and 18.57 pounds). Note that for
the males and females, the highest consumption estimates were
associated with the Paper Mill Sample. Estimates of finfish and







* Finfish II Shellfish
* Does not sum to total shown due to rounding


State Sample


I Paper Mill Sample I


HRS Sample


Figure 3.


Annual At-home Consumption of Finfish and Shellfish,
by Randomly Selected Adults and Householders,
All Three Samples.


7.95 8.10
7.95








shellfish consumption were also higher for males than for females
across all three samples, with the highest shellfish consumption
levels for both genders associated with the Paper Mill Sample.


Mode of consumption


For RSA's of both genders, more seafood is consumed away-from-
home than at-home, although for females the quantities consumed
away-from-home and at-home are roughly equal. The State Sample
found the relative quantities of seafood consumed by mode for each
gender to be somewhat different, particularly for males (Figure 5).
For example, males consumed 10.48 kg (23.06 pounds) away-from-home,
but only 8.60 kg (18.93 pounds) at-home. The Paper Mill Sample
showed the estimates of consumption by mode to be very similar for
each gender (Figure 6). Also, for both genders, more shellfish is
consumed away-from-home than at-home.
Consumption of seafood at-home by HRS householders is similar
for males and females (Figure 7). Male householders tend to
consume slightly more seafood at home 6.03 kg (13.27 pounds) than
female householders 5.4 kg (11.89 pounds). At-home consumption of
shellfish is approximately equal for each gender.


Annual Consumption by Race


Consumption estimates will be discussed for Whites, Blacks,
Asians, Hispanics, and American Indians (Table 5, Figures 8-11).
Final estimates for householder consumption are not available
except for the HRS Sample. Estimates by mode were not calculated
for HRS Sample RSA's because of small numbers of observations.


Total annual consumption by race


Total consumption estimates by race are presented in Figure
8. Asian and American Indian RSA's had the highest estimates of
annual consumption according to the State Sample 21.64 and 20.92 kg







Table 4. Annual seafood consumption estimates for various subsamples, by gender.


Demographic/Seafood
Stratum/Consumption State Sample Paper Mill Sample HRS Sample
Category RSA's Householders RSA's Householders RSA's Householders


(---------------------------------------------Kilograms-----------------------------------)
Gender:
Male:
Away From Home
Finfish 7.75 --- 8.23 --- 1.43 ---
Shellfish 2.74 --- 4.01 --- 0.26 ---
Subtotal 10.49 --- 12.24 --- 1.69 ---

At Home
Finfish 7.42 7.74 9.74 9.88 7.90 5.33
Shellfish 1.18 1.20 1.92 1.89 1.24 0.70
Subtotal 8.60 8.94 11.66 11.77 9.14 6.03

All Finfish 15.17 --- 17.97 --- 9.33 ---
All Shellfish 3.92 --- 5.93 --- 1.50 ---
Total 19.09 --- 23.90 --- 10.83 ---


Note: A dash indicates data were not collected, in keeping with study methodology. Elements may not sum exactly to subtotals and
totals because of rounding.








Table 4. Continued.


Demographic/Seafood
Stratum/Consumption State Sample Paper Mill Sample HRS Sample
Category RSA's Householders RSA's Householders RSA's Householders


(---------------------- ------------- Kilograms -------------------------------------
Female:
Away From Home
Finfish 5.42 --- 5.60 --- 1.20 ---
Shellfish 2.30 --- 2.33 --- 0.53 ---
Subtotal 7.72 --- 7.93 --- 1.73 ---

At Home
Finfish 6.42 6.32 6.82 6.79 5.75 4.83
Shellfish 1.09 1.05 1.31 1.27 0.96 0.58
Subtotal 7.50 7.37 8.13 8.06 6.71 5.41

All Finfish 11.84 --- 12.42 --- 6.94 ---
All Shellfish 3.39 --- 3.64 --- 1.50 ---
Total 15.22 --- 16.07 --- 8.44 ---


Note: A dash indicates data
totals because of rounding.


were not collected, in keeping with study methodology.


Elements may not sum exactly to subtotals and








0 Finfish [ Shellfish
* Does not sum to total shown due to rounding


-20
Cn

0)


c 15
0

E
=3
C
0o
10
C



5




0


State Paper HRS
Mill


MALE


State Paper HRS
Mill


FEMALE


Figure 4.


Total Annual Finfish and Shellfish Consumption,
by Randomly Selected Adults, by Gender,
All Three Samples.


25 -


9!1 an









Finfish -] Shellfish
Does not sum to total shown due to rounding


20






215
0)

0
CL

E

o
0


O
C
0


C


Female Male
Away From
Home


Figure 5.


Female Male Female Male
At Home Total


Annual Finfish and Shellfish Consumption by Gender,
Randomly Selected Adults, State Sample.









E Finfish Shellfish
* Does not sum to total shown due to rounding


o' on


^20
0
E
0)
0

'15

E
3
CO
0
0





5 -
C




5





0






Figure 6.


12.24


Female Male
Away From
Home


11.66


Female Male
At Home


Female I Male
Total


Annual Finfish and Shellfish Consumption by Gender,
Randomly Selected Adults, Paper Mill Sample.








Finfish [ Shellfish


Females


Figure 7.


Annual Finfish and Shellfish Consumption At Home,
by HRS Householders, by Gender.


Males







(47.60 and 46.02 pounds), respectively, whereas Asians and Whites
had the highest consumption levels according to the Paper Mill
Sample 21.24 and 19.27 kg (46.72 and 42.40 pounds), respectively.
Actually, the total consumption estimates for Whites and Blacks
were robust across samples. Hispanics (a cultural distinction
composed of more than one race) had the lowest consumption levels.
This finding was corroborated by each sample.
According to both the Paper Mill and State samples, Whites and
Asians consumed the largest absolute quantities of shellfish.
Differences in species group consumption by race was less
pronounced for the HRS Sample.


Mode of consumption


According to both samples, White and Asian RSA's consume
greater quantities of seafood away-from-home than at-home (Figures
9 and 10). Asians consume the largest quantity of seafood away-
from-home. The State Sample indicates that Asian RSA's consume
12.30 kg (27.05 pounds) of seafood away-from-home, while the Paper
Mill Sample estimated 13.85 kg (30.47 pounds) were consumed.
According to both samples, Black RSA's consume larger quantities of
seafood at-home than away-from-home. The State Sample found that
Hispanics and American Indians also consume more seafood at home,
whereas the Paper Mill Sample found the opposite to be the case.
White and Black householders in the HRS sample consumed
approximately the same quantity of seafood at-home 5.90 and 5.65 kg
(12.97 and 12.43 pounds), respectively, whereas Hispanic
householders consumed 4.98 kg (10.95 pounds) (Figure 11). Although
Whites and Asians consumed the highest levels of shellfish, Whites
consumed most of the shellfish away-from-home, while Asians
consumed approximately equal amounts away-from-home and at-home.








Table 5. Annual seafood consumption estimates for the various subsamples, by race.


Demographic/Seafood
Stratum/Consumption State Sample Paper Mill Sample HRS Sample
Category RSA's Householders RSA's Householders RSA's Householders


( --------------------------Kilograms -------------------------------

White:
Away From Home
Finfish 6.31 --- 6.48 --- 1.21 ---
Shellfish 2.72 --- 3.35 --- 0.66 ---
Subtotal 9.03 --- 9.83 --- 1.87 ---

At Home
Finfish 6.45 6.70 7.71 7.48 6.17 5.10
Shellfish 1.14 1.15 1.75 1.73 1.02 0.80
Subtotal 7.59 7.85 9.46 9.21 7.19 5.90

All Finfish 12.76 --- 14.19 --- 7.38 ---
All Shellfish 3.85 --- 5.10 --- 1.68 ---
Total 16.62 --- 19.27 --- 9.06 ---


Note: A dash indicates data
totals because of rounding.


were not collected, in keeping with study methodology. Elements may not sum exactly to subtotals and







Table 5. Continued.


Demographic/Seafood
Stratum/Consumption State Sample Paper Mill Sample HRS Sample
Category RSA's Householders RSA's Householders RSA's Householders


(----------------------------------------------- Kilograms ----------------- --------------
Black:
Away From Home
Finfish 6.60 --- 4.55 --- 1.21 ---
Shellfish 1.61 --- 1.34 --- 0.36 ---
Subtotal 8.20 --- 5.89 --- 1.57 ---

At Home
Finfish 8.37 8.05 11.48 13.25 6.23 5.18
Shellfish 0.89 0.86 0.75 0.85 1.14 0.47
Subtotal 9.26 8.91 12.23 14.10 7.37 5.65

All Finfish 14.97 --- 16.03 --- 7.44 ---
All Shellfish 2.50 --- 2.09 --- 1.50 ---
Total 17.47 --- 18.12 --- 8.94 ---


Note: A dash indicates data were not collected, in
totals because of rounding.


keeping with study methodology.


Elements may not sum exactly to subtotals and








Table 5. Continued.


Demographic/Seafood
Stratum/Consumption State Sample Paper Mill Sample HRS Sample
Category RSA's Householders RSA's Householders RSA's Householders


(------ -------- ---------------Kilograms------------ -------------------)

Hispanic:
Away From Home
Finfish 5.55 --- 5.54 --- 1.40
Shellfish 1.74 --- 1.79 --- 0.15
Subtotal 7.29 --- 7.33 --- 1.55 ---

At Home
Finfish 8.07 7.56 6.27 7.40 5.42 4.43
Shellfish 1.18 1.20 0.37 0.42 0.63 0.55
Subtotal 9.25 8.76 6.64 7.82 6.05 4.98

All Finfish 13.62 --- 11.81 --- 6.83 ---
All Shellfish 2.92 --- 2.16 --- 0.78 ---
Total 16.54 --- 13.97 --- 7.61 ---


Note: A dash indicates data
totals because of rounding.


were not collected, in keeping with study methodolog). Elements may not sum exactly to subtotals and






Table 5. Continued.


Demographic/Seafood
Stratum/Consumption State Sample Paper Mill Sample HRS Samplea
Category RSA's Householders RSA's Householders RSA's Householders


(---------------------------------------------Kilograms-------------------------------------------)

Asian:
Away From Home
Finfish 10.36 --- 11.61 -
Shellfish 1.94 --- 2.24 -
Subtotal 12.30 --- 13.85 -

At Home
Finfish 7.89 7.77 5.28 2.50
Shellfish 1.45 1.29 2.11 3.46
Subtotal 9.34 9.06 7.39 5.96

All Finfish 18.25 --- 16.89 -
All Shellfish 3.39 --- 4.35 -
Total 21.64 --- 21.24 -


Note: A dash indicates data
totals because of rounding.


were not collected, in keeping with study methodology.


Elements may not sum exactly to subtotals and


aThe one Asian household observed in the HRS sample was included in the analysis of whites.








Table 5. Continued.


Demographic/Seafood
Stratum/Consumption State Sample Paper Mill Sample HRS Sampleb
Category RSA's Householders RSA's Householders RSA's Householders


(---------------------------------------Kilograms--- -------------------------------

American Indian:
Away From Home
Finfish 7.73 --- 10.17 -
Shellfish 1.35 --- 0.91 -
Subtotal 9.08 --- 11.08 -

At Home
Finfish 9.88 12.05 5.73 7.50
Shellfish 1.97 1.40 0.51 0.28
Subtotal 11.85 13.45 6.24 7.78

All Finfish 17.61 --- 15.90 -
All Shellfish 3.32 --- 1.42 -
Total 20.93 --- 17.32 -


Note: A dash indicates data were not
totals because of rounding.


collected, in keeping with study methodology.


Elements may not sum exactly to subtotals and


bThe few American Indian households observed in the HRS sample were included in the analysis of whites.









25 -


E
2-
E 20 -
CD
0


15 -

E

0 10


5-
< 5



0



Figure 8.


White


Black


Asian
21.6 21.24
21.24


Finfish I Shellfish
*Does not sum to total shown due to rounding

Hispanic Am. Indian
20.93


19.27


18.12


16.54


-II-I ,. --I I TMW--
State Paper HRS State Paper HRS State Paper State Paper HRS State Paper
Mill Mill Mill Mill Mill

Total Annual Finfish and Shellfish Consumption, by Randomly Selected Adults,
by Race, All Three Samples.









* Finfish [- Shellfish
Away = Away from Home
* Does not sum to total shown due to rounding


19 30


14

u)
E12
Cz
I-
0)
S10

0
a 8
E
u)
0 6-


C

2-


0


Asian


11 k;


Hispanic


American
Indian


Figure 9.


Annual Finfish and Shellfish Consumption by Race, Randomly Selected Adults,
State Sample.


lnabty Il rRn /w a a I t.
White Black






10 -


14




O
U)



o -


C. 8


4


-
2
E -


ol


13.85


Finfish [ Shellfish
Away = Away from Home
* Does not sum to total shown due to rounding


ii na


Away I At Home Away I At Home Away i At Home Away I At Home Away I At Home
White Black Asian Hispanic American
Indian

Figure 10. Annual Finfish and Shellfish Consumption by Race, Randomly Selected Adults,
Paper Mill Sample.


'----


A-=


...








Annual Consumption by Age


Annual per capital seafood consumption was estimated for
several age ranges. Only estimates for the Paper Mill Sample and
State Sample are discussed. Consumption estimates by RSA's for
ages "18-34", "35-49", "50-64", and "65+" were estimated for both
modes for the State Sample and the Paper Mill Sample. Only at-home
estimates for householders are available for either sample.
(Tables 6 and Figures 12-15).


Total annual consumption by age


Total annual consumption of seafood by RSA's was found to be
highest for ages 35-49 for both samples (Figure 12). Consumption
for ages 18-34 and 50-64 were approximately equal, while the lowest
consumption levels were found for the 65 and over age category.
The Paper Mill Sample was characterized by higher estimates than
the State Sample for all but the youngest age category. Also,
shellfish consumption was about equal for ages 18-34 and 35-49, but
decreased for higher age groups. The Paper Mill Sample showed
higher shellfish consumption levels for all age groups.


Consumption by mode


As for total consumption, seafood consumption away-from-home
and at-home by RSA's peaked for the 35-49 age group (Figures 13 and
14). Away-from-home consumption levels then declined more rapidly
than at-home consumption for the successively higher ages. This
finding held for both samples, although consumption levels by mode
for the State Sample were about equal. For both samples, away-
from-home consumption exceeded at-home consumption for ages 18-34
and 35-49. The same pattern held true for the 50-64 age group with
the State Sample. However, the Paper Mill Sample found higher at-
home consumption levels for the 50-64 age group. Both samples
found the at-home consumption levels exceeded away-from-home
consumption for ages 65 and over. Also, both samples found that
more shellfish is consumed away-from-home by all age groups.







Finfish '] Shellfish


Black


Hispanic


Figure 11. HRS Householders At Home Consumption of Finfish
and Shellfish, by Race.


White








Table 6. Annual seafood consumption estimates for the various subsamples, by age category.


Demographic/Seafood
Stratum'Consumption State Sample Paper Mill Sample HRS Sample
Category RSA's Householders RSA's Householders RSA's Householders


(-------------------------- ilograms----------------------------------
Age: 18-34
Away From Home
Finfish 7.02 --- 6.16 --- 1.26
Shellfish 2.83 --- 3.38 --- 0.47 ---
Subtotal 9.85 --- 9.54 --- 1.73 ---

At Home
Finfish 7.13 7.55 6.20 7.47 5.34 5.47
Shellfish 1.28 1.31 1.57 1.44 1.19 1.00
Subtotal 8.41 8.86 7.77 8.92 6.53 6.46

All Finfish 14.15 --- 12.36 --- 6.60 ---
All Shellfish 4.10 --- 4.96 --- 1.66 ---
Total 18.25 --- 17.33 --- 8.26 ---


Note: A dash indicates data were not collected, in keeping with
totals because of rounding.


study methodology. Elements may not sum exactly to subtotals and






Table 6. Continued.


Demographic/Seafood
Stratum/Consumption State Sample Paper Mill Sample HRS Sample
Category RSA's Householders RSA's Householders RSA's Householders


(----------------------------------- -----Kilograms------------------------------------
Age: 35-49
Away From Home
Finfish 7.02 --- 8.14 --- 1.40 ---
Shellfish 2.93 --- 3.32 --- 0.65 ---
Subtotal 9.95 --- 11.45 --- 2.06 ---

At Home
Finfish 7.10 7.80 8.78 9.86 7.34 6.85
Shellfish 1.33 1.43 1.95 2.57 0.89 0.74
Subtotal 8.42 9.23 10.73 12.43 8.22 7.59

All Finfish 14.12 --- 16.92 --- 8.74 ---
All Shellfish 4.25 --- 5.27 --- 1.54 ---
Total 18.37 --- 22.19 --- 10.28 ---


Note: A dash indicates data were not collected, in keeping with study methodology. Elements may not sum exactly to subtotals and
totals because of rounding.








Table 6. Continued.


Demographic/Seafood
Stratum/Consumption State Sample Paper Mill Sample HRS Sample
Category RSA's Householders RSA's Householders RSA's Householders


(------------------------ --- --------- Kilograms-----------------------------------
Age: 50-64
Away From Home
Finfish 5.97 --- 5.75 --- 1.05 ---
Shellfish 2.28 --- 3.05 --- 0.37 ---
Subtotal 8.25 --- 8.80 --- 1.41 ---

At Home
Finfish 6.72 7.35 8.75 9.08 7.05 7.05
Shellfish 1.06 1.15 1.53 1.66 0.67 0.45
Subtotal 7.78 8.50 10.28 10.74 7.72 7.50

All Finfish 12.69 --- 14.51 --- 8.09 ---
All Shellfish 3.34 --- 4.57 --- 1.04 ---
Total 16.03 --- 19.08 --- 9.13 ---


Note: A dash indicates data were not
totals because of rounding.


collected, in keeping with study methodology. Elements may not sum exactly to subtotals and







Table 6. Continued.


Demographic/Seafood
Stratum/Consumption State Sample Paper Mill Sample HRS Sample
Category RSA's Householders RSA's Householders RSA's Householders


(---------------- --------------------.. ---------..Kilograms---------- ------------------------------
Age: 65+
Away From Home
Finfish 5.28 --- 6.07 --- 0.34 ---
Shellfish 1.61 --- 1.84 --- 0.01 ---
Subtotal 6.89 --- 7.91 --- 0.35

At Home
Finfish 6.61 6.73 8.39 10.50 5.24 5.37
Shellfish 0.73 0.77 0.92 1.08 0.39 1.32
Subtotal 7.34 7.50 9.30 11.58 5.63 6.69

All Finfish 11.89 --- 14.45 --- 5.57 ---
All Shellfish 2.34 --- 2.76 --- 0.40 ---
Total 14.22 --- 17.21 --- 5.97 ---


Note: A dash indicates data were not
totals because of rounding.


collected, in keeping with study methodology. Elements may not sum exactly to subtotals and









E Finfish ] Shellfish
* Does not sum to total shown due to rounding


22.19


-20


os


S15

E
(z
3

O
10







0
C-




5





0


State 'Paper Mill
35-49


1908


State 'Paper Mill
50-64


State Paper Mill
65+


Figure 12.


Annual Finfish and Shellfish Consumption
by Age, Randomly Selected Adults, State Sample
and Paper Mill Sample.


State 'Paper Mill
18-34








Similar to consumption estimates for RSA's, annual at-home
consumption by householders was highest for the 35-49 age category
(Figure 15). Both samples found that at-home consumption by
householders decreased for older age categories. The at-home
consumption estimates for finfish and shellfish by householders for
the 18-34 age category were almost identical for each sample.


Annual Consumption by Income Level


Consumption estimates by income stratum were collected for
RSA's by the State Sample and the Paper Mill Sample (Table 7 and
Figures 16-18). The strata discussed are "$20,000 and less",
"$20,001-$35,000", "$35,001-$50,000", and "$50,001 and Over". No
income data were collected for the HRS Sample respondents. Due to
income eligibility requirements of this program, all households
were placed in the $20,000 or less category.


Total annual consumption by income level


Consumption of seafood was positively related to income level.
This finding was supported by both the State Sample and the Paper
Mill Sample. For the State Sample, consumption estimates increased
steadily from 14.78 kg (32.52 pounds) for the "$20,000 and under"
income level to 21.38 kg (47.03 pounds) for the "$50,000 and over"
income level (Figure 16). In contrast, consumption estimates for
the Paper Mill Sample increased dramatically from 16.90 kg (37.18
pounds) for the "$20,000 and under" income level to 21.80 kg (47.97
pounds) for the $20,001-$35,000" level, then remained almost
constant with only a slight increase thereafter.
Shellfish consumption is also positively related to income
levels. Except for a decrease in consumption from the "$20,001-
$35,000" to the "$35,001-$50,000" income level, shellfish
consumption increased steadily for both samples as income levels
increased.








Consumption by mode


Away-from-home consumption increased steadily as income
increased for the State Sample, however at-home consumption was
constant across income levels (Figure 17). Similarly, the amount
of shellfish consumed away-from-home also increased steadily as
income increased for the State Sample, whereas at-home consumption
of shellfish only exhibited slight increases for increasing levels
of income. Thus, increases in seafood consumption related to
income for the State Sample are accounted for by increases only in
away-from-home consumption. The Paper Mill Sample also found away-
from-home consumption to be positively related to income (Figure
18). At-home consumption, however, reached a peak for the "$20,001
to $35,000" income level, and then declined for higher income
levels. Although shellfish consumption increases between the
"$20,000 and under" and "$20,001 to $35,000" income levels, the
relationship between shellfish consumption and higher income levels
for both modes is erratic.








SFinfish ] Shellfish
*Does not sum to total shown due to rounding


9.85


Away I At Home Away I At Home Away I At Home Away I At Home
18-34 35-49 50-64 65+


Figure 13. Annual Finfish and Shellfish Consumption
by Age, Randomly Selected Adults, State Sample.


10 -


8-









Finfish ] Shellfish
* Does not sum to total shown due to rounding


14



12


Co)
E 10
0


o
0
CL

E


4 6


1 4


Away I At Home
18-34


Away I At Home Away = Mi nome
35-49 50-64


Away I At Home
65+


Figure 14.


Annual Finfish and Shellfish Consumption
by Age, Randomly Selected Adults, Paper Mill Sample.


9.30









E Finfish -] Shellfish
* Does not sum to total shown due to rounding


19 AA


10.74


8.86 8.92


State Paper Mill
18-34


State Paper Mill
35-49


State Paper Mill
50-64


State Paper Mill
65+


Figure 15.


Annual At Home Consumption, by Householder of
Finfish and Shellfish by Age, State Sample and
Paper Mill Sample.


12 -

E
oO
10 -
2




0
c
0
0 6-



S4-



2-
-








Table 7. Annual seafood consumption estimates for the various subsamples, by income category.


Demographic/Seafood
Stratum/Consumption State Sample Paper Mill Sample HRS Sample
Category RSA's Householders RSA's Householders RSA's Householders


(--------------------------------------- Kilograms------- ---------------- ---------
Annual
Income Level

S20.000 and Less:
Away From Home
Finfish 5.00 --- 5.43 -
Shellfish 1.57 --- 2.79 -
Subtotal 6.57 --- 8.21 -

At Home
Finfish 7.28 7.39 7.53 7.61 -
Shellfish 0.94 1.03 1.16 1.09 -
Subtotal 8.21 8.42 8.69 8.70 -

All Finfish 12.28 --- 12.95 --- --
All Shellfish 2.50 --- 3.95 --- --
Total 14.78 --- 16.90 --- --


Note: A dash indicates data were not
totals because of rounding.


collected, in keeping with study methodology. Elements may not sum exactly to subtotals and






Table 7. Continued.


Demographic/Seafood
Stratum/Consumption State Sample Paper Mill Sample HRS Sample
Category RSA's Householders RSA's Householders RSA's Householders


---- ---------------------- Kilograms-- --------------------------------
$20,001 $35,000:
Away From Home
Finfish 6.57 --- 7.12 -
Shellfish 2.25 --- 3.35 -
Subtotal 8.82 --- 10.47 -

At Home
Finfish 7.18 7.47 9.19 9.55 -
Shellfish 1.15 1.03 2.15 1.76 -- -
Subtotal 8.32 8.50 11.34 11.31 -- -

All Finfish 13.75 --- 16.31 --- --
All Shellfish 3.40 --- 5.49 --- -
Total 17.15 --- 21.80 --- --


Note: A dash indicates data were not
totals because of rounding.


collected, in keeping with study methodology. Elements may not sum exactly to subtotals and








Table 7. Continued.


Demographic/Seafood
Stratum/Consumption State Sample Paper Mill Sample HRS Sample
Category RSA's Householders RSA's Householders RSA's Householders


(--------------- ----------------Kilograms--------------------------------------
$35,001 $50,000
Away From Hone
Finfish 7.61 --- 8.19 -
Shellfish 3.15 --- 2.90 -
Subtotal 10.76 --- 11.10 -

At Home
Finfish 6.69 6.91 9.46 9.47 -- -
Shellfish 1.20 1.14 1.63 1.63 -- -
Subtotal 7.89 8.05 11.09 11.10 -- -

All finfish 14.30 --- 17.65 --- --
All Shellfish 4.35 --- 4.54 --- --
Total 18.65 --- 22.19 --- --


Note: A dash indicates data
totals because of rounding.


were not collected, in keeping with study methodology. Elements may not sum exactly to subtotals and






Table 7. Continued.


Demographic/Seafood
Stratum/Consumption State Sample Paper Mill Sample HRS Sample
Category RSA's Householders RSA's Householders RSA's Householders


(-------------------------- Kilograms------------ --------------------
$50,001 and Over:
Away From Home
Finfish 8.70 --- 8.38 -
Shellfish 3.85 --- 4.19 -
Subtotal 12.55 --- 12.57 --- --

At Home
Finfish 7.28 6.97 7.32 6.80 -
Shellfish 1.55 1.51 2.14 2.47 -
Subtotal 8.83 8.48 9.46 9.27 -

All Finfish 15.98 --- 15.70 --- --
All Shellfish 5.40 --- 6.33 --- --
Total 21.38 --- 22.03 --- --


Note: A dash indicates data were not collected, in keeping with
totals because of rounding.


study methodology. Elements may not sum exactly to subtotals and








Annual Consumption of Saltwater and Freshwater Species


The majority of the finfish and shellfish consumption by RSA's
was of saltwater origin (Table 8, Figure 19). This was true for
all three samples. For example, of the 16.80 kilograms of finfish
and shellfish consumed by State Sample RSA's, 15.36 kilograms (or
91 percent) was comprised of saltwater species. Of the total
volume consumed by Paper Mill and HRS RSA's, approximately 83
percent and 79 percent, respectively, was comprised of saltwater
species. The majority of the seafood consumed was saltwater
finfish. Relatively small volumes of freshwater finfish or
shellfish species were consumed. With the exception of the HRS
sample, the total volume of saltwater shellfish exceeded the
combined volume of both freshwater finfish and shellfish. Small
volumes of finfish and shellfish were consumed of unknown
freshwater or saltwater origin. Additional detail regarding the
consumption of freshwater and saltwater species by RSA's with
respect to various demographic strata can be found in Appendices B,
C and D.








Table 8. Annual seafood consumption estimates for the various subsamples, by income category.


Seafood State Sample Paper Mill Sample HRS Sample
Category


(---------------------- -------Kilograms----------------)

Saltwater
Finfish 11.79 11.25 5.54
Shellfish 3.57 4.43 1.45
Total Saltwater 15.36 15.68 6.99

Freshwater
Finfish 1.27 3.16 1.70
Shellfish 0.02 0.01 0.05
Total 1.29 3.17 1.75

Unknown
Finfish 0.12 0.09 0.08
Shellfish 0.15 0.06 0.00

All Finfish 13.06 14.50 7.32
All Shellfish 3.74 4.50 1.50

Total Finfish and Shellfish 16.80 19.00 8.82


aIncludes finfish and shellfish products which are unknown regarding saltwater or freshwater origin.








Finfish Shellfish


20





"15
.-
0
i.
CD
0
0
-o 10
3
C
3


State 'Paper Mill
< $20,000


State Paper Mill
$20,001
to $35,000


State 'Paper Mill
$35,001
to $50,000


22.03


State Paper Mill
$50,001
and Over


Income


.Figure 16.


Total Annual Finfish and Shellfish Consumption
by Randomly Selected Adults, by Income Level,
State Sample and Paper Mill Sample.




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