<%BANNER%>

Consumers' Attitudes, Behaviors, and Quality Perceptions of Selected High Value Specialty Crops

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0043874/00001

Material Information

Title: Consumers' Attitudes, Behaviors, and Quality Perceptions of Selected High Value Specialty Crops
Physical Description: 1 online resource (192 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Daniels, Melissa M
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2011

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: consumer -- consumption -- fruit
Food Science and Human Nutrition -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Food Science and Human Nutrition thesis, M.S.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Consumption of fruits and vegetables has been associated with a decreased risk for certain chronic diseases and better health. Consumers understand that fruits and vegetables are essential for a healthy and balanced diet, yet consumption remains below dietary recommendations. Determining the preferred quality attributes of produce can provide valuable information to growers and the produce industry on how to improve the quality to meet consumer expectations. Providing satisfactory produce may help increase consumption and help consumers meet the recommendations. The purpose of this study was to explore consumers' attitudes, behaviors, and quality perceptions of tomatoes, strawberries, blueberries, melons, peaches, and pears. This study consisted of three parts: 1) focus group research to obtain qualitative information to develop an online survey about consumer quality expectations and purchasing and storage habits, 2) a pilot study of the online survey, and 3) the national online survey that quantified how prevalent the identified attributes were. Results from the national survey (n=1220) revealed that while most people were satisfied with the produce they buy, they feel that getting good fruit is just by chance. Taste was the most important factor determining purchasing, and most respondents preferred fruits that were sweet and juicy. Fruits that were flavorless, not sweet, not ripe enough, and bruised were causes of dissatisfaction; therefore, producers need to work on the aforementioned areas for quality improvement. Most consumers stored fruits in the refrigerator immediately after purchasing because they felt they would last longer, but refrigerating certain produce such as whole tomatoes can cause detrimental effects on flavors. Therefore, consumers need to be educated on proper storage practices. Some consumers claimed they would pay a maximum of $0.25 more per pound for better tasting fruit, while others reported they did not want to pay any more for fruit. The results from this study can be used by the produce industry to focus on improving taste by optimizing their quality, which can help increase consumption and decrease waste.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Melissa M Daniels.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.)--University of Florida, 2011.
Local: Adviser: Shelnutt, Karla Pagan.
Local: Co-adviser: Simonne, Amarat H.
Electronic Access: RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2014-12-31

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2011
System ID: UFE0043874:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0043874/00001

Material Information

Title: Consumers' Attitudes, Behaviors, and Quality Perceptions of Selected High Value Specialty Crops
Physical Description: 1 online resource (192 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Daniels, Melissa M
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2011

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: consumer -- consumption -- fruit
Food Science and Human Nutrition -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Food Science and Human Nutrition thesis, M.S.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Consumption of fruits and vegetables has been associated with a decreased risk for certain chronic diseases and better health. Consumers understand that fruits and vegetables are essential for a healthy and balanced diet, yet consumption remains below dietary recommendations. Determining the preferred quality attributes of produce can provide valuable information to growers and the produce industry on how to improve the quality to meet consumer expectations. Providing satisfactory produce may help increase consumption and help consumers meet the recommendations. The purpose of this study was to explore consumers' attitudes, behaviors, and quality perceptions of tomatoes, strawberries, blueberries, melons, peaches, and pears. This study consisted of three parts: 1) focus group research to obtain qualitative information to develop an online survey about consumer quality expectations and purchasing and storage habits, 2) a pilot study of the online survey, and 3) the national online survey that quantified how prevalent the identified attributes were. Results from the national survey (n=1220) revealed that while most people were satisfied with the produce they buy, they feel that getting good fruit is just by chance. Taste was the most important factor determining purchasing, and most respondents preferred fruits that were sweet and juicy. Fruits that were flavorless, not sweet, not ripe enough, and bruised were causes of dissatisfaction; therefore, producers need to work on the aforementioned areas for quality improvement. Most consumers stored fruits in the refrigerator immediately after purchasing because they felt they would last longer, but refrigerating certain produce such as whole tomatoes can cause detrimental effects on flavors. Therefore, consumers need to be educated on proper storage practices. Some consumers claimed they would pay a maximum of $0.25 more per pound for better tasting fruit, while others reported they did not want to pay any more for fruit. The results from this study can be used by the produce industry to focus on improving taste by optimizing their quality, which can help increase consumption and decrease waste.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Melissa M Daniels.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.)--University of Florida, 2011.
Local: Adviser: Shelnutt, Karla Pagan.
Local: Co-adviser: Simonne, Amarat H.
Electronic Access: RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2014-12-31

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2011
System ID: UFE0043874:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 CONSUMER ATTITUDES, BEHAVIOR S AND QUALITY PERCEPTION S OF SELECTED HIGH VALUE SPECIALTY CROPS By MELISSA DANIELS A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUI REMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2011

PAGE 2

2 2011 Melissa Daniels

PAGE 3

3 To my parents who have always supported and enc ouraged me to pursue my dreams

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to express my appreciation to my comm ittee co chairs, Dr. Amarat Simonne and Dr. Karla Shelnutt. Their support and guidance has been a crucial aspect to my academic and research success. I would also like to thank the third member of my committee, Dr. A lle n Wysocki for his valuable input. Add itionally, I would like to thank the research collaborators on this project, Dr. Christine Bruhn and graduate student Stephanie Jensen of the University of California at Davis Their guidance and intellectual contributions were essential to the success of this study. This project was supported by the Specialty Crops Research Initiative Grant 2009 51181 05783 from the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture. Finally, I would like to extend my gratitude and appreciation to all my friends and family. T heir continued support and encouragement has been essential thro ughout my educational pursuits and I could not have accomplished this without them.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 8 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 15 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 20 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 2 2 Purpose and Significance of the Study ................................ ................................ ... 23 Research Objectives ................................ ................................ ............................... 24 Research Hypotheses ................................ ................................ ............................. 24 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................ ................................ .......................... 25 Dietary Patterns of Fruit Consumpt ion ................................ ................................ .... 25 Barriers to Consumption ................................ ................................ ......................... 26 Phytochemicals in Fruits and Vegetables ................................ ............................... 27 Carotenoids ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 27 Phenolics ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 29 High Value Specialty Crops ................................ ................................ .................... 31 Blueberries ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 32 Strawberries ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 33 Melons ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 34 Peaches ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 36 Pears ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 37 Tomatoes ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 38 Relationship Between Fruit and Vegetable Consump tion and Chronic Diseases ... 39 Coronary Heart Disease ................................ ................................ ................... 39 Cancer ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 41 Obesity ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 43 Ripening and Maturation of Fruits ................................ ................................ ........... 44 Proper Home Storage Practices ................................ ................................ ............. 45 Consumer Food Purchases and Waste ................................ ................................ .. 46 3 METHODOLOGY ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 49 Focus Groups ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 49 Questionnaire Development ................................ ................................ ............. 49 Recruitment and Sampling ................................ ................................ ............... 49 Conducting the Focus Groups ................................ ................................ .......... 50 Focus Group Analysis ................................ ................................ ...................... 51

PAGE 6

6 Pilot Test of the Online Survey Questionnaire ................................ ........................ 51 Questio nnaire Development ................................ ................................ ............. 52 Recruitment and Sampling ................................ ................................ ............... 52 Conducting and Analyzing the Pilot Study ................................ ........................ 53 National Online Survey ................................ ................................ ........................... 53 Question Development ................................ ................................ ..................... 54 Recruitment and Sampling ................................ ................................ ............... 55 Online Survey Analysis ................................ ................................ ..................... 55 4 RESULTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 57 Focus Group ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 57 Reasons for Purchasing Fruit ................................ ................................ ........... 57 Factors When Selecting Fruit to Purchase ................................ ....................... 58 Attributes of an I deal Fruit ................................ ................................ ................ 60 Reasons for Dissatisfaction When Expectations Are Not Met .......................... 61 Home Storage and Ripening Habits ................................ ................................ 62 Willingness to Pay More ................................ ................................ ................... 63 Pilot Study ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 64 National Survey ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 67 Demographics ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 67 Tomatoes ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 68 Strawberries ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 70 Blueberries ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 71 Melons ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 72 Peaches ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 75 Pear s ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 77 General Information ................................ ................................ .......................... 78 Bivariate Analyses ................................ ................................ ............................ 80 5 DISCUSSION ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 130 Summary of Key Findings ................................ ................................ ..................... 130 Reasons for Purchasing Fruit ................................ ................................ ......... 130 Factors When Selecting Fruit to Purchase ................................ ..................... 131 Attributes of an Ideal Fruit ................................ ................................ .............. 131 Reasons for Dissatisfaction When Expectations Are Not Met ........................ 132 Home Storage and Ripening Habits ................................ ............................... 133 Willingness to Pay More ................................ ................................ ................. 134 Bivariate Analyses ................................ ................................ ................................ 135 Conclusion ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 135 Limitations ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 138 APPENDIX A INSTRUMENTATION ................................ ................................ ........................... 139

PAGE 7

7 Informed Consent Letter for Focus Groups ................................ ........................... 139 Focus Group Questions ................................ ................................ ........................ 141 Informed Consent Letter for Online Survey ................................ ........................... 145 B SELECTED PILOT STUDY ANALYSES ................................ ............................... 146 C BI VARIATE ANALYSES OF SELECTED VARIABLES ................................ ........ 154 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ............................. 177 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ .......................... 192

PAGE 8

8 LIS T OF TABLES Table page 2 1 Nutrient content of fruits and vegetables (edible portions per 100g) ................... 48 2 2 Vitamin and caro tenoid content of fruits and vegetables (edible portions per 100g) ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 48 4 1 Demographic characteristics of the national survey participants ........................ 83 4 2 ........................ 86 4 3 consumers purchase strawberries .................... 95 4 4 consumers purchase blueberries .................... 100 4 5 consumers purchase cantaloupes ................... 105 4 6 ................... 108 4 7 y consumers purchase watermelon ................... 112 4 8 why consumers purchase peaches ........................ 117 4 9 ............................ 122 B 1 146 B 2 Crosstabulation of the re coded data for the fif th most important reason for purchasing blueberries. ................................ ................................ .................... 146 B 3 Crosstabulation of the rankings of the reason for purchasing blueberries for ................................ ........ 146 B 4 Crosstabulation for the rankings of the reason for purchasing blueberries for ................................ ......................... 147 B 5 Crosstabulation of the re coded data for the most important reason for purchasing strawberries. ................................ ................................ .................. 147 B 6 Crosstabulation for the rankings of the reason for purchasing strawberries for the ................................ ................................ .. 147 B 7 Crosstabulation for the rankings of the reason for purchasing strawberries for ................................ ...................... 148 B 8 Crosstabulation for the rankings of the reason for purchasing strawberries for ................................ ........ 148

PAGE 9

9 B 9 Crosst abulation for rankings of the reason for purchasing strawberries for the ................................ ............................... 148 B 10 Crosstabulation with re coded data of the most important reasons for pu rchasing honeydews. ................................ ................................ .................... 149 B 11 Crosstabulation with re coded data of the second most important reasons for purchasing honeydews. ................................ ................................ .................... 149 B 12 Crosstabulation with re coded data for the third most important reason for purchasing honeydews. ................................ ................................ .................... 149 B 13 Crosstabulation with re coded data for the fourth most important reason for pu rchasing honeydews. ................................ ................................ .................... 150 B 14 Crosstabulation with re coded data for the fifth most important reason for purchasing honeydews. ................................ ................................ .................... 150 B 15 Crosstabulation with re coded data for the most important reason for purchasing watermelon. ................................ ................................ ................... 150 B 16 Crosstabulation with re coded data for the hird most important reason for purchasing watermelon. ................................ ................................ ................... 151 B 17 Crosstabulation for the rankings of the reason for purchasing watermelon for ................................ ................................ .. 151 B 18 Crosstabulation for the rankings of the reason for purchasing watermelon for ................................ ................ 151 B 19 Crosstabulation for the rankings of th e reason for purchasing watermelon for ................................ ......................... 152 B 20 Crosstabulation for purchase any melon. ................................ ......................... 1 52 B 21 Crosstabulation with re coded data for responses for reasons why melon purchases have decreased over recent years. ................................ ................. 152 B 22 Crosstabulation for the responses for reasons why peach purchases have increased over recent years. ................................ ................................ ............ 153 B 23 Crosstabulation for the responses for if participants are dissatisfied with a fruit purchase, they go to a different store the next time th ey purchase it. ........ 153 B 24 Crosstabulation for responses for if participants are dissatisfied with a fruit purchase, they go to a different store the next time they purchase it. ............... 153 C 1 Descriptives for frequency of purchasing blueberries and age of consumer. ... 154

PAGE 10

10 C 2 Test of homogeneity of variances for frequency of purc hasing blueberries and age of consumer. ................................ ................................ ....................... 154 C 3 ANOVA for frequency of purchasing blueberries and age of consumer. .......... 154 C 4 Post hoc comparisons for frequency of purchasing blueberries and age of consumer. ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 155 C 5 Descriptives for frequency of purchasing cantaloupes and age of consumer ... 156 C 6 Test of homogeneity of variances for frequency of purchasing cantaloupes and age of consumer. ................................ ................................ ....................... 156 C 7 ANOVA for frequency of purchasing cantaloupes and ag e of consumer. ......... 156 C 8 Post hoc comparisons for frequency of purchasing cantaloupes and age of consumer. ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 157 C 9 Descriptives fo r frequency of purchasing watermelons and age of consumer. 157 C 10 Test of homogeneity of variances for frequency of purchasing watermelons and age of consumer. ................................ ................................ ....................... 158 C 11 ANOVA for frequency of purchasing watermelons and age of consumer ......... 158 C 12 Post hoc comparisons for frequency of purchasing watermelons and age of co nsumer ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 158 C 13 Descriptives for frequency of purchasing specialty melons (galia, casaba, Santa claus) and age of consumer. ................................ ................................ .. 159 C 14 Test of homogeneity of variances for for frequency of purchasing specialty melons (galia, casaba, Santa claus) and age of consumer .............................. 159 C 15 ANOVA for frequency of purchasing specialty mel ons (galia, casaba, Santa claus) and age of consumer ................................ ................................ ............. 159 C 16 Robust test of equality of means for frequency of purchasing specialty melons (galia, casaba, Santa claus) and age of consumer. ............................. 159 C 17 Post hoc comparisons for frequency of purchasing specialty melons (galia, casaba, Santa claus) and age of consumer. ................................ .................... 160 C 18 Descriptives for frequency of purchasing blueberries and the education level of consumers. ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 161 C 19 Test of homogeneity of variances for frequency of purchasing blueberries and the educati on level of consumers. ................................ ............................. 161

PAGE 11

11 C 20 ANOVA for frequency of purchasing blueberries and the education level of consumers. ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 161 C 21 Rob ust test of equality of means for frequency of purchasing blueberries and the education level of consumers. ................................ ................................ .... 161 C 22 Post hoc comparisons for frequency of purchasing blueberries and the educat ion level of consumers. ................................ ................................ .......... 162 C 23 Descriptives for frequency of purchasing honeydews and the education level of consumers. ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 163 C 24 Test of homogeneity of variances for frequency of purchasing honeydews and the education level of consumers. ................................ ............................. 163 C 25 ANOVA for frequency of purchasing honeydews and the education level of consumers. ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 163 C 26 Robust test of equality of means for frequency of purchasing honeydews and the education level of consumers. ................................ ................................ .... 163 C 27 Post hoc comparisons for frequency of purchasing honeydews and the education level of consumers. ................................ ................................ .......... 164 C 28 Descriptives for the frequency of purchasing specialty melons (galia, casaba Santa claus) and the education level of consumers. ................................ ........ 165 C 29 Test of homogeneity of variances for the frequency of purchasing specialty melons (galia, casaba, Santa claus) and the education l evel of consumers. .... 165 C 30 ANOVA for the frequency of purchasing specialty melons (galia, casaba, Santa claus) and the education level of consumers ................................ ......... 165 C 31 Robust test of equality of means for the frequency of purchasing specialty melons (galia, casaba, Santa claus) and the education level of consumers. .... 165 C 32 Post hoc comparisons for the frequency of purchasing specialty melons (galia, casaba, Santa claus) and the education level of consumers. ................ 166 C 33 Descriptives for frequency of purchasing pears and the education level of consumers. ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 167 C 34 Test of homogeneity of variances for frequency of purchasing pears and the education level of consumers. ................................ ................................ .......... 167 C 35 ANOVA for frequency of purchasing pears and the education level of consumers. ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 167

PAGE 12

12 C 36 Robust test of equality of means for frequency of purchasing pears and the education level of consumers. ................................ ................................ .......... 167 C 37 Post hoc comparisons for frequency of purchasing pears and the education level of consumers. ................................ ................................ ........................... 168 C 38 Descriptives for frequency of purchasing tomatoes and presence or absence of children living at home. ................................ ................................ ................. 169 C 39 Test of homogeneity of variances for frequency of purchasing tomatoe s and presence or absence of children living at home. ................................ ............... 169 C 40 ANOVA for frequency of purchasing tomatoes and presence or absence of children living at home. ................................ ................................ ..................... 169 C 41 Robust test of equality of means for frequency of purchasing tomatoes and presence or absence of children living at home. ................................ ............... 169 C 42 Descriptives for frequ ency of purchasing strawberries and presence or absence of children living at home. ................................ ................................ .. 170 C 43 Test of homogeneity of variances for frequency of purchasing strawberries and presence or absence o f children living at home. ................................ ........ 170 C 44 ANOVA for frequency of purchasing strawberries and presence or absence of children living at home. ................................ ................................ ................. 170 C 45 Robust test of equality of means for frequency of purchasing strawberries and presence or absence of children living at home. ................................ ........ 170 C 46 Descriptives for frequency of purchasing blueberries and presence or absence of children living at home. ................................ ................................ .. 171 C 47 Test of homogeneity of variances for frequency of purchasing blueberries and presence or absence of children living at home. ................................ ........ 171 C 48 ANOVA for frequency of purchasing blueberries and presence or absence of children living at home. ................................ ................................ ..................... 171 C 49 Robust test of equality of means for frequency of purchasing blueberries and presence or absence of children living at home. ................................ ............... 171 C 50 Descriptives for frequency of purchasing cantaloupes and presenc e or absence of children living at home ................................ ................................ ... 172 C 51 Test of homogeneity of variances for frequency of purchasing cantaloupes and presence or absence of children living at home ................................ ......... 172

PAGE 13

13 C 52 ANOVA for frequency of purchasing cantaloupes and presence or absence of children living at home. ................................ ................................ ................. 172 C 53 Robust test of equality of mean s for frequency of purchasing cantaloupes and presence or absence of children living at home. ................................ ........ 172 C 54 Descriptives for frequency of purchasing honeydews and presence or absence of children li ving at home. ................................ ................................ .. 173 C 55 Test of homogeneity of variances for frequency of purchasing honeydews and presence or absence of children living at home. ................................ ........ 173 C 56 ANOVA for frequency of purchasing honeydews and presence or absence of children living at home. ................................ ................................ ..................... 173 C 57 Descriptives for frequency of purchasing watermelon and pres ence or absence of children living at home. ................................ ................................ .. 173 C 58 Test of homogeneity of variances for frequency of purchasing watermelon and presence or absence of children living at home. ................................ ........ 174 C 59 ANOVA for frequency of purchasing watermelon and presence or absence of children living at home. ................................ ................................ ..................... 174 C 60 Robust test of equality of m eans for frequency of purchasing watermelon and presence or absence of children living at home. ................................ ............... 174 C 61 Descriptives for frequency of purchasing specialty melons (galia, casaba, Santa claus) and presence or absence of children living at home. ................... 174 C 62 Test of homogeneity of variances for frequency of purchasing specialty melons (galia, casaba, Santa claus) and presence or absence of children living at home. ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 174 C 63 ANOVA for frequency of purchasing specialty melons (galia, casaba, Santa claus) and presence or absence of children living at home .............................. 175 C 64 Robust test of equality of means for frequency of purchasing specialty melons (galia, casaba, Santa claus) and presence or absence of children living at home. ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 175 C 65 Descriptives for frequency of purchasing peaches and presence or absence of children living at home. ................................ ................................ ................. 175 C 66 Test of homogeneity of variances for frequency of purchas ing peaches and presence or absence of children living at home. ................................ ............... 175

PAGE 14

14 C 67 ANOVA for frequency of purchasing peaches and presence or absence of children living at home ................................ ................................ ...................... 176 C 68 Descriptives for frequency of purchasing pears and presence or absence of children living at home. ................................ ................................ ..................... 176 C 69 Test of homogeneity of variances for frequency of purchasing pears and presence or absence of children living at home. ................................ ............... 176 C 70 ANOVA for frequency of purchasing pears and presence or absence of children living at home ................................ ................................ ...................... 176 C 71 Robust test of equality of means for frequency of purchasing pears and presence or absence of children living at home. ................................ ............... 176

PAGE 15

15 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 4 1 Flow chart of the participants who attempted and completed the national online study. ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 83 4 2 Frequency of consumers who h ave children living at home. .............................. 84 4 3 Percentage of consumers who purchase fruit at least a few times a year from the supermarket. ................................ ................................ ................................ 84 4 4 National survey participants who purchase each kind of tomato. ....................... 85 4 5 ................................ ................. 85 4 6 Percent of the combined weighted rankings of the reasons why consumers purchase tomatoes. ................................ ................................ ............................ 86 4 7 priorities when select ing tomatoes to purchase. ................................ ................. 87 4 8 preferences for tomato attributes. ................................ ................................ ....... 87 4 9 How satisfied consumers are with the quality of fresh fruit they have purchased at the supermarket. ................................ ................................ ........... 88 4 10 t common reasons for dissatisfaction with tomatoes. ................................ ........... 88 4 11 important attributes to improve in tomatoes. ................................ ....................... 89 4 12 Length of time consumers expect to wait to eat each fruit after purchasing. ...... 89 4 13 Temperatures that consumers store fresh fruit after purch asing. ....................... 90 4 14 Reasons why consumers store fruit in the refrigerator. ................................ ...... 90 4 15 Reasons why consumers store each fruit on the coun ter. ................................ .. 9 1 4 16 Locations and methods where consumers ripen tomatoes, strawberries, melons, peaches and pears. ................................ ................................ ............... 91 4 17 How consumer s decide when tomatoes, melons, peaches, and pears are ready to eat. ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 92

PAGE 16

16 4 18 How often consumers are satisfied with the ripened tomato, melon, peach, and pear products. ................................ ................................ .............................. 92 4 19 ................................ ................................ .... 93 4 20 Reasons purchasing habits of tomatoes, strawberries, blueberries, melons, peaches, and pears have increased. ................................ ................................ .. 93 4 21 Reasons purchasing habits of fruits have decreased. ................................ ........ 94 4 22 How much more, per pound, consumers would be willing to pay for reliably better tasting tomatoes. ................................ ................................ ...................... 94 4 23 ................................ ............ 95 4 24 Percent of the combined weighted rankings of the reasons why consumers purchase strawberries. ................................ ................................ ....................... 96 4 25 Percent of the combined weighted ra priorities when selecting strawberries to purchase. ................................ ............ 96 4 26 preferences for strawberr y attributes. ................................ ................................ 97 4 27 common reasons for dissatisfaction with strawberries. ................................ ....... 97 4 28 important attributes to improve in strawberries. ................................ .................. 98 4 29 nt of fresh strawberries you ................................ ................................ .... 98 4 30 How much more, per 16 oz package, consumers would be willing to pay for reliably better tasting strawberries. ................................ ................................ ..... 99 4 31 ................................ .............. 99 4 32 Percent of the combined weighted rankings of the reasons why consumers pu rchase blueberries. ................................ ................................ ....................... 100 4 33 priorities when selecting blueberries to purchase. ................................ ............ 101 4 34 preferences for blueberry attributes. ................................ ................................ 101

PAGE 17

17 4 35 Percent of the combined weighted rankings common reasons for dissatisfaction with blueberries. ................................ ...... 102 4 36 important attributes to improve in blu eberries. ................................ .................. 102 4 37 ................................ ................................ .. 103 4 38 How much more, per pint, consumers would be willing to pay for reliably better tasting blueberries. ................................ ................................ ................. 103 4 39 Percentage of consumers who purchase melons of any type from the supermark et. ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 104 4 40 ................................ .......... 104 4 41 Percent of the combined weighted rankings of the reasons w hy consumers purchase cantaloupe. ................................ ................................ ....................... 105 4 42 priorities when selecting cantaloupes to purchase. ................................ .......... 106 4 43 preferences for cantaloupe attributes. ................................ .............................. 106 4 44 Percent of the combined wei common reasons for dissatisfaction with cantaloupes. ................................ ..... 107 4 45 important attributes to improve in cantaloupe. ................................ .................. 107 4 46 ................................ ............. 108 4 47 Percent of the combined weighted rankings of the reasons why consumers purchase honeydew. ................................ ................................ ........................ 109 4 48 priorities when selecting honeydews to purchase. ................................ ............ 109 4 49 preferences for honeydew attributes. ................................ ............................... 110 4 50 Percent of the c common reasons for dissatisfaction with honeydews. ................................ ...... 110 4 51 important attr ibutes to improve in honeydews. ................................ ................. 111

PAGE 18

18 4 52 ................................ ........... 111 4 53 Percent of the combined weighte d rankings of the reasons why consumers purchase watermelon. ................................ ................................ ...................... 112 4 54 priorities when selecting watermelon to purchase. ................................ ........... 113 4 55 preferences for watermelon attributes. ................................ ............................. 113 4 56 P common reasons for dissatisfaction with watermelon. ................................ ...... 114 4 57 t important attributes to improve in watermelon. ................................ ................. 114 4 58 ... 115 4 59 Where consumers store melons after they have been cut. ............................... 115 4 60 When purchased under ripe, how often consumers claim melons, peaches, and pears go bad before they get a chance to e at them. ................................ 116 4 61 ................................ ................................ ......... 116 4 62 ................................ ................ 117 4 63 Percent of the combined weighted rankings of the reasons why consumers purchase peaches. ................................ ................................ ........................... 118 4 64 priorities when selecting peaches to purchase. ................................ ................ 118 4 65 Percent of the combined weighted rankin preferences for peach attributes. ................................ ................................ ...... 119 4 66 common reasons for dissatisfaction with peaches. ................................ ........... 119 4 67 important attributes to improve in peaches. ................................ ...................... 120 4 68 ................................ ................................ .. 120 4 69 How much more, per pound, consumers would be willing to pay for reliably bette r tasting peaches. ................................ ................................ ..................... 121

PAGE 19

19 4 70 ................................ .................... 121 4 71 Percent of the combined weighted rankings of the reasons why consumers purchase pears. ................................ ................................ ................................ 122 4 72 priorities when selecting pears to purchase. ................................ ..................... 123 4 73 preferences for pear attributes. ................................ ................................ ......... 123 4 74 Percent of the combined weighted ra common reasons for dissatisfaction with pears. ................................ ............... 124 4 75 important attributes to improve in pe ars. ................................ .......................... 124 4 76 ................................ ................................ ......... 125 4 77 Pe important factors that would encourage them to buy more fresh fruit. .............. 125 4 78 Percent of the combined weighted rankings for fact ors that attract consumers to fruit in the supermarket. ................................ ................................ ................ 126 4 79 Percent of the combined weighted rankings how consumers request supermarkets to distinguish better quality fruits. ................................ ............... 126 4 80 Consumers perceptions and actions on purchasing fruit. ................................ 127 4 81 ............. 127 4 82 ..... 128 4 83 How many 8 oz (1 cup) servings of fruits and vegetables consumers think are advised to eat daily. ................................ ................................ .......................... 128 4 84 How interested consumers are on information about fruit. ............................... 129 4 85 Communication methods that consumers would like to receive information about fruits on. ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 129

PAGE 20

20 Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillm ent of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science BEHAVIOR S, AND QUALITY PERCEPTI ON S OF SELECTED HIGH VALUE SPECIALTY CROPS By Melissa Daniels December 2011 C hair : Karla Shelnutt Co chair: Amarat Simonne Major: Food Scien ce and Human Nutrition Consumption of fruits and vegetables has been associated with a decreased risk for certain chronic diseases and better health. Consumers understand that fruits and vegetables are essential for a healthy and balanced diet, yet consum ption remains below dietary recommendations. Determining the preferred quality attributes of produce can provide valuable information to growers and the produce industry on how to improve the quality to meet consumer expectations. Providing satisfactory pr oduce may help increase consumption and help consumers meet the recommendations. The s, and quality perception s of tomatoes, strawberries, blueberries, melons, peaches, and pears. This stud y consisted of three parts: 1) focus group research to obtain qualitative information to develop an online survey about consumer quality expectations and purchasing and storage habits, 2) a pilot study of the online survey, and 3) the national online surve y that quantified how prevalent the identified attributes were. Results from the national survey (n=1220) revealed that while most people were satisfied with the produce they buy, they feel that getting good fruit is just by chance. Taste was the most impo rtant

PAGE 21

21 factor determining purchasing, and most respondents prefer red fruits that were sweet and juicy. Fruits that were flavorless, not sweet, not ripe enough, and bruised were causes of dissatisfaction; therefore, producers need to work on the aforemention ed areas for quality improvement. Most consumers stored fruits in the refrigerator immediately after purchasing because they felt they would last longer, but refrigerating certain produce such as whole tomatoes can cause detrimental effects on flavors. Th erefore, consumers need to be educated on proper storage practices. Some consumers claimed they would pay a maximum of $0.25 more per pound for better tasting fruit, while others reported they did not want to pay any more for fruit. The results from this s tudy can be used by the produce industry to focus on improving taste by optimizing their quality, which can help increase consumption and decrease waste.

PAGE 22

22 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Consuming adequate fruits and vegetables has been associated with many benefi cial effects, including decreasing the risk for coronary heart disease (1) and some cancers (2) reducing the risk for obesity (3) and improving overall health. Numerous health education and promotion programs have been developed to try to increase fruit a and vegetable consumption remains below di etary recommendations, with less than 11% of all age groups in the U.S. stratified by age and gender, meeting these recommendations (4) In addition, consumers understand that fruits and vegetables are essential for a healthy and balanced diet, y et they do not eat enough of them (5) Fruit flavor, including sensory characteristics such as juiciness, turgidity, and crispiness (6) is one of the most important attributes considered when purchasing and consuming f ruit (7) Compromising the texture or flavor of a fruit can be a cause for dissatisfaction and decrease d purchasing. Providing better tasting fruits and vegetables to consumers will likely increase their overall co nsumption (6) Inadequate knowledge of how to properly ripen and store certain fruits and vegetables may also contribute to a decrease in quality and overall consumption. The manner in which fruits and vegetables are handled at home, including the duration and temperature of their storage, can affect their textural, nutritional, visual and flavor qualities (8) If stored or handled improperly, the preferred qualities may be compromised resulting in consumer dissatisfaction which can lead to food waste. Consumers most often use visual cues such as firmness and appearance to determine

PAGE 23

23 when to dispose of f ruits and vegetables, and about 28% of consumers dispose of fruit once a week (9) Purpose and Significance of the Study We were interested in determining which attributes make high value specialty crops (tomatoes, berries, melons, peaches and pears) satisfactory in order to better understand purchasing behaviors. Understanding these attributes may help producers tailor harvesting and post harvesting procedures to suit the desires of consumers Several research questions were posed to gain a better understanding of consum specialty crops The first research question aimed to determine the reasons why consumers purchase these fruits. It was hypothesized that flavor is the major factor that determine s consumer purchasing. The second third, and fourth research questions aimed to determine the specific attributes and selection factors that consumers look for in a satisfactory fruit and the characteristics of the fruit when they are dissatisfied with the quality. This information will be useful to pinpoint critical areas where producers can improve to meet consumer expectations. The fifth research question aimed to obtain the home storage and ripening habits of consumers. It was hypothesized that consumers do not use the proper home st orage and ripening procedures at home which can spoil the fruit and lead to their disposal and willingness to pay more for consistently better tasting fruits. It is necessary t o find the preferred characteristics of high value specialty crops so that producers can focus on improving taste by optimizing their quality. Obtaining information on current consumer ripening and storage practices may help producers

PAGE 24

24 determine optimal har vesting procedures which can in turn help increase consumption and decrease waste. Research Objectives This study had six research objectives: 1) d etermine the most importa nt reasons for purchasing fruit, 2) d etermine the factors that consumers look for w hen selecting fruit to purchase, 3) d etermine the preferred attri butes of a quality fruit, 4) d etermine reasons for dissatisfaction with fruit s when expectations are not met, 5) d home storage and ripening habits of fruits, and 6) d eterm pay more for consistently better tasting fruits Research Hypothese s This study explored two hypotheses: 1) f ruit flavor of high value specialty crops is the major factor that determines consumer purchasing, and 2) c onsumers do not practice the proper storage and ripening procedures at home which can spoil the fruit and lead to their disposal and waste.

PAGE 25

25 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Dietary Patterns of Fruit Consumption The Dietary Guidelines for Americans are developed to de crease the burden of disease among the population by improving the nutritional status of Americans. Up until MyPyramid. MyPyramid promoted the dietary guidelines by emphasizing a balanced diet and physical activity to achieve optimum health. However, even with this health promotion system, less than 11% of all groups in the U.S., stratified by both gender and age, met the fruit and vegetable recommendations (4) MyPlate, introduced in 2011, is the most recent food guidance system and reflects the 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans. It provides a visual representation of a meal plate and the relative amounts of fruits, vegetables, proteins, grains, and dairy that should be consumed. The USDA is currently highlighting the first of many MyPlate key consumer messages that also visit th e www.choosemyplate.gov website for a more personalized recommendation. Currently, the website recommends one and a half to two cups of fruits and two and a half cups to three cups of v egetables per day for adults (10) Despite the population consuming below the recommended levels, 58 % of consumers claimed they ate more produce than last year and 69% said they ate more produce than five years ago (11) Between 2008 and 2009, the total fresh fruit per capita consumption in the U.S. increased from 100.18 pounds to 100.85 pounds, and in particular, the total non citrus fruit per capita consumption increased by 0.61 pounds (12) However, many fruits such as peaches and nectarines had decreased

PAGE 26

26 consumption (12) Determining the preferred quality attributes of produce can provide valuable information to the produce industry on how to improve the quality to meet consumer expectations. The availability of satisfactory produce could help increase consumption and help consumers meet the recommendations. Barriers to Consumption Diet is a contributor to inequality in health, and socioeconomic differences in the intake of nutrients and antioxidants are likely to influence health inequalities (13) Previous studies have shown that education, income, food costs and accessibili ty are common indicators of the socioeconomic differences in produce consumption. Education is usually the strongest determinant of socioeconomic differences (14) and was the best determinant of healthy dietary h abits among people with higher education (15) Higher levels of education may increase the ability to obtain or understand health related and dietary informa tion needed to develop health promoting behaviors and beliefs regarding food habits (14) L ower socioeconomic groups and people with lower educational levels have been shown to purchase fewer types of fruits and veg etables independent of occupation, and were less likely to purchase foods that were high in fiber and low in fat (16) Food prices may be another reason for lower fruit and vegetable consumption among consumers (17) High prices of produce were reported by both high and low socioeconomic groups, and the low socioeconomic groups indicated that price was usually a deciding factor when purchasing food (18) Eikenberry et al. (19) reported that about one third of low income consumers surveyed considered cost as a barrier to eating healthy. Therefore, efficient means must be used when modifying the fruits and vegetables so that costs can stay low and affordable for all soci oeconomic classes.

PAGE 27

27 Poor accessibility to retail outlets with fruits and vegetables is also a barrier to produce consumption. Areas of low accessibility to retail outlets containing healthy y of the retail outlets attending retail outlets carrying fresh fruits and vegetables (i.e. no car or physical mobility limitations) (20) Fruit consumption has been shown to increase as access to food stores becomes ea sier (21) I n a study measuring local food environments and additional supermarket in their area (22) In addition, areas with few fresh food stores tend to be in close proximity to many fast food restaurants, making the unhealthy and con venient food more available to consumers (18) Phytochemicals in Fruits and Vegetables Phytochemicals are compounds that occur naturally in plants and can have potentially beneficial effects in humans. Fruits and vegetables contain many types of phytochemicals, su ch as carotenoids and phenolics. Carotenoids Carotenoids are pigmented compounds that are synthesized by plants and are important quality factors for fruits and vegetables due to the yellow, orange, and red colors they convey (23, 24) There are about 600 identified carotenoids, with only about 50 that are typically found in the U.S. diet (25) The major carotenoids are carotene, carotene, lutein, zeaxanthin, cryptoxanthin, and lycopene and carotene is the most common (25) Carotenoids have many biological activities, including immune response, gap junction communication, antioxidant function, xenobiotic/drug metabolism and some

PAGE 28

28 carotenoids have pro vitamin A activity (24) They also have vital roles in the eye, both functional ly as precursors to retinol in the visual pathway (pro vitamin A activity) and structurally as macular pigments (26) Their antioxidant properties, particularly their protection against free radicals, have been suggested as the main mechanism for their beneficial effects (24, 27) These antioxidant effects are responsible for their role in disease prevention for certain cancers, cardiovascular disease, age related macular degeneration, and cataracts (24) C arotene, carotene and cryptoxanthin are pro vitamin A carotenoids which have the advantage of being converted to vitamin A (24, 28) Therefore, they have the ability to perform the same biological functions as vitamin A, including involvement in growth (29) male and female reproduction (30) vision and eye health (31) immune function (32) and overall health (33) Additional ly, t here is also evidence of an inverse association between plasma cryptoxanthin levels and acute myocardial infarction (34) and a reduced risk of developing arthritis (35) Lutein, zeaxanthin, and lycopene are the major non pro vitamin A carotenoids (26) and u nlike pro vitamin A carotenoids, they cannot be converted to vitamin A (28) Lutein is usually found together with zeaxanthin, and they comprise the macular pigments that are important for sharp and detailed vision (36) therefore they are important for normal vision (28, 37) High dietary lutein and zeaxanthin intake has been shown to have a reduced risk of age related macular degeneration (38 40) a condition that affects more than 1.75 million people in the U.S. (41) Although lycopene has no pro vitamin A activity, it has exceptional antioxidant activity and twice the oxygen quenching ability of carotene (42, 43) It is one of the

PAGE 29

29 major carotenoids that can be found in human serum and tissues throughout the body (42) It is present in high concentrations in the human ciliary body and retinal pigment epithelium and protects the human lens from oxidative damage, with the potential to act as an anti cataract agent (37, 44) Studies have also shown that lycopene is protective against some cancers (45) and atherosclerosis (46) Phenolics Phenolic compounds are secondary metabolites that are found in almost all plants (47) Their role in plants, even though it is not entirely understood, is believed to protect against stresses and pathogens (47) In humans, phenolic compounds are most widely known for their role as antioxidants, which have inhibitory effects on mutagenesis and carcinogenesis (48) Current evidence suggests that polyphenols play a role in the prevention of cardiovascular diseases, cancers, osteoporosis, neurodegenerative diseases, and diabetes (49) Polyphenols are found in dietary sources such as fruits, fruit juices, tea, coffee, red wine, vegetables and dry legumes (50) Polyphenols are some of the most abundant antioxidants in the diet, and the total dietary intake could be as high as one gram per day (50) which is about ten times higher than the intake of vitamin C and 100 times higher than the intakes of vitamin E and carotenoids (51, 52) Polyphenols are divided into classes based on their structure, and include phenolic acids, lignans, stilbenes, and flavonoids. Phenolic acids can be divided into two c lasses: derivatives of benzoic acid and cinnamic acid. The hydroxybenzoic acid content of edible plants is usually low, with the exception of onions and some red fruits such as strawberries (51) Hydroxycinnamic aci ds, which are in many fruits and vegetables, make a much larger contribution to the

PAGE 30

30 total polyphenol intake (53) The hydroxycinnamic acid quantities increase with the size of the fruit, having the highest concentra tions in the outer parts of ripened fruit (51) Lignans are a part of the insoluble dietary fiber in foods such as cereal grains, bran, and some fruits such as strawberries, peaches, and pears (54, 55) They may reduce the risk of certain cancers and cardiovascular disease due to their antioxidant and anti oestrogenic properties (56, 57) Stilbenes are phenolic compounds found in many p lant food sources (58) Resveratrol, a stilbene found in grapes, berries, and other fruits, has important anti inflammatory, anti aging, and anti cancer properties (58 60) F lavonoids are one of the most important non essential dietary antioxidants (61) Their antioxidant capacity is linked to their radical scavenging ability in which they readily react with free radicals (62) They can be divided into six subclasses: flavonols, flavones, isoflavones, flavanones, anthocyanidins, and flavanols (catechins and proanthocyanidins) (51) Flavonols are ubiquitous in foods and usually accumulate in the skin and leaves of plants (51) Blueberries are a good source of flavonols (51) Flavones are less common in fruits and vegetables than are other flavonoids (51) Both flavonols and flavones have been shown to possess antioxidant activity, cardio protective effects, and anti cancer activities (63) Isoflavones commonly classified as phytoestrogens, are found mainly in legumes, but small amounts are found in some fruits and vegetables such as apples and pears (64) Flavanones are mostly found in citrus fruits and to some extent tomatoes, and are usually found together with flavones (51, 65)

PAGE 31

31 Flavanols consist of catechins and proanthocyanidins. Catechin and epicatechin are the main flavanols found in fruit (51) Proanthocyanidins, which are s ometimes referred to as tannins, are forms of catechins that are responsible for the astringency of fruit (51) This astringency changes during the maturation and ripening of fruit, and usually disappears by the tim e the fruit becomes ripe (51) Anthocyanins a form of anthocyanidins, are the red, blue, and purple pigments in certain fruits; their content is proportional to the intensity of the fruit color (51) They are potent radical scavengers (62) and many studies have shown that they promote antioxidant status, healthy vision, urinary tract health, dermal health, cardiovascular and neuroprotection, and can provide protection against diabetes and cancer (66) Anthocyanin content increases as the fruit ripens and is found mainly in the skin of fruits (51) Many studies show that flavonoids have positive effects on health. Hollman et al. (67) performed a meta analysis of prospective cohort studies and reported that high intake of flavonols compared with a low intake was associated with a 20% lower risk of stroke incidence. Lag iou et al. (68) reported that flavonoids are inversely associated with coronary heart disease risk, and an increase of about 21 mg per day is associated with a 24% reduction in the risk of CHD. Flavonoid intake is a lso linked with a reduced risk of developing certain cancers (69) and evidence suggests that they have the ability to promote and improve memory (70) High Value Specialty Crops The Spe cialty Crop Competitiveness Act of 2004 and the Food Conservation and Energy Act of 2008 These crops are

PAGE 32

32 differentia ted from other crops by the amount of management administered in their production (71) Blueberries, strawberries, melons, peaches, pears and tomatoes are all top selling specialty crops in the U.S. (11) Blueberries Blueberries ( Vaccinium spp.) are native to North A merica. The lowbush ( V. angustifolium ) and highbush ( V. corymbosum ) varieties, which are named due to the size of the plant the blueberries are grown on, are the most common varieties (72) confused with the highbush blueberries that are larger in size (73) In 2008, over 24,000 hectares (one hectare = 2.47 acres) were harvested producing almost 200,000 tons of blueberries in the U.S. (74) Blueberries are commercially produced in thirty five states, with more than 90% of the highbush variety in six states: Michigan, New Jersey, Oregon, North Carolina, Georgia and Washington (75) Blueberry season in North America is from April through October with the peak season between mid June and mid August (75) Sixty two percent of consumers in the U.S. in 2009 purchased blueberries, which is a 17% increase f rom 2008 (11 ) In 2009, 295 million pounds of fresh blueberries were consumed (76) Blueberries are a good source of vitamin C, potassium, and folate, among other nutrients ( Tables 2 1 and 2 2 ). A cup of blueberries contains about one gram of protein and up to 11% of the daily value for fiber. Health benefits of blueberries include maintenance of normal vascular health and vision, prevention or reduced severity of cardiovascul ar disease, diabetes and cancer (72) Additionally, t he p henolic b ioactive compounds contained in whole freeze dried blueberries have been shown to increase insulin sensitivity in obese patients (77)

PAGE 33

33 Compared with over 100 other foods, blueberries ra nked among the highest in antioxidant activity (78) Blueberries contain antioxidants such as vitamin C and p olyphenols such as anthocyanins, phenolic acids, flavanols, favonols and tannins (79) The total phenolic and total anthocyanin content of blueberries is 181.1 473 mg and 62.6 235.4 mg per 100 g fresh weight, respectively (80) Anthocyanins increase with fruit maturity and are conce ntrated in the skin of the blueberry (80) The flavanol content of blueberries can reach up to 1.11 mg per 100 g in the edible portion and flavonol content can reach up to 7.30 mg per 100 g edible portion (81) Flavonols, in addition to their antioxidant properties, also contribute to taste charact eristics such as bitterness and astringency in berry fruits (82) Strawberries Strawberries ( Fragaria x ananassa ) are part of the Rosaceae family. In the United States in 2008, over 22,000 hectares of land were harvested, producing over one million tons of strawberries (74) Most of the production of strawberries in the U.S. occurs in California, Florida, the southern states (North Carolina and Louisiana), the Pacific Northwest (Oregon and Washington), and the lower Midwestern and eastern states (New York, Michigan and Pennsylvania) (83) In 2010, 82% of consumers pur chased strawberries, which is a 12% increase from the previous year (11) The Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA) of vitamin C for adult males and females is 90 mg and 75 mg, respectively (84) One hundred grams of strawberries (approximately 7 8 medium sized strawberries) contain 58.8 mg vitamin C ( Table 2 2 ), which is 65% and 78% of the RDA for males and females, respectively. Strawberries are rich in folate and fiber, contain ing 5.5 g and 2 g, re spectively, per 100 g serving

PAGE 34

34 ( Table s 2 1 and 2 2 ) They also have high water content, with almost 91 g of water per 100 g ( Table 2 1 ) which helps promote satiety. Strawberries contain many compounds that contribute to their antioxidant activity such as carotenoids, ascorbic acid, and phenolic compounds such as flavonoids (85) Phenolics in strawberries account for a major portion of the total antioxidant activity (85) with the total phenolic content of strawberries reaching 317.2 443.4 mg per 100 g fresh weight (86) Specifically, trans resveratrol, a stilbene compound, is found in strawber ries with about 3.57 g per g ram (87) Trans resveratrol has antioxidant and anti inflammatory activities (88) that have potent effects in preventing or delaying the onset of cancer (89) heart disease (90) and inf lammation (91) Anthocyanins, other important antioxidants that are responsible for the red hue (92) account for about 39 mg per 100 g fresh weight of strawberries (93) Melons There are many varieties of melons produced in the Un ited States, with the majority belong ing to the genera Cucumis and Citrullus Melons are sometimes referred uskmelons at belong to Cucumis melo In 2008, 86 602 hectares were harvested in the U.S. producing 62.5 million hundred weight (cwt; 1 cwt = 100 pounds) of melons (94) Cucumis melo (Inodorus grou p) The Inodorus group of Cucumis melo includes melons such as santa claus, crenshaws, casabas and honeydews (95, 96) Santa claus melons are cylindrical and are longer than they are thick (97) They are smooth skinned and have black and yell ow blotches (97) The c rens haw melon is a cross bred variety of casaba and Persian melons (95) Crenshaw melons are ac orn shaped and pointed at the blossom end (98) The melon is

PAGE 35

35 yellow and green, rough, and does not have netting, while the flesh is salmon colored, thick, juicy, and sweet in flavor (98) Casabas have long deep wrinkles and usually have thick flesh, colored white, yellow, or orange (97) They contain about a gram of fiber and over a g ram of protein for each 100 g portion ( Table 2 1 ). Casabas are also a source of the minerals calcium and potassium, containin g 11 m g and 182 m g, respectively ( Table 2 1 ). Like other melons, they also contain vitamin C, which can reach up to 21.8 mg in a 100 g portion ( Table 2 2 ). Honeydew melons are smooth with no netting. Their rind color is creamy yellow when ripe and their f lesh is light green, thick, juicy, and sweet (99) They contain 228 mg potassium, 18 mg vitamin C, and 19 g folate per 100 g portion ( Tables 2 1 and 2 2 ). They also c ontain about 1.3 moles per gram wet weight (edible portion) of total phenols (100) In 2010, 33% of customers in the US purchased honeydews, which was a 2% increase from the previous year (11) Cucumis melo (Reticulatus group) The Reticulatus group of C. melo are named because of their net like (reticulated) skin covering and includes me lons such as galia and cantaloupe. Galia melons have green flesh and a golden yellow netted rind (101) Cantaloupes are netted and orange fleshed (1 02) They are sources of potassium and folate, containing 267 mg and 21 g, respectively per 100 g portion ( Tables 2 1 and 2 2 ). Cantaloupes are also good sources of carotene and vitamin C, containing 2020 g and 36.7 m g, respectively ( Table 2 2 ) In 2010, 74% of consumers purchased cantaloupes, which is a 15% increase from the previous year (11)

PAGE 36

36 Genus Citrullus Watermelons belong to the Citrullus genus. They have a high water content: 91.45 g per 100 g ( Table 2 1 ). They also c ontain 8.1 mg vitamin C per 100 g portion ( Table 2 2 ), which is about 10% of the RDA Watermelon is a good source of the carotenoid lycopene, containing 4532 g per 100 g portion ( Table 2 2). They also have antioxidant activity, containing about 2.2 moles total phenols per gram wet weight (100) In 2010, 71% of consumers purchased watermelons, which is a 9% increase from the previous year (11) Peaches Peaches ( Prunus persica hard pit (103) Peach flesh adheres to the pit in clingstone peaches, while in freestone peaches the flesh does not adhere to the pit (104) In 2008, over 63,000 hectares of land were harvested in the U.S. producing over 1.3 million tons of peaches and nectarines (74) Peaches are produced commercially in 29 states, and California is the major production region, followed by South Carolina, Georgia, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania (105) Sixty seven pe rcent of consumers bought peaches in 2010, which is an 11% increase from the previous year (11) Peaches are sources of many vitamins and minerals. They contain 190 mg of potassium and 6.6 mg of vitamin C per 100 g ( Table s 2 1 and 2 2 ). Peaches also contain about on e gram of protein and 1.5 grams of fiber per 100 g ( Table 2 1). Peaches have both white and yellow fleshed varieties which results in wide ranges of carotenoid and antioxidant values (106) Some c arotenoids, impo rtant constituents of fruit color, can be converted to vitamin A in the body which is essential for normal growth, reproduction vision, and immunity (107) The total carotenoid content in peaches ranges from 8 to 197 g per 100 g (106) Among carotenoids,

PAGE 37

37 carotene and cryptoxanthin are the prima ry pro vitamin A factors, with their concentrations in peaches reaching around 2000 g per kg of fresh weight for carotene and up to 3400 g per kg fresh weight of cryptoxanthin (108) Peaches also contain 91 g per 100 g of lutein and zeaxanthin ( Table 2 2 ) which are not converted to vitamin A but have strong antioxidant properties (28, 109) Most antioxidant compou nds are located in high concentrations in the fruit peel, which constitutes about 15% of total fresh fruit weight (107) The total phenolic content in peaches ranges from 21 mg to 110.9 mg per 100 g (106) Flavonols, including quercetin and kaempferol are the most abundant phenolics in peach and othe r stone fruits (110 112) containing up to 2.33 mg per 100 g (81) They also contain up to 4.46 mg per 100 g fresh weight of the polyphen ol chlorogenic acid (113) Pears Pear ( Pyrus spp.) production has increased 55% during the last decade (105) The United States accounts for about 5% of the world pear production, ranking third behind China and Italy (114) Pear production in the U.S. is mainly concentrated in t he Pacific Northwest, but commercial production can also be found in 45 other states (114) At 40%, Washington has the highest production in the U.S., followed by California and Oregon (105, 114) In 2008, almost 24,000 hectares were harvested producing over 790,000 tons of pears in the U.S. (74) In 2010, 49% of consumers purchas ed pears, which is a 1% increase from the previous year (11) Pears, like most fruit, are nutrient dense, high in energy and high in water ( Table 2 1 ). Pears are an excellent source of fiber ( Table 2 1 ) with a medium sized pear (about 178 g) providing up to 22% of daily fiber needs. Pears also contain 119 mg of potassium per 100 g ( Table 2 1 ).

PAGE 38

38 Phenolic compounds are major contributors to antioxidant activity (115) The total phenolic content of pears is significantly higher in the peels than in the peeled fruits, with about 4.5 g per kg and 2.1 g per kg, respectively (116) Chlorogenic acid, which constitutes approximately 5 mg per 100 g fresh weight, was identified as the major phenolic component in pears (113) The antioxidant activity of fruits is also correlated with flavonoid content containing an average of 341 mg per kg of catechin in pears (115) Tomatoes Tomatoes ( Lycopersicon esculentum ) belong to the Solanaceae family and can be considered both a vegetable and a fruit. Ho rticulturally and for culinary purposes, tomatoes are considered vegetables because they are part of herbaceous plants that are eaten as the main part of a meal (71) However, botanically, tomatoes are f the plant contains the ovary and seeds (71) The United States is one of the top tomato producers in the world (117) and in 2008, harvested almost 163,000 hectares of land producing over 12.5 million tons of tomatoes (74) California is the top tomato producing state, using more than 200 square (117) Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Illinois are also top producers of tomatoes in the U.S. (118) In 2010 87% of consumers purchased tomatoes, which is a 5% increase from the previous year (11) Tomatoes come in many varieties and have different cooking purposes and slightly different attributes. Beefsteak, roma, cluster, hothouse or greenhouse grown, grape, cherry, a nd heirloom are the major varieties of tomatoes available. In 2010,

PAGE 39

39 beefsteak tomatoes were the most preferred to purchase by consumers (43%), followed by roma (12%) and cluster tomatoes (7%) (11) Tomatoes are an excellent source of vitamins and minerals. They con tain over 830 IU of vitamin A in one 100 g serving ( Table 2 2 ). Tomatoes are also a good source of vitamin C, containing 12.7 mg ( Table 2 2 ), which is 14% and 17% of the RDA for men and women, respectively. Tomatoes are also good sources of magnesium, fola te and potassium, containing 11 m g, 15 g and 237 m g, respectively ( Tables 2 1 and 2 2 ). Polyphenols, along with carotenoids, are markers of the nutritional quality of foods (119) Lycopene, which is responsible f or the red color of some fruits and vegetables (24) is the main carotenoid in tomatoes, accounting for more than 75% of the total carotenoid content (120, 121) With the lycopene content in tomatoes exceeding 2570 g per 100 g ( Table 2 2 ), the consumption o f tomato products accounts for more than 80% of the total lycopene intake in the U.S (122) Tomatoes are also rich in carotene (449 g) and lutein and zeaxanthin (123 g), ( Table 2 2 ). Relationship Between Fruit and Vegetable Consumption and Chronic Diseases A balanced diet high in fruits and vegetables is essential for health Fruits and vegetables contain many phyto chemicals, antioxidants, vitamins, and minerals that are necessary for normal body functions and mechanisms as well as disease prevention Coronary Heart Disease Coronary heart disease (CHD) is one of the leading causes of death and disability in our socie ty today (123) Coronary heart disease risk is related to high levels of low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL) (124) the major carrier of cholesterol in the body (125) Low density lipoprotein cholesterol is transported to the arterial wall where it becomes trapped and oxidized (126) The oxidized LDL attracts monocytes that engulf

PAGE 40

40 the lipids, transforming them into foam cells (126) These foam ce lls make up atherosclerotic plaque along the vessel walls, which impedes blood flow (126) Antioxidants in fruits and vegetables can quench th e free radicals that oxidize LDL, resulting in a decreased amount of the detrimental cholesterol products (127) Many studies have shown an inverse association among fruit and vegetable consumption and CHD. Joshipura et al. (1) evaluated data from over 84,000 women for 14 years and over 42 ,000 men for eight years to evaluate the association between fruit and vegetable consumption and the risk for CHD. They reported that total fruit intake and total vegetable intake were both individually associated with a decreased risk for CHD. Participan ts in the top quintile of fruit and vegetable intake had a 20% lower risk for coronary heart disease than those in the lowest quintile. Decreasing the concentrations of LDL cholesterol is one of the most effective ways of decreasing risk for CHD (128) It is estimated that a 1% reduction in the serum LDL cholesterol level could reduce heart disease mortality in the United States by 2% (129, 130) Djousse et al. (131) evaluated the effect of fruit and vegetable consumption on LDL cholesterol concentrations in approximately 4500 adults in the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Family Heart Study. They reported that fruit and vegetable consumptio n was inversely related to LDL cholesterol concentrations in both men and women, independent of age, smoking status, exercise, educational attainment, and use of vitamin supplements. Participants in the quartile with the highest fruit and vegetable intakes had LDL concentrations that were 6 7% lower than those in the lowest quartile. Soluble fibers are often associated with decreases in serum LDL cholesterol levels (132) Soluble fiber differs from insoluble fiber in that it is water soluble and can form

PAGE 41

41 viscous gel like solutions that can help dispose of excess cholester ol (133, 134) and includes fibers such as gums, beta glucans, psyllium, resistant starches, and pectin (135) Dietary soluble fiber decreases serum cholesterol by binding to and increasing the excretion of bile acids. This increases hepatic bile acid synthesis to replace lost bile acids, and therefore depletes cholesterol from liver stores allowing for increased uptake from the circulation (132, 136) This increased uptake results in decreased LDL levels in the blood (137) Fruits and vegetabl es contain fibers such as pectin, beta glucans, fructans oligosaccharides and gums (138) Pereira et al. (139) performed an analysis of ten cohort studies and reported that dietary fiber from fruits had a strong inverse association with the risk of CHD in both men a nd women. Consumption of fiber from fruits also has a significant inverse association with CHD mortality (140) Dietary fiber may also have other beneficial effects, including improving glycemic control, reducing in sulin resistance and helping with weight control (141) Cancer Cancer is characterized as progressive uncontrolled cell growth and division resulting from damaged genetic material (135) The development of cancer occurs in three stages: initiation, promotion, and progression. Initiation is when DNA in a cell is damaged by carcinogens, which can lead to genetic mutations if left unrepaired (142) The second stage, tumor promotion, is slow and reversible and i nvolves clonal expansion of the initiated cell (143) The third stage, progression, irreversibly converts t he benign cells into a malignant tumor (143) The genetic material is modified via oxidative damage by free radicals that are involved in the first two stages of carcinogenesis (144) The damages and mutations result in arrest or induction of

PAGE 42

42 transcription, induction of signal transduction pathways, replication errors, and genomic instability, which are all associated with carcinogenesis (145 147) Fruits and vegetable s contain antioxidants such as v itamins A, C, E, flavonoids, and carotenoids (148) Antioxidants are compounds that int eract with free radicals to prevent the oxidative damage of tissues and cells (36) Ma ny of the effects of antioxidants are related not only to their ability to scavenge deleterious free radicals but also to modulate cell signaling pathways that could help prevent cancer by preserving normal cell cycle regulation, inhibit ing prolif eration, inducing apoptosis in damaged cells and inhibit ing tumor invasion (147, 149) Between 2000 and 2020, the total number of cases of cancer is predicted to increase by 29% in the developed world (150) with dietary factors estimated to account for about 30% of cancers (151) Consumption of a diet high in red and processed meat, added su gars, refined grains, and fat has been associated with a higher risk of certain cancers (152 154) Conversely, a greater consumption of fruits and vegetables has been associated with a lower risk of certain cancer s (2) An epi demiological study by Riboli and Norat (2) reported that total fruit consumption decreased the risk of oral, pharyngeal and bladder cancer, and both fruit and vegetable consumption had a protective effect against esophageal and colorectal cancer. In a prospective cohort study of over 35,000 women, Thompson et al. (155) measured how consumption of antioxidant rich foods were associated with risk for Non association of NHL with fruit and vegetable intake. Other antioxidant rich foods such as whole grains, nuts, chocolate, tea, and red wine, were not associated with NHL risk.

PAGE 43

43 The specific antioxidants, vitamin C and carotene consumed from food showed an inverse association with NHL, whereas supplementation of these did not. These res ults suggest fruits and vegetables, which are rich in antioxidants, have a protective effect against developin g NHL and perhaps other cancers whereas other antioxidant rich foods did not seem to have an effect. Supplementation of antioxidants is not suffi cient to prevent NHL and possibly other cancers ; intake of these must be through the original plant source to achieve their maximum benefits. Phytochemicals in the original plant sources contain many other antioxidants and compounds that may work synergist ically with each other in the body to provide added effects that are not possible with only the selected antioxidants in supplements (155) Obesity The prevalence of obesity in the United States in adults exceeds 30% in most age and sex groups (156) and is associated with several serious health conditions including type 2 diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure, stroke, certain types of cancers sleep apnea, hypoxia, hernia, and arthritis (157) Obesity is a chronic disease that is caused by an imba lance between energy ingested and energy expended (158) The energy density of food influences satiety, and large portions of energy dense foods promote excess consumption (159) Fruits and vegetables, which have high water and fiber content but are low in energy density, have been shown to reduce excess consumption by increasing sat iety and decreasing subsequent hunger, without adding excess calories (159, 160) In a randomized controlled intervention trial, obese women ate one of two diets: one group was advised to decrease the energy densit y of their diets by adding water rich foods (such as fruits and vegetables) and reduce their fat intake, and the second

PAGE 44

44 group was advised to only reduce their fat intake. Neither of the groups was given specific limits for daily intakes of energy or fat. T he women in the first group, who reduced fat intake and increased water rich foods, lost 33% more weight and reported that their hunger was significantly lower than those just reducing fat intake (161) A large sc ale prospective cohort study done in Europ e (162) reported that fruit and vegetable consumption was significantly related to smaller weight gains Another study, a 12 year prospective cohort study of middle aged wo men, found that an increase in fruit and vegetable consumption may reduce long term risk of obesity and weight gain (3) Ripening and Maturation of Fruits How early a fruit is picked during the process of its matura tion is one of the most important factors determining its overall quality and flavor (6) Additionally, its mechanism of ripening further determines the postharvest quality of the fruit to the consumer. Metabolism, which is responsible for the maturation and ripening of fruits and vegetables, continues during postharvest storage even though they are detached from the plant (163) There is a difference between the maturity and ripeness of a fruit or vegetable (164) Maturity is usually reached when the fruit is done growing (165) whereas r ipening occurs when the fruit transforms from an immature stage of development to a fruit that has palatable eating quality and optimum color, flavor, texture, fi rmness, and aroma (165) Fruits and vegetables are commonly divided into two groups: climacteric and non climacteric (166) which are important determinants of the ripening rate and storability (167) Climacteric fruits and vegetables are harvested at maturity but befo re they are

PAGE 45

45 ripe and continue to ripen while detached from the plant (168) When ripening begins, climacteric fruits undergo an increase in respiration and a simultaneous burst of ethylene production (166, 169) (170) is important for the initiation and continuation of ripening of climacteric fruit (171) and accompanies changes in color, aroma, texture, flavor, and other biochemical and physiological fruit attributes (166) The catabolic and anabolic events and high ethylene associated with climacteric fruits and vegetables result in a rapid ripening rate and a short shelf life (167, 172) Pears, peaches, most melons and tomatoes are fruits with climacteric characteristics (166, 172) In contrast, non climacteric fruits do not experience the ethylene associated respiratory increase during the onset of ripening (169) and cannot continue ripening once removed from the plant (168) Instead, the increased respiration and ethylene production occur during the maturation stage (166) Therefore, non c limacteric fruit maintain the quality they had at harvest without many beneficial changes (168) These fruits typically ripen more slowly and have a long shelf life (167, 172) Blueberries, strawberries and watermelon have non climacteric characteristics (172, 173) Proper Home Storage Practices r important factor in determining the overall quality of fruit. Proper storage is important to maintain the quality of the product, to further ripen some fruit and to prevent spoilage whereas improper storage may lead to deterioration of their flavor and nutrients (174) Climacteric fruits are not fully ripe when harvested, and therefore they need to ripen at room temperature before they can be refrigerated Refrigeration would delay or interrupt their normal ripening process and cause altered or und esirable flavors (174)

PAGE 46

46 Peaches and pears should be stored at room temperature until ripe, or can be placed in a paper bag at room temperature to facilitate ripening (174, 175) They should be used within three days once ripe, or they can be refrigerated for up to a week after they are ripe (174, 175) Tomatoes should be stored at room temperature out of direct sunlight until they are ripe and should be used within one week after ripening (174, 175) Refrigeration will stop ripening and affect flavor, so refrigeration should only be used when they are well ripened and only if they cannot be used before they spoil (174, 17 5) Melon species that are closely related can be both climacteric and non climacteric (176) Most types of melons should be stored at room temperature until they become ripe, and then can be stored whole and uncovered in the refrigerator for up to three days (174) Honeydew melons can be stored in the refrigerator for up to two weeks (175) Cut melons should always be refrigerated in an airtight container and used within three days (174) Non climacteric fruits and veget ables have relatively low respiration rates that decrease slowly after being harvested (177) therefore, they are ready to eat and do not require further ripening (174) Blueberries should be kept in the refrigerator and can be stored there for up to 14 days (174, 175) Strawberries should only be refrigerated and should not be stored at room temperature (174) They can be refrigerated for up to three days, and should be washed only when they are r eady to eat (175) Consumer Food Purchases and Waste In 2008, Americans spent $598 billion on food from markets, grocery and retail stores (178) Households waste 14% of their food purchases, and of that, approximately 24% of the waste is fruits and 25% is vegetables (179) A family of four wastes approximately $590 of food a year, and nationwide, total household food waste can

PAGE 47

47 reach up to $43 billion (180) Visual cues assoc iated with deterioration such as firmness and appearance (looking rotten, withered, wrinkly, bruised, and spotted) are common indicators of when to dispose of fruit and lead to high rates of waste (9) In a study by Campbell et al. (9) 28% of participants indicated that they di sposed of fruit once a week. Developmental change s that lead to plant tissue death, termed senescence, occur naturally in the ripening of fruit, but can also be induced by stresses during harvesting (181) Maturity at harvest is the most important factor that determines the storage life and quality of the fruit (168) The necessity of shipping fruits long distances often requires harvesting them at less than ideal maturity, which results in poor quality to the c onsumer (168) The main reason for the disposal of fruit is poor quality (182) and therefore it is pertinent to know consumer attitudes and preferences for acceptable fruits and vegetables. Fruit and vegetable dissatisfaction and waste can result when consumers do not practice the proper selection, storage, and ripening methods. Understanding these behaviors can provide valuable information about c onsumer habits and preferences that can be used to develop methods to provide better quality produce to consumers.

PAGE 48

48 Table 2 1. Nutrient content of fruits and vegetables (edible portions per 100g) Energy (kcals) Protein (g) Carbohydrat e (g) Sugar (g) Fiber (g) Water (g) Ca (mg) Mg (mg) K (mg) Blueberries 57 0.74 14.49 9.96 2.4 84.21 6 6 77 Strawberries 32 0.67 7.68 4.89 2 90.95 16 13 153 Peaches 39 0.91 9.54 8.39 1.5 88.87 6 9 190 Pears 58 0.38 15.46 9.8 3.1 83.71 9 7 119 Tomatoes 18 0.88 3.92 2.63 1.2 94.5 10 11 237 Honeydew 36 0.54 9.09 8.12 0.8 89.82 6 10 228 Cantaloupe 34 0.84 8.16 7.86 0.9 90.15 9 12 267 Watermelon 30 0.61 7.55 6.2 0.4 91.45 7 10 112 Casaba 28 1.11 6.58 5.69 0.9 91.85 11 11 182 Source: USDA National Nutrie nt Database for Standard Reference, http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search/ Table 2 2 Vitamin and carotenoid content of fruits and vegetables (edible portions per 100g) Vitamin C (mg) Folate ( g) B eta carotene (g) L ycopene (g) Lutein + Z eaxanthin (g) Strawberries 58.8 24 7 0 26 Blueberries 9.7 6 32 0 80 Peaches 6.6 4 162 0 91 Pears 4.2 7 13 0 45 Tomatoes 12.7 15 449 2573 123 Honeydew 18 19 30 0 27 Cantaloupe 36. 7 21 2020 0 26 Watermelon 8.1 3 303 4532 8 Casaba 21.8 8 0 0 26 Source: USDA National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference, http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search/

PAGE 49

49 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY The objective of this research was to determine how produce flavor as affected by harvest and postharvest practices influenced consumer attitudes and behavior s towards consumption of specialty crops. This study investigated preferences for high value specialty crop selection using both qualitative and quantitative procedures. There were three components to data collection: focus groups, a pilot test of the online survey instrument, and a national online survey. Focus Groups Question naire Development The questions for the focus groups were aimed at obt aining qualitative information about the purchasing, storage, and consumption habits of tomatoes, strawberries, blueberries, melons, peaches and pears. They were separated by fruit type and contained specific questions about how participants select store and ripen their produce, as well as questions regarding participant satisfaction with current produce quality. They were also asked to describe the characteristics of an ideal fruit as well as attributes that deter them from repeat purchases. Additionall y, they were asked about their willingness to pay more for fruit that consistently met their expectations. Recruitment and Sampling For this study, we wanted to obtain a variety of participants ranging from young adults up to the elderly. Convenience sampl ing was used to recruit participants for the focus groups through email list servs and the distribution of flyers to various organizations including the public school system, the University of Florida employee pool the YMCA, local recreation and community centers, cooperative E xtension offices,

PAGE 50

50 and faith groups. Participants were eligible if they were at least 18 years old, were the primary food purchaser in the home, and purchased at least three of the six fresh fruit types in this study (tomatoes, straw berries, blueberries, melons, peaches and pears). Participants were also required to agree and sign the consent form for participation (Appendix ) All forms and procedures were approved by the University of Florida Institutional Review Board. Conducting the Focus Groups The focus groups were set up and conducted accordingly to meet the accepted guidelines (183) The groups were conducted from August 2010 through December 2010. They were held in conference r ooms, schools, and cooperative E xtension offices and ranged from three to twelve people per group. In each gro up, the participants were informed of the purpose of the study and signed the consent form. The first focus group was conducted in Irvine, California, with the Florida researchers in attendance to observe. This was to ensure that both states would be cond ucting the groups in the same ma nner to keep the data collection consistent across both states. During the focus group discussions, pictures of each of the fruits were passed around to participants. This was to serve two purposes: (1) to show what the dif ferent varieties of the fruits looked like, and (2) to visually stimulate the participants to think about the fruit being discussed. Samples of cut up melons (watermelon, honeydew and cantaloupe) were passed around to the participants during the melon disc ussion. The participants were able to smell, feel, and taste the melons, which gave awareness of descriptive factors to help them describe their preferences and dislikes of melons.

PAGE 51

51 Each of the focus groups lasted approximately 90 minutes and was audio rec orded. At the conclusion of the focus group, each participant received a $35 gift card for their participation. Focus Group Analysis The focus group audio recordings were transcribed verbatim. The transcripts from both the Florida and California focus grou ps were hand coded by the researcher and also coded using the Xsight Version 2.0 research software. Hand coding involved looking for common themes and quotes within the transcripts and aggregating all of the results into one document for easy reference. Wi th the Xsight program, categories were set up a priori after the first focus group and specific quotes were manually assigned to were created for each fruit to aid in or appearance qualities of the fruits an d what determined consumer decision criteria and satisfaction. The common ideas and themes were used to develop the questions and answer choices for the survey. Pilot Test of the Online Survey Questionnaire After receiving the qualitative information from the focus groups, an online survey was created. A pilot study was first performed with this survey to test the reliability of the questions developed from the focus group responses. In particular, a test retest method was used. This is a common method used to measure survey reliability and involves the same set of respondents taking the survey at two points in time to see how reproducible the set of results are (184)

PAGE 52

52 Question naire Development Using the focus group script as a guide, questi ons were developed to obtain specific information about the purchasing, storage, and consumption habits of consumers. The output from the coded transcripts was used to develop questions and the accompanying answer choices. The survey contained a total of 125 questions divided by commodity type: tomatoes, strawberries, blueberries, melons (cantaloupes, honeydews, watermelons, specialty melons ) peaches and pears. The questions addressed topics such as their frequency of purchasing, preferences, storage and ripening habits, and their willingness to pay more for higher quality fruits. The survey was created using SurveyMonkey.com Skip Logic technology was applied to skip over questions based on the responses to previous questions. If a consumer did not pur chase a particular commodity regularly (less than 2 3 times per month), they would skip the remainder of questions about that fruit and be redirected to the next fruit. The survey was approved by all of the contributing investigators and the University of Florida Institutional Review Board prior to distribution. Recruitment and Sampling Fifteen people each from Florida and California were selected through a convenience sample for a total of 30 participants. Each participant took the online pilot study sur vey initially and then took t he same survey one week later. Each participant used a unique code word that they typed into each survey which kept anonymity yet allowed the surveys to be matched to ensure both surveys were completed and taken by the same pe rson. If both surveys were completed, each participant received a $35 gift card as an incentive.

PAGE 53

53 Conducting and Analyzing the Pilot Study The pilot study surveys were taken between June 2011 and July 2011. Statistical analyses were performed in SPSS Vers ion 19 software. Each survey question was given a numeric code for data entry. The data were exported from the website hosting the survey, SurveyMonkey.com into the SPSS software. measurement of the internal consistency among individual items (185) of 0.7 is generally considered satisfactory when comparing groups (186) Any question that was below a value of 0.7 was reevalua ted for clarity with a cross tabulation table, which describes the distribution of two or more variables simultaneously. The cross tabulation table was evaluated to see possible reasons the alpha value was low. Some questions required participants to rank their preferen ces for various attributes. These data were re coded so that each question and all of its ranked responses were compared as a whole as opposed to each answer choice being compared to each other separately. This would give a better understand ing of the question overall. The cross tabulation table was used to compare the responses. If the ranked questions had contingency coefficients below a level of 0.7, the original, un coded data were ru n to see where there were discrepancies. National Onlin e Survey A national online survey was created to obtain a robust outlook of quantitative information obtained from the qualitative data. An online survey would be appropriate Oc tober 2009 69% of American households had computers with I nternet access in their homes. Electronic surveys eliminate the cost and waste of paper and postage mailings

PAGE 54

54 and provide access to a large population quickly and efficiently (1 87, 188) They also allow for quick response time and greater question diversity (187, 188) Question Development The majority of the pilot study survey was kept the same for the national survey, with the exception of some changes m ade based on the pilot study results and to clarify formatting. The following are changes made to the survey before national distribution: The question asking for the identifier word in the pilot study was removed. The consent page was arranged in paragrap h form for easier reading. T Please note, all fruits discussed in this survey ref er to fresh, NOT Strawberry questions were switched with blueberry to yield the order: tomatoes, strawberr ies, blueberries, melons, peaches, pears. re buy describes the reason your purchasing habits of [fruit] ha ve increased pay for reliably better tasting [fruit] that you know will deliver the flavor interested are you in information on How interested are you in receiving information about fruits by the following communication methods

PAGE 55

55 e following statements that apply to you dissatisfied with a fresh fruit purchase from a supermarket and evaluate the urchase a different kind of fruit the next time I go grocery shopping fruit snack the next time I go grocery shopping purchase Recruitment and Sampling The survey was hosted on SurveyMonkey.com Recruitment for the national online survey was done through a sampling firm, World Wide Panel. They distributed the survey link nationally to consumers who were 18 years of age or older. The first page of the survey was the consent form. If the participants did not agree to the terms, they were redirected and not allowed to take the survey. The survey was available between August 29, 2011 until August 30, 2011 until the desired number of completed surveys was reached. A total of 1,200 participants was determined appropriate because it exceeds the 1,111 participants for populations greater than 100,000 which will give 3% precision level with a confidence level of 95% and P=0.5 (189) There were a total of 1,220 people who completed the survey. Online Survey Analysis The national online survey was analyzed using SPSS version 19 statistical software and Microsoft Excel. All of the statistical analyses were performed at the 0.05 significance level. Descriptive frequency tables were run for each question to see the percentage of participants who chose each answer choice. For all of the questions requiring ranking of priori ties or preferences, the frequencies of each ranked variable were grouped by their

PAGE 56

5 6 priority ranking. Each priority level response was then weighted to achieve the overall highest ranked attributes. Friedman tests were used to compare the mean rankings bet ween the reasons why consumers purchased each fruit. The Friedman test can be used to test for differences between groups and indicate how they differ when the dependent variable is ordinal (190) Bivariate cor relations were used to determine the relationships between independent variables and purchasing behaviors (dependent variable). One way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare the means between groups. The neity of variances, an assumption f or the ANOVA test. I Welch test was used, which is a robust test for the equality of group means. The Welch test statistic is preferable to the F statis tic when the assumption of equal variances is not met (190) A significant Welch statistic implies that there were significant differences between the groups (190) P ost hoc analyses were run for significant ANOVA or Welch ANOVA analyses and the Games

PAGE 57

57 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS Focus Group Focus group s were conducted to obtain the qualitative data that would be used to develop the online survey. T here were 12 focus groups total; six focus groups conducted each in Florida and California, for a total of 101 participants. Seventeen participants were male and 84 were female. The ages represented in the groups ranged from young adults with young children up through older, retired adults. The six research objectives were evaluated purchasing and storing /ripening behavio rs: (1) reasons for purchasing the fruit, (2) factors when selecting the fruit to purchase, (3) attributes of their ideal/perfect fruit, (4) reasons for dissatisfaction when their expectations are not met, (5) home storage and ripening habits, and (6) thei r willingness to pay more for consistently high quality fruit. Reasons for Purchasing Fruit For the five commodities of fruits in this study (tomatoes, berries, melons, peaches, pears), taste/flavor was said to be the most important reason for purchasing that were mentioned. Many participants, especially those with younger children, said they purchased berries and melons because they wer e good snacks One consumer stat ed to snack on Berri es could be added to various foods such as oatmeal, yogurt, cereal, or used for smoothies, in addition to being eaten by themselves. The variety of tomato determine d

PAGE 58

58 its usage, and ranged from making sauces and salsa; adding them t o salads, hamburgers, san dwiches; or eating them plain. The nutritional value of the fruits was also an important factor determining purchasing. Many consumers knew that fruits were good for them, but did not know the nutritional values, like I know Most consumers knew the least about the nutrition of pears compared to the other fru its. Tomatoes and berries were the two commodities most known for their nutritional benefits. Most consumers knew that tomatoes contained lycopene and that berries contained antioxidants and vitamin C. you and they have so many Factors When Selecting Fruit to Purchase When selecting melons, the participants looked for fruits with littl e or no defects such as bruises blemishes or indentations. The firmness of cantaloupes and honeydews was a common selection factor, and a medium firmness was preferred. Aroma was also a common selection factor for cantaloupes and honeydews, and as one external netting and coloring were common selection factors used to select cantaloupes. Some people suggest ed that more netting w as a good indicator of ripeness and a yellowish color indicate d it m ay be too ripe. Some people had specific techniques to select a melon:

PAGE 59

59 I never knew how to choose a honeydew. I was in the grocery store one time and the produce manager was there and he said well let me show you. So he picked out one, one of them your hand would just swoosh right lide, it kind of stops When selecting watermelon, many consumers thump the watermelon and listen for a hollow sound. Most people were content with this method, but others said that Consumers also looked for a yellow underside as an indicator of a ripe watermelon. Another selection factor, mentioned mainly by the older participants who lived by th emselves or with their spouse, wa my house is that nobody really likes melon except for me so a normal size melon is almost too big to consume in 4 5 days Some of the consumers mentioned purchasing the pre cut fruit because smaller quantities were available, but it was more expensive. It just bugs me that those containers cost so much. I mean those are the seem right to me that those containers should be like twice as much as a watermelon or something. Or if you wa nt to buy a quarter watermelon whi S piece for a lot more price and spend a lot more money for it ? When selecting berries, consumers look ed for berries that d o not have visual signs suggesting deterioration s uch as bruises, mold, and indications of dried wilted smushed or soggy berries. They also look ed for a particular size, either smaller or larger berries, depending on their preference. T he brand of berries played a role in t heir selection, and if they had purchased poor quality berries from one brand, they might switch to a different brand the next time they purchase They also prefer red uniform

PAGE 60

60 color throughout the berry. There seemed to be a higher satisfaction with berries than P eaches, pears, and tomato es had similar selection criteria. Aroma was considered a good indicator of ripeness and was a common selection factor among these three commodities. Consumers prefer red deeper/brighter colors on these fruits without any bruises or soft spots. The firmness of these fruits was also an important selection factor and a harder fruit was typically thought to be less ripe. For all of the five commodities, a common selection factor was the place of origin. Almost everyone agreed that they preferred American grown produce versus produce from other countries for two main reasons. The first reason was they are worried about have the quality control like they do here in the United States, and I value my health The second reason was that many prefer red t o support local farmers and felt they go t a better Attributes of an Ideal Fruit ideal fruit. When describing an ideal peach, many participants gave comments such as I want juice to run down my face should be something you have to lean over the sink or go out on the porch to eat. It should be messy to eat a peach The absence of defects was also an important consideration for quality fruit. The majority of the other preferences were regarding texture Consumers desire d

PAGE 61

61 fruit that were nd pears that were Freestone peaches were preferred over the clingstone variety. Many participants had a preference for seedless melons versus seeded melons. For melons, tomatoes, and peaches, bright exterior colors and a uniform color on the inside were preferred. When describing an ideal pear, many of the focus groups had an unsolicited praise for Harry and David Harry and David sells a packa hard Preference for the size of berries was divided in many of the groups. For both strawberries and blueberries, some participants preferred smaller berries while others and uniform color, bright red for strawberries and dark blue for blueberries, were also indicators of good quality berries. For texture, they preferred firmer berries that were not mushy or soggy. R easons f or Dissatisfaction When Expectations Are Not Met For all of the fruits, the s atisfaction with the current quality available ranged from satisfied or a road side fruit stand than fruit from the supermarket. Overall, lack of flavor, lack of sweetness, dry ness and meal iness were the most common characteris tics describing how a fruit did I always seem to get the ones that are dry and not the nice juicy ones so I just stopped buying them because I was just wasting money The frui t texture was commonly described as

PAGE 62

62 take them home and you try not good from the store External blemishes an d bruises also deterred purchasing. For peaches and tomatoes, there was a strong disconnect between appearance and taste. I bought some from a grocery store and they were all bad which was a huge disappointment because they looked good Berries were desc ribed as being too bitter and having mold, with strawberries being hollow and bland, especially the larger sized strawberries. The repurchasing of fruit after receiving a dissatisfactory fruit depended on the type of fruit. Berries, melons, and tomatoes h ad more lenient repurchasing behaviors. Consumers said they would still purchase these fruits the next week to next month ev en after receiving a bad batch. Specifically, purchasing bad tomatoes did not hinder their repurchasing and consumers would still b uy tomatoes the next trip to the grocery store. I have to have tomatoes at home Peaches and pears were the two fruits that were most dissatisfying to consumers and they were mo re stringent with their repurchasing. After purchasing unsatisfactory peaches or pears, consumers would most often wait until the following season to repurchase. Some consumers had completely stopped buying these fruits because they consistently receive d p oor quality. Home Storag e a nd Ripening Habits The storage and ripe ning practices of consumers varied greatly depending on personal preferences. Melons were generally stored on the counter and were stored in covered containers in the refrigerator once they were cut. Tomato storage was split between putting them in the refrigerator and leaving them out on the counter. The consumers who put tomatoes in the refrigerator preferred chilled fruit or thought they

PAGE 63

63 would last longer, whereas those who stored them on the counter believed they retained more flavor and were more convenient to eat the counter. Berries were stored i n the refrigerator in their original container and washed only when ready to eat. Excess berries were usually frozen. Peaches and pears were most often left on the counter and then put in the refrigerator before they went bad. Some participants said that t hey used green vegetable storage bags for their produce which slow the ripening process and allow the fruit to last longer. A few participants mentioned they did not necessarily know the proper storing methods for each fruit, but they followed what they s aw in the grocery store. Most of the consumers did not have a clear distinction between their storing and ripening practices. Tomatoes, peaches and pears were put in brown bags or near the windowsill to facilitate ripening. One consumer used a hanging to mato hammock where air could circulate the tomatoes for even ripening. Some participants were unsure if I t once I buy it? Or is it too supposed to eat them Willingness t o Pay More Consumers varied on whether they would pay more for consistently better quality fruits. Participants who were opposed to paying more said that fruits are already expensive so they would not want to pay more and wondered how better quality could be guaranteed for the extra price. Others said that they were already satisfied with the quality.

PAGE 64

64 rate [fruit] as standard Some consumers said they would grow their own fruit if the price bec rather pay a little more for something they would eat versus pay less for something and not eat it Many said they would pay a little extra, within reason, but that it might in fluence them buying less often. They would pay more for tomatoes that they ate fresh compared to tomato varieties they used for cooking. Pilot Study The pilot study survey consisted of each person taking the survey twice, seven days apart. Forty four part icipants attempted the first survey and of those 41 completed the survey. Thirty nine participants attempted the second survey with a total of 29 who completed it. The two surveys were matched by IP address and/or an identifier word of oosing, entered at the end of each survey. Some participants did not enter an identifier word or did not remember the word they chose and therefore their surveys could not be matched. Only completed surveys where the IP address and/or identifier word match ed were used for the reliability comparison. Twenty nine sets of surveys were used for the pilot study analyses. questions were considered satisfactory and not changed. There were, however, questions that had alphas lowe r than 0.7 and had to be examined further (Appendix) alpha for the question ask ing their frequency of purchase After looking at the cross tabulati ons, it was decided that the categories between purchasing intervals were too close to reliably

PAGE 65

65 When participants were asked why they chose to buy the fruit, blueberries, strawberries, honeydew and watermelon had correlation coefficients that were below 0.7. For blueberries, the fifth most important reason for purchasing had a contingency coefficie nt on the cusp of satisfactory at 0.696. The original data were cross tabulated coefficients of 0.634 and 0.558, respectively. A few people changed their responses to thes e questions re sulting in the low coefficient important reason for purchasing had a coefficient of 0.577 When the original data were cross ily requirements five of the reasons for purchasing had low coefficients. This was attributed to the small sample size of participants who purchased honeydews. Watermelon also had low contingency coefficients for the reasons for purchasing. The highest and third highest ranked reasons for purchasing watermelons wer e 0.678 and 0.651, respectively. When the original data were icients. Even though some parts of this question were below the preferred 0.7 value, the majority of the other responses for these questions were significant and so the researchers decided to keep this question for the national survey. When participants w ere asked if they purchased any type of melon, the alpha was very low, at 0.003. A cross tabulation table was set up to see why the alpha was so low. The results showed two participants changed their answer

PAGE 66

66 in the second survey and one person who did not respond in the first survey ans After looking over the would bring them to additional ques tions to answer, so they may have changed their Participants who claimed their melon purchases had decreased were asked the reason why. This question yielded a very poor alpha value ( 0.074). A cross tabulation table was run to see why the value was so obscure We attributed the poor value to the very small sample of participants who chose this option because only two respondents answered this question. Similarly, the question asking why partici pants increased their peach purchases had an alpha of 0.634. This also had a very small sample size with only two people responding to this question. At the end of the survey questions were asked about the fruits in general. Two questions had an alpha b elow 0.7 when they were asked about what their actions were when they were dissatisfied with their purchase. The first question asked if they we re dissatisfied with a purchase whether they would purchase fruit from a different store the next time they went shopping. The alpha was 0.659 and the cross tabulation showed respondents switching from disagreeing to agreeing and also changing from agreeing to disagreeing. The other question that received a low alpha score of 0.659 asked if they were dissatisfied w ith their purchase whether they waited a year/until the next season before purchasing that kind of fruit again. The cross tabulation showed that many respondents changed their answer to both agreeing and disagreeing responses.

PAGE 67

67 After evaluating all of the pilot study responses, the researchers kept the majority of the questions from the pilot study and made changes to them for clarification (Methodology, Chapter 3). National Survey or specific questions about each fruit. This was to ensure that consumers would be familiar enough with the fruit to provide valuable input. Demographics A total of 1,378 people a ttempted the national online survey ( Figure 4 1) Of those 1,378 people, 1,339 (97.2%) agreed to the consent form and proceeded to take the survey while 39 respondents (2.8%) did not agree and were not permitted to take the survey. Of the total respondents who entered the survey, 1,220 people (88.5%) completed it. Only completed surveys were used in the analysis. Most of the respondents reported being of Caucasian/white ethnicity (82.7%) and female (65.6%) (Table 4 1) Respondents in the 50 59 age group we re represented the most (28.9%) and participants in the 18 29 age group were represented the least (13.7%). Most respondents had some college education (33.7%) or graduated college (33%), while only 2.3% had only some high school education. Most people wh o completed the survey did not have children or their children did not live at home (54.4% n=658 ) ( Figure 4 2) Of the six commodities, strawberries were purchased the most with 91.6 % of consumers purchasing them, follow ed closely by tomatoes with 90.4 % ( Figure 4 3) Blueberries (70.5%) and pears (68.6%) were the commodity least purchased

PAGE 68

68 Cantaloupes (72.9 %) were the most commonly purchased melon and the specialty melons (galia, casaba, and s anta claus) were the least purchased melons (14.4 %). Tomatoes Red, round tomatoes were the most purchased tomato (74%), followed by cherry or grape tomatoes (54.8%) and r oma tomatoes (52.8%) ( Figure 4 4) Of the 1,220 participants who took the survey, 942 respondents (77.2%) purchased tomatoes at least 2 3 times pe r month ( Figure 4 5) There was a statistically significant difference among the reasons consumers purchase d tomatoes ( 2 = 1071.524, p = 0.000) (Table 4 2). The majority of participants who purchased tomatoes purchased them because they liked the taste (2 9.7%) ( Figure 4 6) When choosing a tomato to purchase, being free from defects (19.7%) was the most important selection factor. The firmness of the tomato (15.6%), the color of the tomato (13.5%), and the price (12%) were also important selection factors for tomatoes ( Figure 4 7) Twenty seven percent of consumers ranked firmness as one of their top three preferences for tomatoes ( Figure 4 8) Tomatoes that were juicy (21%) and the right color (19.7%) were also preferred attributes of tomatoes. Most consum ers were either satisfied (34.6%) or very satisfied (31.7%) with the quality of tomatoes available ( Figure 4 9) When dissatisfied with tomatoes, lacking flavor (22.5%) was ranked as the most common problem ( Figure 4 10) Tomatoes that were too soft (19.4% ) were also an important reason for dissatisfaction. Flavor (29.4%) was the most important attribute consumers wanted to improve with tomatoes ( Figure 4 11) After purchasing tomatoes, most respondents reported they expect to use the tomatoes either the d ay of purchase (47.2%) or 1 3 days after purchasing (47.6%) ( Figure 4 12) The majority of respondents (47%) reported putting tomatoes in the

PAGE 69

69 refrigerator or freezer immediately after purchasing, while 30.6% reported keeping them at room temperature and 2 2.4% of respondents stored tomatoes at room temperature and then put them in the refrigerator ( Figure 4 13) Most respondents (45.3%) claimed storing tomatoes in the refrigerator would help them last longer ( Figure 4 14) Only 20.7% stored tomatoes in the refrigerator because they preferred them cold and 14% stored them in the refrigerator only after cutting them. When storing tomatoes on the counter, the most common reason was to ripen them (33.7%) ( Figure 4 15) Others reported they prefer tomatoes room temperature (10.9%) and like the flavor better (10.4%). When asked specifically about ripening, 37.8% reported ripening tomatoes in an open container on the co unter, while 28.7% said they do not ripen the product at all ( Figure 4 16) Some participants re ported ripening tomatoes in the sun (16.7%) and in paper or special ripening bags (12.9%). Most people use d the firmness (45.5%) and color (37.7%) to determine when tomatoes were ready to eat ( Figure 4 17) Half of the people reported being satisfied with the ripened tomato product often, while 33.8% reported being satisfied only half the time ( Figure 4 18) In the last few years, 21.8% of respondents claimed to purchase more tomatoes, while 17.4% reported purchasing less ( Figure 4 19) The main reasons for increased purchasing were for health reasons (36.6%), the increased variety available now (20%), and improved flavor (17.6%) ( Figure 4 20) S ome respondents commented that they purchase d more because they cook more now or their home grown tomato crops hav e not produced good tomatoes. The main reasons for purchasing less were that the price had increased too much (53%) and they have received poor flavor in the tomatoes

PAGE 70

70 (19.5%) ( Figure 4 21) Many respondents reported growing their own tomatoes as a reason f or purchasing less. Many respondents claimed they would not pay any more than the current price for reliably better tasting tomatoes (35.4%), and 29.8% said they would pay no more than $0.25 more per pound extra ( Figure 4 22) Strawberries Of the 1,220 pa rticipants who took the survey, 712 (58.4%) purchased strawberries at least 2 3 times per month ( Figure 4 23) There was a statistically significant difference among the reasons consumers purchase d strawberries ( 2 = 1087.092, p = 0.000) (Table 4 3) Consumers ranked taste as the main reason (32.2%) they purchase strawberries ( Figure 4 24) When selecting strawberries to purchase, the absence of defects (24.6%), the color (24.5%), and price (17.8%) were the main s election factors ( Figure 4 25) Sweetness was ranked highest among the main attributes preferred in strawberries (34.6%) ( Figure 4 26). When consumers wer e dissatisfied mold (18%), lacking flavor (16.5%), and bruising (15.4%) were ranked as the most commo n reasons ( Figure 4 27) Consumers ranked mold (24.8%) and flavor (24.3%) as t he main attribute s to improve ( Figure 4 28). Overall, most consumers were either satisfied (36.3%) or very satisfied (37.8%) with the quality of strawberries available ( Figure 4 9) The majority of respondents who bought strawberr ies reported that they expect to eat them the same day they purchase them (66%) ( Figure 4 12) Most respondents (77.2%) reported storing strawberries in the refrigerator or freezer immediately after purc hasing ( Figure 4 13) The main reasons for storing them in the refrigerator were that the consumers felt the strawberries lasted longer this way (60.3%) and they preferred them cold (28%) ( Figure 4 14) A small amount of consumers reported storing

PAGE 71

71 strawbe rries on the counter because they were going to eat them right away (12.7%), they wanted them to ripen (11.2%), and they prefer red the flavor better at room temperature (4.7%) ( Figure 4 15) The majority of respondents reported purchasing about the same a mount of strawberries over the last few years, but 25% reported purchasing more and 11.9% reported purchasing less ( Figure 4 29) Health reasons (27.7%), increased availability (22%), and child preference (19.2%) were the top three reasons strawberry purch ases have increased ( Figure 4 20) Higher price (60%) was the main reason for decreased purchasing, followed by poor flavor (20%) ( Figure 4 21) A third of respondents reported they would pay no more than $0.25 more per pound for reliably better tasting st rawberries, while 29.9% said they would not pay any more ( Figure 4 30 ) Blueberries A total of 381 participants (31.2%) purchased blueberries at least 2 3 times per month ( Figure 4 31) There was a statistically significant difference among the reasons co nsumers purchased blueberries ( 2 = 449.467, p = 0.000) (Table 4 4) Taste (2 9.3%) and nutritional value/ health benefits (24.9%) were ranked as the most important reasons for purchasing blueberries ( Figure 4 32) When selecting blueberries for purchase, be ing free from defects (23.5%), color (20.5%), and price (19.3%) were ranked as the most important selection factors to consider ( Figure 4 33) Consumers most preferred blueberries that were sweet (30.8%) ( Figure 4 34) Having no flavor (17.4%) and having m old (17.3%) were ranked as the highest reasons for dissatisfaction with blueberries and were also ranked as the most important attributes to improve with 23.2% and 20.5%, respectively ( Figures 4 35 and 4 36) Overall,

PAGE 72

72 participants were satisfied (33.7%) o r very satisfied (42.2%) with the blueberries they have purchased ( Figure 4 9) Most people (66.5%) expect ed to eat blueberries the day of purchase, while 28.7% plan ned to eat them 1 3 days after purchasing ( Figure 4 12) The majority of people (78.6%) sto re d blueberries in the refrigerator or freezer immediately after purchasing ( Figure 4 13) The main reasons for storing blueberries in the refrigerator were that they lasted longer (54.9%) and they prefer them cold (29.8%) ( Figure 4 14) The majority of re spondents claim ed they do not store blueberries on the counter (56.6%) ( Figure 4 15) however others reported storing blueberries on the counter because they were going to eat them right away (14. 8%) and counter storage would ripen them (9.8%) Most respo however, 32.5% purchase more blueberries now and 8.7% purchase less now ( Figure 4 37) The top reasons for increased blueberry purchases were health reasons (45.2%), increased availability (2 1%), and better flavor (12. 9%) ( Figure 4 20) The top reason for a de crease in blueberry purchasing wa s the higher price (72.7%) ( Figure 4 21 ) Respondents said the y would be willing to pay $0.25 more per pound for reliably better tasting blueberries (30.3 %), while 30.3% said they would not pay any more ( Figure 4 38) Melons 78.6% of respondents claimed they purchased any type of melon from the supermarket ( Figure 4 39 ) Cantaloupe Almost seventy three percent of consumers purchase d cantaloupe, and 32% purchased them at least 2 3 times per month ( Figure 4 40) There was a statistically significant difference among the reasons consumers purchased cantaloupes

PAGE 73

73 ( 2 = 703.744, p = 0.000) ( Table 4 5 ) T aste (31.9%) was ranked highest among reasons that consume rs purchase d cantaloupe ( Figure 4 41) When selecting cantaloupe to purchase, smell (21.9%) and firmness (20.3%) were ranked highest among the selection factors ( Figure 4 42) Participants ranked the sweetness of cantaloupes (30.3%) as the most preferred a ttribute ( Figure 4 43) Juicy (22.5%) and the right aroma (20.3%) were also preferred attributes in cantaloupe. Consumers ranked lack of flavor (24.2%) as the most common reason for dissatisfaction ( Figure 4 44) and also as the most important attribute to improve (25.6%) ( Figure 4 45) Overall, t he majority of consumers claimed that they were either somewhat satisfied (32%) or very satisfied (32.6%) with the quality of cantaloupes they purchased at the supermarket ( Figure 4 9) Honeydew A total of 172 par ticipants (14.1%) purchased honeydew at least 2 3 times per month ( Figure 4 46) There was a statistically significant difference among the reasons consumers purchased honeydews ( 2 = 274.009, p = 0.000) (Table 4 6) Thirty one percent of participa nts ranked taste as one of the most important reasons for purchasing honeydew ( Figure 4 47) S mell (20%) and firmness (16.2%) were ranked as two of the most important selection factors wh en choosing a honeydew to purchase ( Figure 4 48) S weetness (25.3%) and juiciness (21.7%) were the most important preferences in honeydew ( Figure 4 49) When consumers were dissatisfied with honeydew, lack of flavor (22.3%) and lack of sweetness (17.6%) we re the most common problems ( Figure 4 50) F lavor (26.6%) was ranked as the most important attribute to improve in honeydew ( Figure 4 51) Most consumers claimed that they were

PAGE 74

74 either somewhat satisfied (25.3%) or very satisfied (25.1%) with the quality of honeydews purchased at the supermarket ( Figure 4 9) Watermelon A total of 310 participants (25.4%) purchased watermelon at least 2 3 times per month ( Figure 4 52) There was a statistically significant difference among the reasons consumers purchased wa termelon ( 2 = 584.346, p = 0.000) (Table 4 7) The most important reason why consumers bought watermelon was because they liked the taste (32.1%) ( Figure 4 53) highest priorities were the price (17.6%), the knockin g or tapping sound (16.2%), and the size of the melon (15.7%) ( Figure 4 54) Consumers most prefer red watermelons that were sweet (32.2%) ( Figure 4 55) When dissatisfied with watermelon, lack of flavor (22.8%) and lack of sweetness (20.3%) were ranked as the most common problems ( Figure 4 56) and were also ranked as the most important attributes to improve at 26.6% and 19.7%, respectively ( Figure 4 57) The majority of consumers claimed they were either somewhat satisfied (29.7%) or very satisfied (36.5%) with the quality of watermelon purchased at the supermarket ( Figure 4 9) Other melons A total of 55 participants (4.5%) purchased galia, casaba, or s anta claus melons at least 2 3 times per month ( Figure 4 58) Most consumers who purchased other types o f melons were either somewhat satisfied (23.2%) or very satisfied (18.3%) with the quality of specialty melons purchased at the supermarket ( Figure 4 9) The majority of consumers expect ed to eat melons either the day of purchase (42.1%) or up to three da ys after purchasing (46.1%) ( Figure 4 12) When the fruit was brought home the majority of consumers store d them in the refrigerator or freezer

PAGE 75

75 immediately (45.4%) or at room temperature and then the refrigerator (35.9%) ( Figure 4 13) The majority of con sumers store d melons in the refrigerator because they like them cold (41.5%) and 22.2% store d them there only after cutting them ( Figure 4 14) Most people did not store melons on the counter (35.4%), but 27.1% store d them on the counter to ripen them ( Fi gure 4 15) Most people d id not ripen melons at home (47.5%), while 38.3% ripen ed them in an open, uncovered container on the counter ( Figure 4 16) After cutting a melon, most people store d it covered in the refrigerator (91.1%) ( Figure 4 59) More than h alf of consumers (53.8%) were often satisfied with the ripened product and 32.9% were satisfied about half the time ( Figure 4 18) About one third (30 .1%) of consumers sometimes felt that when they purchase d under ripe melons, they rot ted before they go t a chance to eat it, while 34.5% and 28.1%, respectively, claim ed this was rarely or never the case ( Figure 4 60) In the past few years, 13.8% of consumers claim ed they purchase d more melons while 18.8% said they purchased less melons ( Figure 4 61) The m ain reasons for increased purchasing were for health reasons (28%), better flavor (14.4%), and child preference (13.6%) ( Figure 4 20) The main reasons for decreased purchasing were because of a higher price (56.7%) and poor flavor (22.8%) ( Figure 4 21) Peaches About one third (34.3%) of consumers purchased peaches at least 2 3 times per month ( Figure 4 62) There was a statistically significant difference among the reasons consumers purchased peaches ( 2 = 693.980, p = 0.000) (Table 4 8) Thirty two perc ent of consumers ranked taste as the most important reason they purchase peaches ( Figure 4 63) When selecting peaches, the firmness (26.1%) was ranked the most important selection factor ( Figure 4 64) S mell (17.3%), price (14.6%), and being

PAGE 76

76 free from def ects (14%) were also important selection factors. Peaches that are sweet (29.2%) and juicy (26.3%) were the highest preferred attributes ( Figure 4 65) When consumers were dissatisfied with peaches, lack of flavor (20.8%), hardness (15.6%), bruising (13.5% ), and inadequate ripeness (13.5%) were the most commonly ranked complaints ( Figure 4 55) Similarly, consumers ranked flavor (21.3 %), ripeness (17.3%) and bruising (15.3%) as the most important attributes to improve in peaches ( Figure 4 67) Overall, part icipants were satisfied (37.1%) or very satisfied (33.2%) with the quality of peaches in the supermarket ( Figure 4 9) The majority of consumers expect ed to consume peaches 1 3 days after purchasing (51.7%) and 37.3% of consumers expect ed to eat peaches t he day of purchase ( Figure 4 12) When peaches were brought home, 42.3% put peaches in the refrigerator or freezer immediately, 30.5% store d them at room temperature and 27.2% store d them at room temperature and then put them in the refrigerator ( Figure 4 13) The most common reasons for storing peaches in the refrigerator were a preference for cold peaches (29%) and they felt they would last longer in the refrigerator (28.8%) ( Figure 4 14) The main reasons for storing peaches on the counter were to ripen them (36.6%) and the respondents preferred them at room temperature, not chilled (16.5%) ( Figure 4 15) The majority of respondents (40.1%) ripened peaches in an open uncovered container on the counter ( Figure 4 16) and 92.3% were satisfied at least half the time with the ripened product ( Figure 4 18) More than half of peach consumers (61.4%) use d the level of firmness to determine when the peach was ready to eat ( Figure 4 17) Almost 40% of peach buyers claim ed that sometimes they purchase

PAGE 77

77 under ripe pea ches and they rot quickly, while 2.4% found this true all of the time ( Figure 4 60). Twenty one percent of peach buyers claim ed that within the last few years, they have purchase d more peaches and 12.6% claim ed they have purchase d less ( Figure 4 68) The most common reasons for increased purchases were for health reasons (24.7%), better flavor (23.6%), increased availability (21.3%) and child preference (15.7%) ( Figure 4 20) The main reasons for decreased purchases were higher price (45.3%) and poor flav or (37.7%) ( Figure 4 21) For reliably better tasting peaches, 31.5% said they would not pay any more, while 31% said they would pay only $0.25 more per pound ( Figure 4 69) Pears A total of 18.4% of participants purchased pears at least 2 3 times per mon th ( Figure 4 70) There was a statistically significant difference among the reasons consumers purchased pears ( 2 = 330.484, p = 0.000) (Table 4 9) Taste (30.9%) was ranked the most important reason that consumers purchase pears ( Figure 4 71) When selecting pears to purchase, the firmness/give (23.6%) was ranked the most important selection factor, followed by pr ice (15.7%) ( Figure 4 72) Consumers ranked juicy (25.4%) and sweet (24.2%) as the most preferred attributes in pears ( Figure 4 73) When dissatisfied with pears, the most common complaints were that they were too hard (17.7%), flavorless (17.4%), and not ripe enough (14.2%) ( Figure 7 74) The flavor (20%), being too hard (17.1%) and the ripeness (15.6%) were also ranked highest among the most important attributes to improve in pears ( Figure 4 75) Overall, 39.7% of participants were satisfied or very sati sfied (31.9%) with the quality of pears in the supermarket ( Figure 4 9)

PAGE 78

78 The majority of consumers (49.6%) expected to eat pears 1 3 days after purchasing while 34.5% expected to eat them the day of purchase ( Figure 4 12) After purchasing pears, most par ticipants store d pears in the refrigerator or freezer immediately (39.9%) ( Figure 4 13) Participants also store d pears at room temperature (32.3%) or at room temperature and then the refrigerator (27.8%). Participants who stored pears in the refrigerator claimed they liked them cold (28.7%) or felt the fruit lasted longer (26.9%) ( Figure 4 14) The majority of consumers store d pears on the counter to ripen them (36.8%) ( Figure 4 15) and 37.7% of those consumers ripen ed them in an open, uncovered container on the counter ( Figure 4 16) Almost half (46.4%) of consumers who ripened pears were satisfied often, while 28.1% were satisfied only half the time ( Figure 4 18) Most consumers used firmness (57.6%) as an indicator of when the pears were ready to eat ( F igure 4 17) Thirty two percent of pear buyers said that they have purchased under ripe pears that rot ted before they could eat them, while 21.9% sa id this was never the case ( Figure 4 60) Twenty percent of consumers who purchase d pears claim ed they buy more pears now than in the last few years, where as 12% claim ed they buy less now ( Figure 4 76) The main reasons for increased pear purchases were better flavor (24.4%), increased availability (20%), health reasons (15.6%) and child preference (15.6%) ( Fi gure 4 20) The main reasons for decreased purchasing were poor flavor (44.4%) and higher price (29.6%) ( Figure 4 21) General Information Consumers stated that a lower price (37.4%) and better taste (28.5%) were the top factors that would increase their purchasing of fresh fruit ( Figure 4 77) Fruit appearance (30.9%) and a good price (28.3%) were the two highest ranked factors that

PAGE 79

79 attract consumers to a specific fresh fruit ( Figure 4 78) The most important way for supermarkets to distinguish better qu ality fruits is to offer samples to taste (33.7%) and label the stage of ripeness (31.6%) ( Figure 4 79) Some consumers agree d that getting a good tasting fruit is just by chance (33.4%) while 25.9% disagree d ( Figure 4 80). The majority of consumers somew hat agree d (43.4%) that they only purchase a small amount of fruit at a time because sometimes When consumers were happy with a fresh fruit purchase, 70.9% somewhat or strongly agree d that they would go out of their way to purchase a product they knew would taste better ( Figure 4 81) Consumers also agree d that they would make a special trip to purchase fruit from the same store when they were satisfied (61.4%) and 44.6% agree d that they would purchase a larger quantity of fruit the next time they went shopping. When consumers were dissatisfied with a fresh fruit purchase, 44.6% either somewhat or strongly agree d that they would purchase fruit from a different store the next time they went shopping ( Figure 4 82) Fifty t wo percent of consumers agree d they would wait a couple weeks before purchasing that fruit again and 14.8% agree d they would wait until the next season to purchase the fruit. Some consumers agree d they would purchase the same fruit from the same store aft er being dissatisfied (28.2%), while 55.4% agree d they would purchase a different kind of fruit. Other consumers would purchase a non fruit snack in place of a fruit (21.1%) and 20.7% would ask the store for a refund or to replace the bad fruit.

PAGE 80

80 Most con sumers thought that health professionals advise 2 3 cups (26.6%) or 4 5 cups (26.5%) of fruits and vegetables per day, while 29.4% did not know the fruit and vegetable recommendations ( Figure 4 83) Consumers are interested in information on fruit nutritio n and health benefits (64.6%), how to select fruit (70.2%), how to ripen fruit at home (62.5%), how to store fruit (70.7%), how to wash fruit (50.4%), and how to use fruit (55%) ( Figure 4 84) To obtain this information, consumers are most interested in co mmunication through a take home flyer (29.7%), the I nternet (29.6%), and in store signs (29%) ( Figure 4 85) Bivariate Analyses ANOVAs were run between the purchasing frequency of the fruits and age groups, education levels, and if consumers have children living at home used to assess the homogeneity of variances (an assumption for ANOVA). If the used as an alternative, which can test for differen ces in the means if the variances are Howell test were the post hoc analyses for ANOVA and Welch tests, respectively. There was a statistically significant difference between age and frequency of purchasing blueberrie s (F = 2.622, p = 0.033). Tests revealed that consumers aged 30 39 years purchased blueberries on average, more frequently than consumers aged 40 49 years. A significant difference was also found between age and the frequency of purchasing cantaloupes (F = 2.504, p = 0.041) and watermelon (F = 3.989, p = 0.003). Consumers aged 60 years and older purchased cantaloupes more frequently than consumers between the ages of 18 29 On average, c onsumers aged 30 39 years purchased watermelon more frequently than con sumers aged 50 59 years. There was a

PAGE 81

81 statistically significant difference between age and frequency of purchasing specialty melons (Welch = 9.621 p = 0.000). Post hoc tests revealed consumers 18 29 years purchased specialty melons more frequently than con sumers 60 years and older and consumers between 30 39 years purchased them more frequently than consumers who were 40 49 years and 50 59 years. There was a statistically significant difference between education level and frequency of purchasing blueberri es (Welch = 5.817 p = 0.000). Post hoc tests revealed that consumers who had post graduate educa tion purchased blueberries, on average, more frequently than consumers who had either some high school or a high school graduate. Additionally, c onsumers who h ad graduated college had, on average, a higher purchasing frequency than those who were a high school graduate. Analyses revealed a difference between education and purchasing honeydews (Welch = 3.174 p = 0.016), in particular, consumers who had post grad uate education purchased them more frequently than high school graduates. A difference was also found between education and the purchasing of specialty melons (Welch = 4.120 p = 0.004). Post hoc tests revealed consumers with post graduate education purch ased them, on average, more frequently th an high school graduates. Analyses also revealed a significant difference between education and pear purchasing frequency (Welch = 4.120 p = 0.003). Further testing revealed that consumers who had graduated college purchased pears, on average, more frequently than high school graduates and consumers with some colleg e education. There was a significant difference between consumers who had kids and consumers who did not have kids in the purchasing frequency of tomato es (Welch =

PAGE 82

82 17.492 p = 0.000), strawberries (Welch = 61.583 p = 0.000), blueberries (Welch = 8.800 p = 0.003), cantaloupe (Welch = 32.401 p = 0.000), honeydew (F = 6.618, p = 0.010), watermelon (Welch = 51.555 p = 0.000), other melons (Welch = 12.718 p = 0.000), peaches (F = 24.908, p = 0.000), pears (Welch = 19.143 p = 0.000). The means revealed that consumers with kids at home purchased, on average, all of the above listed fruits more frequently than consumers without kids at home. Because there we re only two groups being compared (kids versus no kids), post hoc tests were not performed.

PAGE 83

83 Figure 4 1. Flow chart of the participants who attempted and completed the national online study. Table 4 1. Demographic characteristics of the national sur vey participants Demographics N Percent (%) Gender (n = 1,213) Male 417 34.4 Female 796 65.6 Ethnicity (n=1,218) American Indian or Alaska Native 6 0.5 Asian 48 3.9 Black or African American 103 8.5 Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Isl ander 1 0.1 Hispanic or Latino 53 4.4 Caucasian/White 1,007 82.7 Age (n=1,216) 18 29 years 166 13.7 30 39 years 220 18.1 40 49 years 244 20.1 50 59 years 351 28.9 60 years or older 235 19.3 Education (n=1,215) Some high school 28 2 .3 High school graduate 268 22.1 Some college 409 33.7 Graduated college 401 33.0 Post graduate 109 9.0

PAGE 84

84 Figure 4 2. Frequency of consumers who have children living at home. Figure 4 3. Percentage of consumers who purchase fruit at least a fe w times a year from the supermarket.

PAGE 85

85 Figure 4 4. National survey participants who purchase each kind of tomato. Figure 4

PAGE 86

86 Table 4 A) Mean ranks of choices. The smaller the number signifies a higher ranking. B) Test statistic for mean rankings. Mean Rank I like the taste 1.59 I buy them for another member in my household 3.89 Because of the nutritional value/health benefits 2.61 To meet my daily fruit requirements 3.63 For a specific use or recipe 3.27 A Test Statistics N 788 Chi Square 1071.524 Df 4 Asymp. Sig. .000 B Figure 4 6. Percent of the combined weighted rankings of the reasons why consumers purchase tomat oes.

PAGE 87

87 Figure 4 priorities when selecting tomatoes to purchase. Figure 4 preferences for tomato attri butes.

PAGE 88

88 Figure 4 9. How satisfied consumers are with the quality of fresh fruit they have purchased at the supermarket. Figure 4 10 Percent of the combined weighted rankings common reasons for dissatisfaction with tomatoes.

PAGE 89

89 Figure 4 important attributes to improve in tomatoes. Figure 4 12. Length of time consumers expect to wait to eat each fruit after purchasing.

PAGE 90

90 Figure 4 13. Temperatures that consumers store fresh fruit after purchasing. Figure 4 14. Reasons why consumers store fruit in the refrigerator.

PAGE 91

91 Figure 4 15. Reasons why consumers store each fruit on the counter. Figure 4 16. Locations and methods where consumers ripen toma toes, strawberries, melons, peaches and pears.

PAGE 92

92 Figure 4 17. How consumers decide when tomatoes, melons, peaches, and pears are ready to eat. Figure 4 18. How often consumers are satisfied with the ripened tomato, melon, peach, and pear products.

PAGE 93

93 Figure 4 buy changed in the last few years Figure 4 20. Reasons purchasing habits of tomatoes, strawberries, blueberries, melons, peaches, and pears have increased.

PAGE 94

94 Figur e 4 21. Reasons purchasing habits of fruits have decreased. Figure 4 22. How much more, per pound, consumers would be willing to pay for reliably better tasting tomatoes.

PAGE 95

95 Figure 4 Table 4 3. Fr ranks of choices. The smaller the number signifies a higher ranking. B) Test statistic for mean rankings. Mean Rank I like the taste 1.29 I buy them for another member in my househo ld 3.52 Because of the nutritional value/health benefits 2.75 To meet my daily fruit requirements 3.40 For a specific use or recipe 4.04 A Test Statistics N 606 Chi Square 1087.092 Df 4 Asymp. Sig. .000 B

PAGE 96

96 Figure 4 24. Percent of the comb ined weighted rankings of the reasons why consumers purchase strawberries. Figure 4 priorities when selecting strawberries to purchase.

PAGE 97

97 Figure 4 26. Percent of the combined w preferences for strawberry attributes. Figure 4 common reasons for dissatisfaction with strawberries.

PAGE 98

98 Figure 4 28. Percent of the co important attributes to improve in strawberries. Figure 4 you buy changed in the last few years

PAGE 99

99 Figure 4 30. How much more, per 16 oz package, consumers would be willing to pay for reliably better tasting strawberries. Figure 4

PAGE 100

100 Table 4 ranks of choices. The smaller the number signifies a higher ranking. B) Test statistic for mean rankings. Mean Rank I like the taste 1.74 I buy them for another member in my household 3.52 Because of the nutritional value/health benefits 2.34 To meet my daily fruit requirements 3.35 For a specific use or recipe 4.05 A Test Statistics N 319 Chi Square 449.467 Df 4 Asymp. Sig. .000 B Figure 4 32. Percent of the combined weighted rankings of the reasons why consumers purchase blueberries.

PAGE 101

101 Figure 4 priorities when selecting blueberries to purchase Figure 4 preferences for blueberry attributes.

PAGE 102

102 Fi gure 4 common reasons for dissatisfaction with blueberries. Figure 4 important attributes to improve in blueber ries.

PAGE 103

103 Figure 4 you buy changed in the last few years Figure 4 38. How much more, per pint, consumers would be willing to pay for reliably better tasting blueberries.

PAGE 104

104 Fig u re 4 39 Percentage of consumers who purchase melons of any type from the supermarket. Figure 4

PAGE 105

105 Table 4 ranks of choices The smaller the number signifies a higher ranking. B) Test statistic for mean rankings. Mean Rank I like the taste 1.31 I buy them for another member in my household 3.33 Because of the nutritional value/health benefits 2.68 To meet my daily fruit requirements 3.21 For a specific use or recipe 4.47 A Test Statistics N 335 Chi Square 703.744 Df 4 Asymp. Sig. .000 B Figure4 41. Percent of the combined weighted rankings of the reasons why consumers purchase cantaloupe.

PAGE 106

106 Figure 4 42. Pe priorities when selecting cantaloupes to purchase. Figure 4 preferences for cantaloupe attributes.

PAGE 107

107 Figure 4 common reasons for dissatisfaction with cantaloupes. Figure 4 important attributes to improve in cantaloupe

PAGE 108

108 Figure 4 Table 4 ranks of choices. The smaller the number signifies a higher ranking. B) Test statistic for mean rankings. M ean Rank I like the taste 1.48 I buy them for another member in my household 3.12 Because of the nutritional value/health benefits 2.74 To meet my daily fruit requirements 3.23 For a specific use or recipe 4.43 A Test Statistics N 152 Chi Square 274.009 Df 4 Asymp. Sig. .000 B

PAGE 109

109 Figure 4 47. Percent of the combined weighted rankings of the reasons why consumers purchase honeydew. Figure 4 priorities when selecting honeydews to purchase.

PAGE 110

110 Figure 4 preferences for honeydew attributes. Figure 4 common reasons for diss atisfaction with honeydews.

PAGE 111

111 Figure 4 important attributes to improve in honeydews. Figure 4

PAGE 112

112 Table 4 lts for why consumers purchase watermelon. A) Mean ranks of choices. The smaller the number signifies a higher ranking. B) Test statistic for mean rankings. Mean Rank I like the taste 1.30 I buy them for another member in my household 3.12 Because of the nutritional value/health benefits 2.77 To meet my daily fruit requirements 3.27 For a specific use or recipe 4.53 A Test Statistics N 273 Chi Square 584.346 Df 4 Asymp. Sig. .000 B Figure 4 53. Percent of the combined weighted rankings of the reasons why consumers purchase watermelon.

PAGE 113

113 Figure 4 priorities when selecting watermelon to purchase. Figure 4 55. Percent of the combined weighted rankings for consumer preferences for watermelon attributes.

PAGE 114

114 Figure 4 common reasons for dissatisfaction with watermelon. Figure 4 57. Percent of the combined weighted rankings for co important attributes to improve in watermelon.

PAGE 115

115 Figure 4 Figure 4 59. Where consumers store melons after they have been cut.

PAGE 116

116 Figure 4 60. When purchased under ripe, how often consumers claim melons, peaches, and pears go bad before they get a chance to eat them. Figure 4 buy changed in the last few years

PAGE 117

117 Figure 4 62. Consumer Table 4 ranks of choices. The smaller the number signifies a higher ranking. B) Test statistic for mean rankings. Mean Rank I like the taste 1.3 1 I buy them for another member in my household 3.26 Because of the nutritional value/health benefits 2.79 To meet my daily fruit requirements 3.29 For a specific use or recipe 4.35 A Test Statistics N 354 Chi Square 693.980 Df 4 Asymp. Sig. .00 0 B

PAGE 118

118 Figure 4 63. Percent of the combined weighted rankings of the reasons why consumers purchase peaches. Figure 4 priorities when selecting peaches to purchase.

PAGE 119

119 Figu re 4 preferences for peach attributes. Figure 4 common reasons for dissatisfaction with peaches.

PAGE 120

120 Figure 4 important attributes to improve in peaches. Figure 4 buy changed in the last few years

PAGE 121

121 Figure 4 69. H ow much more, per pound, consumers would be willing to pay for reliably better tasting peaches. Figure 4

PAGE 122

122 Table 4 choices. The smaller the number signifies a higher ranking. B) Test statistic for mean rankings. Mean Rank I like the taste 1.47 I buy them for another member in my household 3.19 Because of the nutritional value/health benefits 2.70 To meet my daily fruit r equirements 3.31 For a specific use or recipe 4.33 A Test Statistics N 191 Chi Square 330.484 Df 4 Asymp. Sig. .000 B Figure 4 71. Percent of the combined weighted rankings of the reasons why consumers purchase pears.

PAGE 123

123 Figure 4 72. Percent priorities when selecting pears to purchase. Figure 4 preferences for pear attributes.

PAGE 124

124 Figure 4 74. Percent of common reasons for dissatisfaction with pears. Figure 4 important attributes to improve in pears.

PAGE 125

125 Figure 4 76. Consumers changed in the last few years Figure 4 important factors that would encourage them to buy more fresh fruit.

PAGE 126

126 Figure 4 78. Percent of the combined weighted rankings for factors that attract consumers to fruit in the supermarket. Figure 4 79. Percent of the combined weighted rankings how consumers request supermarkets to distinguish better quality fruits.

PAGE 127

127 Figure 4 80. Consumers perceptions and actions on purchasing fruit. Figure 4

PAGE 128

128 Figure 4Figure 4-83. How many 8 oz (1 cup) servings of fruits and vegetables consumers think are advised to eat daily.

PAGE 129

129 Figure 4 84. How interested consumers are on information about fruit. Figure 4 85. Communication methods that consumers would like to receive information about fruits on.

PAGE 130

130 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION desired attributes and their purchasing and storage behaviors of high value specialty crops. Through the use of focus groups and a nationa l online survey, we aimed to collect a robust representation of what consumers want in their produce. In addition to the six research objectives we explored, two hypotheses were proposed: Hypothesis 1: The flavor of high value specialty crops is the major factor that determines consumer purchasing. Hypothesis 2: Consumers do not practice the proper storage and ripening procedures at home which leads to their disposal and waste. Summary of Key Findings Reasons for Purchasing Fruit The pattern of responses for why consumers purchase fruits was almost identical for each fruit. Liking the taste of the fruit was the most important reason for purchasing and the nut ritional aspects/health benefit was ranked second. Purchasing the fruit for another family member and meeting their daily fruit requirements were closely ranked behind nutrition. However, many consumers claim they do not know the amount of fruits and vegetables they should be consuming. Purchasing the fruit for a specific recipe was the last ranked rea son for all the fruits except tomatoes, where it was ranked third. Tomatoes may have been ranked higher because they are often used as a main component in many recipes as opposed to the other fruits that may be eaten alone as a snack or used as a garnish. These results verify our hypothesis that fruit taste is the most important reason for purchasing fruits. For all fruits studied in this survey, taste was ranked as the most

PAGE 131

131 important reason for purchasing the fruit. Additionally, consumers mentioned vario us the most common characteristic of dissatisfaction. Better flavor was also a popular reason why consumers have increased their purchasing habits. Consumers ha ve made it clear that the taste and flavor of the fruit is a vital reason for purchasing. Providing consistently better tasting fruit to consumers can potentially increase their consumption. Factors When Selecting Fruit to Purchase When selecting fruit to purchase, the majority of consumers considered visual and physical signs of quality as the most important selection factors. The firmness of the fruit, which is an indicator of its stage of ripeness, was consistently ranked as an important selection facto r. Fruit that is too soft tends to be over ripened or decayed and can be a sign of poor quality. The color of the fruit and the absence of defects were also parameters of quality important to the consumer. The color can provide insight into the level of ri peness and flavor of the fruit, while the presence of defects could compromise the taste, texture, or overall quality of the fruit. Aroma was also an important selection factor for melons and peaches because these fruits have a sweeter smell when ripe Pri ce was an important consideration when purchasing fruit. Consumers claimed a higher price deterred purchasing while a lower price increased their purchasing. Attributes of an Ideal Fruit Taste properties were most commonly used to describe the perfect fru it, and in particular, consumers considered sweetness the most important attribute. The aroma, which is closely associated with the flavor of the fruit, was also a necessary attribute, especially with melons, peaches, and pears. The juiciness, a textural p roperty, was also highly important to consumers.

PAGE 132

132 Many consumers are satisfied with the current fresh fruit available at the supermarket. However, they feel that getting a good tasting fruit is just by chance. Consumers will go out of their way to buy the fruit they know will taste better and will make a special trip to purchase more of the fruit from the same store. However, when they are dissatisfied with a fruit purchase, consumers will abruptly change their purchasing habits. They will wait a few weeks before purchasing the same kind of fruit and may purchase a different fruit the next time. It is important to provide consistent quality fruits so that consumers continue to purchase and consume the fruit. Reasons for Dissatisfaction When Expectations Are Not Met improve. They want fruits that are sweet, juicy, and have a pleasant aroma. However, they find that the fruit is often flavorless, not sweet, not ripe enough, either too soft or too hard, and have defects such as bruises or mold. The stage of ripeness could be a possible cause for these problems. Fruit that is not ripe enough may be hard, not sweet, and flavorless because their flavors have not completely developed ye t Conversely, fruit that is too ripe may be too soft and develop bruises and defects. Obtaining fruit at its optimal stage of ripening is an important factor that can determine the quality. Educating consumers on specific indicators to look for when sele cting fruits, such as visual cues to the stage of ripe ness and quality, could result in consumers selecting better quality fruits and ultimately increase their satisfaction There should be a collaborative effort between producers, grocers and extension s pecialists to educate consumers on selection methods Damage during the shipping and handling of the fruit could also produce less than ideal quality. Knowing the important quality factors

PAGE 133

133 consumers require for satisfactory fruit can help growers and harve sters tailor their methods to produce the quality attributes consumers are looking for. Home Storage and Ripening Habits This research objective addressed our second hypothesis that consumers do not practice proper home storage and ripening procedures whi ch leads to disposal and waste. Most consumers stored berries in the refrigerator. Berries have non climacteric properties and are already ripe when harvested, therefore refrigerator storage will provide satisfactory berries. Tomatoes, peaches, and pears, because of their climacteric characteristics, need to be ripened further after harvesting to reach their peak flavor. However, most consumers store these fruit s in the refrigerator immediately after purchasing, which has been shown to alter the flavor ( 174) Consumers feel the fruit will last longer while refrigerated, however, undesirable flavor and texture changes due to premature refrigeration can cause dissatisfaction with fruit and warrant disposal of it. The main reason consumers stored fruit on the counter was to ripen them. Others preferred the fruit to be room temperature (not chilled), and there was a small percentage who preferred the flavor this way. When consumers ripened tomatoes, melons, peaches and pears at home, the majority left them in an uncovered container on the counter. This is the correct method to ensure proper and even ripening. Some consumers ripened tomatoes in the sun, which can cause uneven ripening. Consumers also used paper bags or special green bags to ripen these fruits Storage in paper bags facilitates ripening while special green bags are designed to absorb the ethylene gas to allow the fruit to last longer Most consumers were satisfied with their ripened product and used visual and physical qualities such as firmne ss, color, and odor to determine

PAGE 134

134 when the fruit was ready to eat. However, many consumers claimed they did not know how to tell when the fruit was ready and they would take a chance and guess. Consumers seem to know the correct storage procedures for ber ries. However, putting tomatoes, melons, peaches and pears in the refrigerator before they are ripe can result in unsatisfactory fruit for the consumer. Consumers expect to eat fruit during the first three days of purchasing them. However, since they inco rrectly store climacteric fruits in the refrigerator, the fruits do not develop to their full flavor potential which results in poor flavor. Attempts should be made to educate the consumers on the proper storage and ripening practices so they can attain a cceptable produce at home. Producers and grocers can develop a positive rapport with consumers if they make an effort to not only provide them with satisfactory fruit, but also educate them on proper selection and storage techniques. This can result in con sumers being pleased with their purchases and the producers and grocers benefiting from increased purchasing and content customers Willingness to Pay More purchasing habits have i ncreased, the main reason was for the health benefits that fruits offer. Better tasting fruits and the increased availability were also reasons for increased purchasing. The main reason for decreased purchasing was high price. Some consumers claim they wil l pay a maximum of $0.25 more per pound for better tasting fruit, while others report they do not want to pay any more for fruit. Therefore, efficient means must be used when modifying the produce to ensure they remain affordable

PAGE 135

135 Bivariate Analyses There was not a large difference between purchasing frequency and age groups except with blueberries and melons. In most cases, younger consumers had a higher purchasing frequency than older consumers. Similarly, consumers with children living at home had highe r purchasing frequencies than consumers without children living at home. Younger people tend to have children and family living at home, and therefore more people in their household to feed which could result in more frequent purchasing Education is also an indicator of purchasing frequency of specialty crops. Consumers with more education generally averaged purchasing fruits more frequently than consumers with less education. Co nsumers who are more educated could be more aware of the nutritional benefits that fruit provide. Additionally, consumers with more education may have a higher household income and therefore can afford to purchase fruit more often. Conclusion The findings of this study add to the literature on high value specialty crops. This comp rehensive study focused on areas of dissatisfaction and areas needing improvement which p rovide s valuable insight into what consumers want. Many consumers seem satisfied with the current quality of high value specialty crops offered at the supermarket. Ho wever, they have also stated many areas needing improvement. One area in particular was the flavor of the fruit. Not only was flavor a main reason for purchasing, but lack of flavor was reported as a common problem. Therefore, in addition to the other fact ors mentioned for improvement, emphasis should be placed on achieving good fruit flavor.

PAGE 136

136 Poor quality fruit may be the result of producer handling, consumer handling, and a combination of the two. The produce industry needs to use this information to alte r their processes so they can deliver the flavor and quality that consumers want. This also brings up the opportunity to educate consumers on selection and storage practices. Knowledge of how to select fruit based on the stage of ripeness, as well as home storage and ripening techniques that can offer optimal flavor and texture, can have an impact on fruit satisfaction to the consumer. The producers can take action to help educate consumers on selection and storage practices. Fruits that are packaged, such as berries, or whole fruit such as melons, can have labels or stickers with home storage information. The convenience of proper storage techniques for the specific fruit s they purchase. In addition, the produce industry can also provide refrigerator magnets for consumers containing the proper home storage methods. Refrigerator magnets will provide a convenient way to keep the information organized and provide easy access to the information near fruit storage areas in the home. The grocers can also play an important role in helping the consumers with proper selection and storage techniques. The grocers can provide signs near each fruit describing selection techniques and w ays to distinguish between the ripeness levels of the fruits. These signs should have pictures to aid the consumers and be concise for easy reading. Having the signs near the fruit would be convenient for the consumers to see the proper selection technique s while they are selecting them to purchase. In addition, the signs should also have the proper home storage instructions to teach

PAGE 137

137 consumers the proper method of home storage. Take home cards containing the selection and storage information could also be a vailable ne xt to the fruit for consumers to take home with them Supermarkets should also ensure that their produce department employees are knowledg eable about selection and storage practices so that they can assist customers and answer questions. Grocery stores could also periodically pro vide mini workshops to customers These workshops would have knowledg e able personnel teaching consumers the selection and storage methods to customers There are also many ways to educate consumers in the community. Coop erative E xtension offices can provide information to consumers about the selection, storage, and ripening procedures of fruits through their various outreach programs This information can be distributed in pamphlets and on the Internet G overnment program s, such as Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) can provide information through education materials such as pamphlets to the participants. In addition, classes in schools such as home economics or health classes could also provide information about these techniques. This method will educate the children and provide written materials that students can share with their families. Consumers with children at home purchase d fruit more frequently than consumers without children. It is important to establish heal thy eating habits in children so that they can continue with those behaviors when they get older. Education was also a strong determinant of purchasing frequency. There may be an educational gap in obtaining the information for nutritional requirements and benefits Ma ny participants in this study claimed to not know the recommended dietary guidelines. This presents another opportunity to educate consumers about the nutritional benefits and the importance of a

PAGE 138

138 healthy, balanced diet rich in fruits and veget ables. Individuals with more education may have a higher income and can afford to purchase fruit more often. Therefore special care should be taken to keep the costs of produce down so that all consumers can afford to eat healthy. This study highlights m any areas for improvement and education for both the produce industry and consumers. Implementing these changes can result in higher satisfaction for consumers and ultimately result in increased consumption. Limitations There were some limitations to this study that must be mentioned. The length of the survey was rather long, estimated to be between 20 30 minutes and was mentioned in the consent form before participants entered the survey. This may have caused some people to not start or some people to not complete the survey because of time const raints. We do not know if they differ from the people who did complete the survey. The survey was set up so that if the consumer purchased a fruit frequently, they would continue to answer a set of questions abo ut that fruit. Consumers may have realized this and not answered completely truthfully to shorten the survey time. A sampling firm was used to recruit participants for the survey. It was a random sample, but sampling might have been biased towards consumer s who have I nternet access and may not completely reflect those who do not. Finally, this survey relied on self reported behaviors. These behaviors may or may not affect the actual behaviors of the participants.

PAGE 139

139 APPENDIX A INSTRUMENTATION Informed Consen t Letter for Focus Groups

PAGE 140

140

PAGE 141

141 Focus Group Questions

PAGE 142

142

PAGE 143

143

PAGE 144

144

PAGE 145

145 Informed Consent Letter for Online Survey

PAGE 146

146 APPENDIX B SELECTED PILOT STUDY ANALYSES Table B Table B 2. Crosstabulation of the re coded data for the fifth most important reason for purchasing blueberries. Survey 2 Total No answer Taste Family Daily Req. Recipe Survey 1 No answ er 13 2 1 1 2 19 Family 0 0 4 0 0 4 Recipe 0 0 2 0 3 5 Total Correlation co efficient: 0.696 13 2 7 1 5 28 Table B 3. Crosstabulation of the rankings of the reason for purchasing blueberries for S urvey 2 Total 2 3 4 5 Survey 1 3 1 5 0 1 7 4 0 1 3 0 4 Total Correlation co efficient 0.634 1 6 3 1 11 Fruit Cronbach's Alpha Blueberries 016 Strawberries .019 Peaches .015 Pears .011

PAGE 147

147 Table B 4. Crosstabulation for the rankings of the reason for purchasing blueberries for Survey 2 Total 3 4 5 Survey 1 3 3 1 0 4 4 0 2 1 3 5 1 3 2 6 Total Correlation Co efficient 0.558 4 6 3 13 Table B 5. Crosstabulation of the re coded data for the most important reason for purchasing strawberries. Survey 2 Total No answer Taste F amily Survey 1 No answer 3 3 1 7 Taste 0 15 1 16 Family 0 1 1 2 Total Correlation Co efficient 0.577 3 19 3 25 Table B 6. Crosstabulation for the rankings of the reason for purchasing strawberries for Surve y 2 Total 1 2 Survey 1 1 18 0 18 2 1 3 4 Total Correlation Co efficient 0.645 19 3 22

PAGE 148

148 Table B 7. Crosstabulation for the rankings of the reason for purchasing strawberries for Survey 2 Total 2 3 4 5 Survey 1 2 5 4 1 0 10 3 1 4 2 0 7 4 0 1 1 1 3 5 0 0 0 1 1 Total Correlation Co efficient 0.673 6 9 4 2 21 Table B 8. Crosstabulation for the rankings of the reason for purchasing strawberries for Survey 2 Total 2 3 4 5 Survey 1 2 1 1 0 0 2 3 1 2 3 0 6 4 2 1 6 1 10 5 0 0 1 1 2 Total Correlation Co efficient 0.554 4 4 10 2 20 Table B 9. Crosstabulation for rankings of the reason for purchasing strawberries for the answer cho Survey 2 Total 2 3 4 5 Survey 1 3 1 3 1 0 5 4 0 3 3 0 6 5 0 1 1 6 8 Total Correlation Co efficient 0.668 1 7 5 6 19

PAGE 149

149 Table B 10. Crosstabulation with re coded data of the most important reasons for purchasing ho neydews. Survey 2 Total No answer Taste Family Survey 1 No answer 9 3 2 14 Taste 4 0 0 4 Family 1 0 0 1 Nutrition 1 0 0 1 Total Correlation Co efficient 0.354 15 3 2 20 Table B 11. Crosstabulation with re coded data of t he second most impo rtant reasons for purchasing honeydews. Survey 2 Total No answer Taste Family Nutrition Survey 1 No answer 9 1 2 2 14 Taste 2 0 0 0 2 Family 1 0 0 0 1 Nutrition 3 0 0 0 3 Total Correlation Co efficient 0.354 15 1 2 2 20 Table B 12. Crosstab ulation with re coded data for the third most important reason for purchasing honeydews. Survey 2 Total No answer Taste Nutrition Daily Req. Recipe Survey 1 No answer 9 1 2 1 1 14 Family 1 0 0 0 0 1 Daily Req. 5 0 0 0 0 5 Total Correlation Co ef ficient 0.354 15 1 2 1 1 20

PAGE 150

150 Table B 13. Crosstabulation with re coded data for the fourth most important reason for purchasing honeydews. Survey 2 Total No answer Daily Req. Recipe Survey 1 No answer 10 3 1 14 Family 3 0 0 3 Nutrition 2 0 0 2 Daily Req. 1 0 0 1 Total Correlation Co efficient 0.311 16 3 1 20 Table B 14. Crosstabulation with re coded data for the fifth most important reason for purchasing honeydews. Survey 2 Total No answer Nutrition Recipe Survey 1 No answer 11 1 2 14 Recipe 6 0 0 6 Total Correlation Co efficient 0.265 17 1 2 20 Table B 15. Crosstabulation with re coded data for the most important reason for purchasing watermelon. Survey 2 Total No answer Taste Family Nutrition Daily Req. Survey 1 No answer 10 1 0 1 0 12 Taste 4 6 1 0 1 12 Family 1 0 3 0 0 4 Total Correlation Co efficient 0.678 15 7 4 1 1 28

PAGE 151

151 Table B 16. Crosstabulation with re coded data for the hird most important reason for purchasing watermelon. Survey 2 Total No answer Taste Family Nutrition Daily Req. Recipe Survey 1 No answer 10 0 0 1 1 0 12 Nutrition 4 0 0 3 0 0 7 Daily Req. 0 1 1 2 2 1 7 Recipe 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 Total Correlation Co efficient 0.651 15 1 1 7 3 1 28 Table B 17. Crosstabulation for the ranking s of the reason for purchasing watermelon Survey 2 Total 1 2 3 Survey 1 1 6 1 1 8 2 0 3 0 3 4 1 0 0 1 Total Correlation Co efficient 0.640 7 4 1 12 Table B 18. Crosstabulation for the rankings of the reason for purchasing watermelon Survey 2 Total 2 3 5 Survey 1 2 3 1 0 4 3 0 3 0 3 4 1 2 1 4 Total Correlation Co efficient 0.607 4 6 1 11

PAGE 152

152 Table B 19. Crosstabulation for the rankings of the reason for purchasing watermelon Survey 2 Total 3 4 5 Survey 1 3 0 1 0 1 4 0 1 0 1 5 1 1 7 9 Total Correlation Co efficient 0.610 1 3 7 11 Table B 20. Crosstabulation for p urchase any m elon Survey 2 Total Y es N o Survey 1 Y es 23 2 25 N o 0 3 3 N o response 0 1 1 Total Correlation Co efficient 0.617 23 6 29 Table B 21. Crosstabulation with re coded data for responses for reasons why melon purchases have decreased over recent years. Survey 2 Total Poor flavor No R esponse Survey 1 Poor flavor 0 1 1 No R esponse 1 27 28 Total Correlation Co efficient 0.074 1 28 29

PAGE 153

153 Table B 22. Crosstabulation for the r esponses for reasons why peach purchases have increased over recent y ears. Survey 2 Total Other Health no response Survey 1 Other 1 0 1 2 no response 0 1 26 27 Total Correlation Co efficient 0.634 1 1 27 29 Table B 23. Crosstabulation for the responses for if participants are dissatisfied with a fruit purchase, t hey go to a different store the next time they purchase it. Table B 24. Crosstabulation for responses for if participants are dissatisfied with a fruit purch ase, they go to a different store the next time they purchase it. Survey 2 Total Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neutral Somewhat agree N o response Survey 1 Strongly disagree 9 3 2 0 0 14 Somewhat disagree 1 1 2 0 0 4 Neutral 0 3 0 1 0 4 S omewhat agree 1 0 1 0 0 2 Strongly agree 0 1 1 0 0 2 N o response 0 1 0 1 1 3 Total Correlation Co efficient 0.714 11 9 6 2 1 29 Survey 2 Total Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neutral Somewhat agree Strongly agree No R esponse Survey 1 Strongly disagree 1 2 1 0 0 0 4 Somewhat disagree 0 1 2 0 1 0 4 Neutral 1 0 3 0 0 0 4 Somewhat agree 1 1 4 4 0 0 10 Strongly agree 0 1 0 2 1 0 4 No R esponse 0 0 1 1 0 1 3 Total Correlation Co efficient 0.659 3 5 11 7 2 1 29

PAGE 154

154 APPENDIX C BIVARIATE ANALYSES OF SELECTED VARIABLES Table C 1. Descriptives for frequency of purchasing blueberries and age of consumer. N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Minimum Maximum Lower Bound Upper Bound 18 to 29 years 166 3.14 1.201 .093 2.95 3.32 1 5 30 to 39 years 220 2.85 1.270 .086 2.69 3.02 1 5 40 to 49 years 244 3.2 3 1.297 .083 3.06 3.39 1 5 50 to 59 years 351 3.10 1.276 .068 2.97 3.23 1 5 60 years or older 235 3.09 1.306 .085 2.92 3.26 1 5 Total 1216 3.08 1.278 .037 3.01 3.16 1 5 Table C 2. Test of homogeneity of variances for frequency of purchasing blueberri es and age of consumer. Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig. .818 4 1211 .514 Table C 3. ANOVA for frequency of purchasing blueberries and age of consumer. Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Between Groups 17.050 4 4.262 2.622 .033 Within Groups 1968.39 5 1211 1.625 Total 1985.444 1215

PAGE 155

155 Table C 4. Post hoc comparisons for frequency of purchasing blueberries and age of consumer. (I) Which of the following best describes your age? (J) Which of the following best describes your age? Mean Difference (I J) Std. Error Sig. 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound Tukey HSD 18 to 29 years 30 to 39 years .284 .131 .193 .07 .64 40 to 49 years .087 .128 .961 .44 .26 50 to 59 years .039 .120 .998 .29 .37 60 years or ol der .049 .129 .996 .30 .40 30 to 39 years 18 to 29 years .284 .131 .193 .64 .07 40 to 49 years .371 .119 .015 .69 .05 50 to 59 years .245 .110 .167 .54 .05 60 years or older .235 .120 .285 .56 .09 40 to 49 years 18 to 29 years .087 .128 .961 .26 .44 30 to 39 years .371 .119 .015 .05 .69 50 to 59 years .126 .106 .761 .16 .42 60 years or older .136 .117 .770 .18 .45 50 to 59 years 18 to 29 years .039 .120 .998 .37 .29 30 to 39 years .245 .110 .167 .05 .54 40 to 49 years .126 .106 .761 .42 .16 60 years or older .010 .107 1.000 .28 .30 60 years or older 18 to 29 years .049 .129 .996 .40 .30 30 to 39 years .235 .120 .285 .09 .56 40 to 49 years .136 .117 .770 .45 .18 50 to 59 years .010 .107 1. 000 .30 .28 The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level

PAGE 156

1 56 Table C 5. Descriptives for frequency of purchasing cantaloupes and age of consumer Table C 6. Test of homogeneity of variances for frequency of purchasing cantaloupes and age of consumer Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig. 1.451 4 952 .215 Table C 7. ANOVA for frequency of purchas ing cantaloupes and age of consumer. Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Between Groups 8.202 4 2.050 2.504 .041 Within Groups 779.418 952 .819 Total 787.620 956 N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Minimum Maximum Low er Bound Upper Bound 18 to 29 years 115 2.82 .942 .088 2.64 2.99 1 5 30 to 39 years 166 2.64 1.016 .079 2.48 2.79 1 5 40 to 49 years 198 2.65 .859 .061 2.53 2.77 1 5 50 to 59 years 284 2.55 .878 .052 2.45 2.66 1 5 60 years or older 194 2.51 .865 .06 2 2.39 2.63 1 5 Total 957 2.61 .908 .029 2.55 2.67 1 5

PAGE 157

157 Table C 8. Post hoc comparisons for frequency of purchasing cantalou pes and age of consumer. (I) Which of the following best describes your age? (J) Which of the following best describes your age? Mean Difference (I J) Std. Error Sig. 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound Tukey HSD 18 to 29 years 30 to 3 9 years .179 .110 .479 .12 .48 40 to 49 years .171 .106 .490 .12 .46 50 to 59 years .265 .100 .063 .01 .54 60 years or older .307 .106 .033 .02 .60 30 to 39 years 18 to 29 years .179 .110 .479 .48 .12 40 to 49 years .008 .095 1.000 .2 7 .25 50 to 59 years .086 .088 .869 .16 .33 60 years or older .128 .096 .666 .13 .39 40 to 49 years 18 to 29 years .171 .106 .490 .46 .12 30 to 39 years .008 .095 1.000 .25 .27 50 to 59 years .094 .084 .797 .14 .32 60 years or older .136 .091 .570 .11 .39 50 to 59 years 18 to 29 years .265 .100 .063 .54 .01 30 to 39 years .086 .088 .869 .33 .16 40 to 49 years .094 .084 .797 .32 .14 60 years or older .043 .084 .987 .19 .27 60 years or older 18 to 29 years .307 .1 06 .033 .60 .02 30 to 39 years .128 .096 .666 .39 .13 40 to 49 years .136 .091 .570 .39 .11 50 to 59 years .043 .084 .987 .27 .19 *. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level. Table C 9. Descriptives for frequency of purchas ing watermelons and age of consumer. N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Minimum Maximum Lower Bound Upper Bound 18 to 29 years 115 2.76 .951 .089 2.58 2.93 1 5 30 to 39 years 166 2.57 .962 .075 2.42 2.71 1 5 40 t o 49 years 198 2.64 .860 .061 2.52 2.76 1 5 50 to 59 years 284 2.82 .884 .052 2.72 2.93 1 5 60 years or older 194 2.89 .943 .068 2.75 3.02 1 5 Total 957 2.75 .919 .030 2.69 2.80 1 5

PAGE 158

158 Table C 10. Test of homogeneity of variances for frequency of purchasi ng watermelons and age of consumer. Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig. 2.056 4 952 .085 Table C 11. ANOVA for frequency of purchasing watermelons and age of consumer Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Between Groups 13.315 4 3.329 3.989 .003 Within Grou ps 794.474 952 .835 Total 807.789 956 Table C 12. Post hoc comparisons for frequency of purchasing watermelons and age of consumer (I) Which of the following best describes your age? (J) Which of the following best describes your age? Mean Differ ence (I J) Std. Error Sig. 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound Tukey HSD 18 to 29 years 30 to 39 years .190 .111 .424 .11 .49 40 to 49 years .120 .107 .795 .17 .41 50 to 59 years .067 .101 .963 .34 .21 60 years or older .1 30 .108 .746 .42 .16 30 to 39 years 18 to 29 years .190 .111 .424 .49 .11 40 to 49 years .070 .096 .950 .33 .19 50 to 59 years .258 .089 032 .50 .01 60 years or older .320 .097 008 .58 .06 40 to 49 years 18 to 29 years .120 .10 7 .795 .41 .17 30 to 39 years .070 .096 .950 .19 .33 50 to 59 years .188 .085 .174 .42 .04 60 years or older .250 .092 .053 .50 .00 50 to 59 years 18 to 29 years .067 .101 .963 .21 .34 30 to 39 years .258 .089 032 .01 .50 40 to 49 years .188 .085 .174 .04 .42 60 years or older .063 .085 .948 .30 .17 60 years or older 18 to 29 years .130 .108 .746 .16 .42 30 to 39 years .320 .097 008 .06 .58 40 to 49 years .250 .092 .053 .00 .50 50 to 59 years .063 .085 .948 .17 .30 *. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

PAGE 159

159 Table C 13. Descriptives for frequency of purchasing specialty melons (galia, casaba, Santa claus) and age of consumer. N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Min imum Maximum Lower Bound Upper Bound 18 to 29 years 115 4.22 1.183 .110 4.00 4.44 1 5 30 to 39 years 166 4.03 1.295 .101 3.83 4.23 1 5 40 to 49 years 198 4.44 .953 .068 4.31 4.57 1 5 50 to 59 years 284 4.50 .834 .050 4.41 4.60 1 5 60 years or older 194 4.65 .690 .050 4.56 4.75 2 5 Total 957 4.40 .995 .032 4.34 4.47 1 5 Table C 14. Test of homogeneity of variances for for frequency of purchasing specialty melons (galia, casaba, Santa claus) and age of consumer Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig. 25.486 4 952 .000 Table C 15. ANOVA for frequency of purchasing specialty melons (galia, casaba, Santa claus) and age of consumer Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Between Groups 42.457 4 10.614 11.177 .000 Within Groups 904.045 952 .950 Total 946.502 956 Table C 16. Robust test of equality of means for frequency of purchasing specialty melons (galia, casaba, Santa claus) and age of consumer. Statistic a df1 df2 Sig. Welch 9.621 4 399.953 .000 a. Asymptotically F distributed.

PAGE 160

160 Table C 17. Post hoc comparisons for frequency of purchasing specialty melons (galia, casaba, Santa claus) and age of consumer. (I) Which of the following best describes your age? (J) Which of the following best describes your age? Mean Difference (I J) Std. Er ror Sig. 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound Games Howell 18 to 29 years 30 to 39 years .187 .149 .719 .22 .60 40 to 49 years .222 .129 .427 .58 .13 50 to 59 years .286 .121 .130 .62 .05 60 years or older .437 .121 .004 .77 .10 30 to 39 years 18 to 29 years .187 .149 .719 .60 .22 40 to 49 years .409 .121 .007 .74 .08 50 to 59 years .473 .112 .000 .78 .17 60 years or older .625 .112 .000 .93 .32 40 to 49 years 18 to 29 years .222 .129 .427 .13 .58 30 to 39 years .409 .121 .007 .08 .74 50 to 59 years .064 .084 .941 .29 .17 60 years or older .215 .084 .079 .45 .01 50 to 59 years 18 to 29 years .286 .121 .130 .05 .62 30 to 39 years .473 .112 .000 .17 .78 40 to 49 years .064 .084 .941 .17 .29 60 years or older .151 .070 .198 .34 .04 60 years or older 18 to 29 years .437 .121 .004 .10 .77 30 to 39 years .625 .112 .000 .32 .93 40 to 49 years .215 .084 .079 .01 .45 50 to 59 years .151 .070 .198 .04 .34 *. T he mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level

PAGE 161

161 Table C 18. Descriptives for frequency of purchasing blueberries and the education level of consumers. N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Minimum Maximum Lower Bound Upper Bound Some high school 28 3.57 1.289 .244 3.07 4.07 1 5 High school graduate 268 3.32 1.361 .083 3.16 3.48 1 5 Some college 409 3.11 1.280 .063 2.99 3.23 1 5 Graduated college 401 2.96 1.227 .061 2.84 3.08 1 5 Post graduate 109 2. 79 1.131 .108 2.57 3.00 1 5 Total 1215 3.09 1.279 .037 3.02 3.16 1 5 Table C 19. Test of homogeneity of variances for frequency of purchasing blueberries and the education level of consumers. Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig. 5.350 4 1210 .000 Table C 20. ANOVA for frequency of purchasing blueberries and the education level of consumers. Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Between Groups 37.327 4 9.332 5.797 .000 Within Groups 1947.895 1210 1.610 Total 1985.221 1214 Table C 21. Robust test of equality of means for frequency of purchasing blueberries and the education level of consumers. Statistic a df1 df2 Sig. Welch 5.817 4 168.948 .000 a. Asymptotically F distributed.

PAGE 162

162 Table C 22. Post hoc comparisons for frequency of purchasing blueb erries and the education level of consumers. (I) Which of the following best describes the highest level of education you have completed? (J) Which of the following best describes the highest level of education you have completed? Mean Difference (I J) St d. Error Sig. 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound Games Howell Some high school High school graduate .251 .257 .865 .49 .99 Some college .461 .252 .374 .27 1.19 Graduated college .609 .251 .136 .12 1.34 Post graduate .782 267 .042 .02 1.55 High school graduate Some high school .251 .257 .865 .99 .49 Some college .211 .104 .258 .08 .50 Graduated college .358 .103 .005 .08 .64 Post graduate .532 .137 .001 .16 .91 Some college Some high school .461 .252 .374 1.19 .27 High school graduate .211 .104 .258 .50 .08 Graduated college .147 .088 .451 .09 .39 Post graduate .321 .125 .082 .02 .67 Graduated college Some high school .609 .251 .136 1.34 .12 High school graduate .358 .103 .005 .64 .08 Some college .147 .088 .451 .39 .09 Post graduate .174 .124 .632 .17 .52 Post graduate Some high school .782 .267 .042 1.55 .02 High school graduate .532 .137 .001 .91 .16 Some college .321 .125 .082 .67 .02 Graduated coll ege .174 .124 .632 .52 .17 *. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

PAGE 163

163 Table C 23. Descriptives for frequency of purchasing honeydews and the education level of consumers. N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval for Me an Minimum Maximum Lower Bound Upper Bound Some high school 23 3.65 1.335 .278 3.07 4.23 1 5 High school graduate 220 3.55 1.139 .077 3.40 3.71 1 5 Some college 328 3.36 1.136 .063 3.24 3.49 1 5 Graduated college 298 3.40 1.109 .064 3.27 3.52 1 5 Post graduate 86 3.08 1.065 .115 2.85 3.31 1 5 Total 955 3.40 1.132 .037 3.33 3.47 1 5 Table C 24. Test of homogeneity of variances for frequency of purchasing honeydews and the education level of consumers. Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig. 3.875 4 9 50 .004 Table C 25. ANOVA for frequency of purchasing honeydews and the education level of consumers. Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Between Groups 15.904 4 3.976 3.129 .014 Within Groups 1207.094 950 1.271 Total 1222.999 954 Table C 2 6. Robust test of equality of means for frequency of purchasing honeydews and the education level of consumers. Statistic a df1 df2 Sig. Welch 3.174 4 135.418 .016 a. Asymptotically F distributed.

PAGE 164

164 Table C 27. Post hoc comparisons for frequency of pur chasing honeydews and the education level of consumers. (I) Which of the following best describes the highest level of education you have completed? (J) Which of the following best describes the highest level of education you have completed? Mean Differe nce (I J) Std. Error Sig. 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound Games Howell Some high school High school graduate .098 .289 .997 .75 .94 Some college .289 .285 .846 .55 1.13 Graduated college .256 .286 .895 .58 1.10 Post grad uate .571 .301 .342 .30 1.44 High school graduate Some high school .098 .289 .997 .94 .75 Some college .192 .099 .301 .08 .46 Graduated college .159 .100 .509 .12 .43 Post graduate .473 .138 .007 .09 .85 Some college Some high school .2 89 .285 .846 1.13 .55 High school graduate .192 .099 .301 .46 .08 Graduated college .033 .090 .996 .28 .21 Post graduate .281 .131 .205 .08 .64 Graduated college Some high school .256 .286 .895 1.10 .58 High school graduate .159 .100 .509 .43 .12 Some college .033 .090 .996 .21 .28 Post graduate .315 .132 .124 .05 .68 Post graduate Some high school .571 .301 .342 1.44 .30 High school graduate .473 .138 .007 .85 .09 Some college .281 .131 .205 .64 .08 Gradua ted college .315 .132 .124 .68 .05 *. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

PAGE 165

165 Table C 28. Descriptives for the frequency of purchasing specialty melons (galia, casaba, Santa claus) and the education level of consumers. N Mean Std Deviation Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Minimum Maximum Lower Bound Upper Bound Some high school 23 4.61 .988 .206 4.18 5.04 1 5 High school graduate 220 4.59 .842 .057 4.47 4.70 1 5 Some college 328 4.37 1.015 .056 4.26 4.48 1 5 Graduated college 298 4.39 1.003 .058 4.28 4.51 1 5 Post graduate 86 4.10 1.148 .124 3.86 4.35 1 5 Total 955 4.41 .993 .032 4.35 4.47 1 5 Table C 29. Test of homogeneity of variances for the frequency of purchasing specialty melons (galia, casaba, S anta claus) and the education level of consumers. Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig. 5.969 4 950 .000 Table C 30. ANOVA for the frequency of purchasing specialty melons (galia, casaba, Santa claus) and the education level of consumers Sum of Squares df Mea n Square F Sig. Between Groups 16.334 4 4.083 4.196 .002 Within Groups 924.581 950 .973 Total 940.915 954 Table C 31. Robust test of equality of means for the frequency of purchasing specialty melons (galia, casaba, Santa claus) and the educatio n level of consumers. Statistic a df1 df2 Sig. Welch 4.120 4 135.618 .004 a. Asymptotically F distributed.

PAGE 166

166 Table C 32. Post hoc comparisons for the frequency of purchasing specialty melons (galia, casaba, Santa claus) and the education level of consu mers. (I) Which of the following best describes the highest level of education you have completed? (J) Which of the following best describes the highest level of education you have completed? Mean Difference (I J) Std. Error Sig. 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound Games Howell Some high school High school graduate .022 .214 1.000 .60 .65 Some college .237 .214 .800 .39 .86 Graduated college .216 .214 .849 .41 .84 Post graduate .504 .240 .242 .18 1.19 High school graduat e Some high school .022 .214 1.000 .65 .60 Some college .214 .080 .057 .00 .43 Graduated college .194 .081 .121 .03 .42 Post graduate .482 .136 .005 .10 .86 Some college Some high school .237 .214 .800 .86 .39 High school graduate .214 .080 .057 .43 .00 Graduated college .021 .081 .999 .24 .20 Post graduate .267 .136 .288 .11 .64 Graduated college Some high school .216 .214 .849 .84 .41 High school graduate .194 .081 .121 .42 .03 Some college .021 .081 .999 .20 .2 4 Post graduate .288 .137 .224 .09 .67 Post graduate Some high school .504 .240 .242 1.19 .18 High school graduate .482 .136 .005 .86 .10 Some college .267 .136 .288 .64 .11 Graduated college .288 .137 .224 .67 .09 *. The mean dif ference is significant at the 0.05 level.

PAGE 167

167 Table C 33. Descriptives for frequency of purchasing pears and the education level of consumers. N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Minimum Maximum Lower Bound Upper Bou nd Some high school 28 3.71 1.182 .223 3.26 4.17 1 5 High school graduate 268 3.50 1.137 .069 3.36 3.64 1 5 Some college 409 3.25 1.115 .055 3.14 3.36 1 5 Graduated college 401 3.22 1.091 .054 3.11 3.32 1 5 Post graduate 109 3.15 1.161 .111 2.93 3.3 7 1 5 Total 1215 3.30 1.124 .032 3.23 3.36 1 5 Table C 34. Test of homogeneity of variances for frequency of purchasing pears and the education level of consumers. Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig. 2.564 4 1210 .037 Table C 35. ANOVA for frequency of p urchasing pears and the education level of consumers. Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Between Groups 21.782 4 5.445 4.359 .002 Within Groups 1511.551 1210 1.249 Total 1533.333 1214 Table C 36. Robust test of equality of means for frequenc y of purchasing pears and the education level of consumers. Statistic a df1 df2 Sig. Welch 4.120 4 167.432 .003 a. Asymptotically F distributed.

PAGE 168

168 Table C 37. Post hoc comparisons for frequency of purchasing pears and the education level of consumers. (I) Which of the following best describes the highest level of education you have completed? (J) Which of the following best describes the highest level of education you have completed? Mean Difference (I J) Std. Error Sig. 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound Games Howell Some high school High school graduate .214 .234 .889 .46 .89 Some college .462 .230 .285 .20 1.13 Graduated college .497 .230 .221 .17 1.16 Post graduate .567 .250 .174 .14 1.28 High school graduate Som e high school .214 .234 .889 .89 .46 Some college .248 .089 .042 .01 .49 Graduated college .283 .088 .012 .04 .52 Post graduate .353 .131 .058 .01 .71 Some college Some high school .462 .230 .285 1.13 .20 High school graduate .248 .0 89 .042 .49 .01 Graduated college .035 .078 .992 .18 .25 Post graduate .105 .124 .916 .24 .45 Graduated college Some high school .497 .230 .221 1.16 .17 High school graduate .283 .088 .012 .52 .04 Some college .035 .078 .992 .25 18 Post graduate .070 .124 .980 .27 .41 Post graduate Some high school .567 .250 .174 1.28 .14 High school graduate .353 .131 .058 .71 .01 Some college .105 .124 .916 .45 .24 Graduated college .070 .124 .980 .41 .27 *. The mean diff erence is significant at the 0.05 level.

PAGE 169

169 Table C 38. Descriptives for frequency of purchasing tomatoes and presence or absence of children living at home. N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Minimum Maximum Lowe r Bound Upper Bound Kids at home 563 1.82 1.016 .043 1.74 1.91 1 5 No kids 657 2.08 1.166 .046 1.99 2.17 1 5 Total 1220 1.96 1.107 .032 1.90 2.03 1 5 Table C 39. Test of homogeneity of variances for frequency of purchasing tomatoes and presence or absence of children living at home. Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig. 6.193 1 1218 .013 Table C 40. ANOVA for frequency of purchasing tomatoes and presence or absence of children living at home. Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Between Groups 20.706 1 20.706 17.126 .000 Within Groups 1472.634 1218 1.209 Total 1493.340 1219 Table C 41. Robust test of equality of means for frequency of purchasing tomatoes and presence or absence of children living at home. Statistic a df1 df2 Sig. Welch 17.4 92 1 1217.665 .000 a. Asymptotically F distributed.

PAGE 170

170 Table C 42. Descriptives for frequency of purchasing strawberries and presence or absence of children living at home. N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Minimum Maximum Lower Bound Upper Bound Kids at home 563 2.09 .936 .039 2.01 2.16 1 5 No kids 657 2.54 1.074 .042 2.46 2.62 1 5 Total 1220 2.33 1.037 .030 2.27 2.39 1 5 Table C 43. Test of homogeneity of variances for frequency of purchasing strawber ries and presence or absence of children living at home. Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig. 15.039 1 1218 .000 Table C 44. ANOVA for frequency of purchasing strawberries and presence or absence of children living at home. Sum of Squares df Mean Square F S ig. Between Groups 61.882 1 61.882 60.298 .000 Within Groups 1249.996 1218 1.026 Total 1311.878 1219 Table C 45. Robust test of equality of means for frequency of purchasing strawberries and presence or absence of children living at home. Stati stic a df1 df2 Sig. Welch 61.583 1 1217.650 .000 a. Asymptotically F distributed.

PAGE 171

171 Table C 46. Descriptives for frequency of purchasing blueberries and presence or absence of children living at home. N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Minimum Maximum Lower Bound Upper Bound Kids at home 563 2.97 1.272 .054 2.87 3.08 1 5 No kids 657 3.19 1.278 .050 3.09 3.29 1 5 Total 1220 3.09 1.279 .037 3.02 3.16 1 5 Table C 47. Test of homogeneity of variances for freq uency of purchasing blueberries and presence or absence of children living at home. Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig. 5.498 1 1218 .019 Table C 48. ANOVA for frequency of purchasing blueberries and presence or absence of children living at home. Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Between Groups 14.297 1 14.297 8.794 .003 Within Groups 1980.142 1218 1.626 Total 1994.439 1219 Table C 49. Robust test of equality of means for frequency of purchasing blueberries and presence or absence of childre n living at home. Statistic a df1 df2 Sig. Welch 8.800 1 1191.018 .003 a. Asymptotically F distributed.

PAGE 172

172 Table C 50. Descriptives for frequency of purchasing cantaloupes and presence or absence of children living at home N Mean Std. Deviation St d. Error 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Minimum Maximum Lower Bound Upper Bound Kids at home 563 1.14 .351 .015 1.11 1.17 1 2 No kids 657 1.27 .446 .017 1.24 1.31 1 2 Total 1220 1.21 .410 .012 1.19 1.24 1 2 Table C 51. Test of homogeneity o f variances for frequency of purchasing cantaloupes and presence or absence of children living at home Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig. 136.919 1 1218 .000 Table C 52. ANOVA for frequency of purchasing cantaloupes and presence or absence of children livi ng at home. Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Between Groups 5.132 1 5.132 31.248 .000 Within Groups 200.031 1218 .164 Total 205.163 1219 Table C 53. Robust test of equality of means for frequency of purchasing cantaloupes and presence or a bsence of children living at home. Statistic a df1 df2 Sig. Welch 32.401 1 1209.472 .000 a. Asymptotically F distributed.

PAGE 173

173 Table C 54. Descriptives for frequency of purchasing honeydews and presence or absence of children living at home. N Mean Std Deviation Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Minimum Maximum Lower Bound Upper Bound Kids at home 482 3.30 1.180 .054 3.20 3.41 1 5 No kids 477 3.49 1.076 .049 3.39 3.59 1 5 Total 959 3.40 1.133 .037 3.32 3.47 1 5 Table C 55. Test of homogeneity of variances for frequency of purchasing honeydews and presence or absence of children living at home. Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig. .377 1 957 .540 Table C 56. ANOVA for frequency of purchasing honeydews and presence or absence of chil dren living at home. Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Between Groups 8.443 1 8.443 6.618 .010 Within Groups 1220.983 957 1.276 Total 1229.426 958 Table C 57. Descriptives for frequency of purchasing watermelon and presence or absence of c hildren living at home. N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Minimum Maximum Lower Bound Upper Bound Kids at home 482 2.54 .877 .040 2.46 2.62 1 5 No kids 477 2.96 .919 .042 2.87 3.04 1 5 Total 959 2.75 .921 .030 2 .69 2.81 1 5

PAGE 174

174 Table C 58. Test of homogeneity of variances for frequency of purchasing watermelon and presence or absence of children living at home. Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig. 13.427 1 957 .000 Table C 59. ANOVA for frequency of purchasing waterm elon and presence or absence of children living at home. Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Between Groups 41.600 1 41.600 51.580 .000 Within Groups 771.827 957 .807 Total 813.426 958 Table C 60. Robust test of equality of means for frequenc y of purchasing watermelon and presence or absence of children living at home. Statistic a df1 df2 Sig. Welch 51.555 1 953.844 .000 a. Asymptotically F distributed. Table C 61. Descriptives for frequency of purchasing specialty melons (galia, casaba, Santa claus) and presence or absence of children living at home. N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Minimum Maximum Lower Bound Upper Bound Kids at home 482 4.29 1.088 .050 4.20 4.39 1 5 No kids 477 4.52 .876 .040 4.44 4.60 1 5 Total 959 4.41 .994 .032 4.34 4.47 1 5 Table C 62. Test of homogeneity of variances for frequency of purchasing specialty melons (galia, casaba, Santa claus) and presence or absence of children living at home. Levene Statistic df1 df2 Si g. 27.295 1 957 .000

PAGE 175

175 Table C 63. ANOVA for frequency of purchasing specialty melons (galia, casaba, Santa claus) and presence or absence of children living at home Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Between Groups 12.396 1 12.396 12.690 .000 Wit hin Groups 934.814 957 .977 Total 947.210 958 Table C 64. Robust test of equality of means for frequency of purchasing specialty melons (galia, casaba, Santa claus) and presence or absence of children living at home. Statistic a df1 df2 Sig. Welc h 12.718 1 918.843 .000 a. Asymptotically F distributed. Table C 65. Descriptives for frequency of purchasing peaches and presence or absence of children living at home. N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Minimum Maximu m Lower Bound Upper Bound Kids at home 563 2.73 1.104 .047 2.64 2.82 1 5 No kids 657 3.06 1.156 .045 2.97 3.14 1 5 Total 1220 2.91 1.143 .033 2.84 2.97 1 5 Table C 66. Test of homogeneity of variances for frequency of purchasing peaches and p resence or absence of children living at home. Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig. .064 1 1218 .800

PAGE 176

176 Table C 67. ANOVA for frequency of purchasing peaches and presence or absence of children living at home Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Between G roups 31.930 1 31.930 24.908 .000 Within Groups 1561.417 1218 1.282 Total 1593.348 1219 Table C 68. Descriptives for frequency of purchasing pears and presence or absence of children living at home. N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error 95% Confide nce Interval for Mean Minimum Maximum Lower Bound Upper Bound Kids at home 563 3.15 1.124 .047 3.05 3.24 1 5 No kids 657 3.43 1.108 .043 3.34 3.51 1 5 Total 1220 3.30 1.123 .032 3.23 3.36 1 5 Table C 69. Test of homogeneity of variances for f requency of purchasing pears and presence or absence of children living at home. Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig. 8.791 1 1218 .003 Table C 70. ANOVA for frequency of purchasing pears and presence or absence of children living at home Sum of Squares df M ean Square F Sig. Between Groups 23.860 1 23.860 19.186 .000 Within Groups 1514.727 1218 1.244 Total 1538.587 1219 Table C 71. Robust test of equality of means for frequency of purchasing pears and presence or absence of children living at home. Statistic a df1 df2 Sig. Welch 19.143 1 1184.019 .000 a. Asymptotically F distributed.

PAGE 177

177 L IST OF REFERENCES 1. Joshipura KJ, Hu FB, Manson JE, Stampfer MJ, Rimm EB, Speizer FE, Colditz G, Ascherio A, Rosner B, et al. The effect of f ruit and vegetable intake on risk for coronary heart disease. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2001 Jun;134:1106 14. 2. Riboli E, Norat T. Epidemiologic evidence of the protective effect of fruit and vegetables on cancer risk. Fourth International Congress on Vegetarian Nutrition, Loma Linda, California, April 8 11, 2002; 2003; 2003. p. 559S 69S. 3. He K, Hu FB, Colditz GA, Manson JE, Willett WC, Liu S. Changes in intake of fruits and vegetables in relation to risk of obesity and weight gain among middle aged women. International Journal of Obesity. 2004 Dec;28:1569 74. 4. Guenther PM, Dodd KW, Reedy J, Krebs Smith SM. Most Americans eat much less than recommended amounts of fruits and vegetables. Journal of the American Dietetic Association. 2006;106:1371 9. 5 Yeh MC, Ickes SB, Lowenstein LM, Shuval K, Ammerman AS, Farris R, Katz DL. Understanding barriers and facilitators of fruit and vegetable consumption among a diverse multi ethnic population in the USA. Health Promotion International. 2008 Mar;23:42 51. 6 Kader AA. Flavor quality of fruits and vegetables. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture. 2008;88:1863 8. 7. Opara LU, Al Said FA, Al Abri A. Assessment of what the consumer values in fresh fruit quality: a case study of Oman. Optimising custom er value through postharvest technologies Proceedings of the Australasian Postharvest Horticulture Conference, Rotorua, New Zealand, 27 30 September 2005; 2007: Royal Society of New Zealand; 2007. p. 235 43. 8. Kader AA. Quality parameters of fresh cut fru it and vegetable products. In: Lamikanra O, editor. Fresh cut fruits and vegetables: science, technology, and market. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 2002. p. 467. 9. Campbell RL, Smith BG, Jaeger SR, Harker FR. Deterioration and disposal of fruit in the home: Consumer interviews and fruit quality assessments. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture. 2009 Jan;89:24 32. 10. US Department of Agriculture. ChooseMyPlate.gov. 2011 [cited 2011 October 21]; Available from: www.choosemyplate.gov 11. Packer T. Fresh Trends 2010. 2010. 12. Service ER. Fruit and Tree Nut Yearbook. In: Agriculture UDo, editor.; 2010.

PAGE 178

178 13. Roos E, Talala K, Laaksonen M, Helakorpi S, Rahkonen O, Uutela A, Prattala R. Trends of socioeconomic differences in daily vegetable consumption, 1979 2002. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 2008 Jul;62:823 33. 14. De Irala Estevez J, Groth M, Johansson L, Oltersdorf U, Prattala R, Martinez Gonzalez M. A systematic review of socio economic differenc es in food habits in Europe: consumption of fruit and vegetables. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 2000 Sep;54:706 14. 15. Johansson L, Thelle DS, Solvoll K, Bjorneboe GEA, Drevon CA. Healthy dietary habits in relation to social determinants and lif estyle factors. British Journal of Nutrition. 1999 Mar;81:211 20. 16. Turrell G, Hewitt B, Patterson C, Oldenburg B. Measuring socio economic position in dietary research: is choice of socio economic indicator important? Public Health Nutrition. 2003;6:191 200. 17. Cassady D, Jetter KM, Culp J. Is price a barrier to eating more fruits and vegetables for low income families? Journal of the American Dietetic Association. 2007;107:1909 15. 18. Kamphuis CBM, van Lenthe FJ, Giskes K, Brug J, Mackenbach JP. Perce ived environmental determinants of physical activity and fruit and vegetable consumption among high and low socioeconomic groups in the Netherlands. Health & Place. 2007;13:493 503. 19. Eikenberry N, Smith C. Healthful eating: perceptions, motivations, bar riers, and promoters in low income Minnesota communities. Journal of the American Dietetic Association. 2004;104:1158 61. 20. Whelan A, Wrigley N, Warm D, Cannings E. Life in a 'food desert'. Urban Studies. 2002;39:2083 100. 21. Rose D, Richards R. Food st ore access and household fruit and vegetable use among participants in the US Food Stamp Program. Public Health Nutrition. 2004;7:1081 8. 22. Morland K, Wing S, Roux AD. The contextual effect of the local food environment on residents' diets: The atheroscl erosis risk in communities study. American Journal of Public Health. 2002 Nov;92:1761 7. 23. Yahia EM, de Jesus Ornelas Paz J. Chemistry, stability, and biological actions of carotenoids. In: de la Rosa LA, Alvarez Parrilla E, Gonzalez Aguilar GA, editors. Fruit and vegetable phytochemicals : chemistry, nutritional value, and stability. Ames, Iowa: Wiley Blackwell; 2010. 24. Rao AV, Rao LG. Carotenoids and human health. Pharmacological Research. 2007 Mar;55:207 16.

PAGE 179

179 25. Insel P, Ross D, McMahon K, Bernstein M. Nutrition. 4th ed. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett Publishers; 2010. 26. Brazionis L, Rowley K, Itsiopoulos C, O'Dea K. Plasma carotenoids and diabetic retinopathy. British Journal of Nutrition. 2009 Jan;101:270 7. 27. Wildman RE. Classifying Nutraceuti cals. In: Wildman RE, editor. Handbook of nutraceuticals and functional foods. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 2001. 28. Mares Perlman JA, Millen AE, Ficek TL, Hankinson SE. The body of evidence to support a protective role for lutein and zeaxanthin in delaying chronic disease. Overview. Journal of Nutrition. 2002 Mar;132:518S 24S. 29. Mogi C, Goda H, Mogi K, Takaki A, Yokoyama K, Tomida M, Inoue K. Multistep differentiation of GH producing cells from their immature cells. Journal of Endocrinology. 2005;184:41 5 0. 30. Clagett Dame M, DeLuca HF. The role of vitamin A in mammalian reproduction and embryonic development. Annual Review of Nutrition. 2002;22:347 81. 31. Lee WB, Hamilton SM, Harris JP, Schwab IR. Ocular complications of hypovitaminosis A after bariatri c surgery. Ophthalmology. 2005;112:1031 4. 32. Humphrey JH, Iliff PJ, Marinda ET, Mutasa K, Moulton LH, Chidawanyika H, Ward BJ, Nathoo KJ, Malaba LC, et al. Effects of a single large dose of vitamin A, given during the postpartum period to HIV positive wo men and their infants, on child HIV infection, HIV free survival, and mortality. Journal of Infectious Diseases. 2006;193:960 71. 33. van Lieshout M, West CE, Muhilal, Permaesih D, Wang Y, Xu XY, van Breemen RB, Creemers AFL, Verhoeven MA, Lugtenburg J. Bi oefficacy of beta carotene dissolved in oil studied in children in Indonesia. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 2001;73:949 58. 34. Koh WP, Yuan JM, Wang R, Lee YP, Lee BL, Yu MC, Ong CN. Plasma carotenoids and risk of acute myocardial infarction in the Singapore Chinese Health Study. Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis. 2010 Mar 11. 35. Pattison DJ, Symmons DP, Lunt M, Welch A, Bingham SA, Day NE, Silman AJ. Dietary beta cryptoxanthin and inflammatory polyarthritis: results from a population based prospective study. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 2005 Aug;82:451 5. 36. Insel P, Turner RE, Ross D. Nutrition. Third ed. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett Publishers; 2007.

PAGE 180

180 37. Khachik F, Carvalho L, Bernstein PS, Muir GJ, Zhao DY, Katz NB. Chemistry, distribu tion, and metabolism of tomato carotenoids and their impact on human health. Experimental Biology and Medicine. 2002;227:845 51. 38. Tan JSL, Wang JJ, Flood V, Rochtchina E, Smith W, Mitchell P. Dietary antioxidants and the long term incidence of age relat ed macular degeneration The Blue Mountains Eye Study. Ophthalmology. 2008 Feb;115:334 41. 39. Eskin NAM. Dictionary of nutraceuticals and functional foods. Boca Raton, FL: Taylor & Francis Group; 2006. 40. Seddon JM, Ajani UA, Sperduto RD, Hiller R, Blai r N, Burton TC, Farber MD, Gragoudas ES, Haller J, et al. DIETARY CAROTENOIDS, VITAMIN A, VITAMIN C, AND VITAMIN E, AND ADVANCED AGE RELATED MACULAR DEGENERATION. Jama Journal of the American Medical Association. 1994;272:1413 20. 41. Friedman DS, O'Colmai n B, Tomany SC, McCarty C, de Jong P, Nemesure B, Mitchell P, Kempen J, Congdon N, Eye Dis Prevalence Res G. Prevalence of age related macular degeneration in the United States. Archives of Ophthalmology. 2004 Apr;122:564 72. 42. Bruno RS, Wildman RE. Lyco pene: source, properties and nutraceutical potential. In: Wildman RE, editor. Handbook of nutraceuticals and functional foods. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 2001. 43. Heber D, Lu QY. Overview of mechanisms of action of lycopene. Experimental Biology and Medic ine. 2002;227:920 3. 44. Mohanty I, Joshi S, Trivedi D, Srivastava S, Gupta SK. Lycopene prevents sugar induced morphological changes and modulates antioxidant status of human lens epithelial cells. British Journal of Nutrition. 2002;88:347 54. 45. Giovann ucci E, Rimm EB, Liu Y, Stampfer MJ, Willett WC. A, prospective study of tomato products, lycopene, and prostate cancer risk. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 2002;94:391 8. 46. Klipstein Grobusch K, Launer LJ, Geleijnse JM, Boeing H, Hofman A, Wi tteman JCM. Serum carotenoids and atherosclerosis The Rotterdam Study. Atherosclerosis. 2000 Jan;148:49 56. 47. Puupponen Pimia R, Nohynek L, Alakomi HL, Oksman Caldentey KM. Bioactive berry compounds novel tools against human pathogens. Applied Microb iology and Biotechnology. 2005 Apr;67:8 18. 48. Macheix J J, Fleuriet A. Phenolic acids in fruits. In: Rice Evans CA, Packer L, editors. Flavonoids in health and disease. New York: Marcel Dekker Inc; 1998.

PAGE 181

181 49. Scalbert A, Manach C, Morand C, Remesy C, Jime nez L. Dietary polyphenols and the prevention of diseases. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition. 2005;45:287 306. 50. Scalbert A, Johnson IT, Saltmarsh M. Polyphenols: antioxidants and beyond. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 2005 Jan;81:2 15S 7S. 51. Manach C, Scalbert A, Morand C, Remesy C, Jimenez L. Polyphenols: food sources and bioavailability. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 2004 May;79:727 47. 52. Scalbert A, Williamson G. Dietary intake and bioavailability of polyphenols. Jou rnal of Nutrition. 2000;130:2073S 85S. 53. Lafay S, Gil Izquierdo A. Bioavailability of phenolic acids. Phytochemistry Reviews. 2008;7:301 11. 54. Bunzel M, Ralph J. NMR characterization of lignins isolated from fruit and vegetable insoluble dietary fiber. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. 2006 Oct;54:8352 61. 55. Milder IEJ, Arts ICW, van de Putte B, Venema DP, Hollman PCH. Lignan contents of Dutch plant foods: a database including lariciresinol, pinoresinol, secoisolariciresinol and matairesinol British Journal of Nutrition. 2005 Mar;93:393 402. 56. Vanharanta M, Voutilainen S, Rissanen TH, Adlercreutz H, Salonen JT. Risk of cardiovascular disease related and all cause death according to serum concentrations of enterolactone Kuopio ischaemic h eart disease risk factor study. Archives of Internal Medicine. 2003 May;163:1099 104. 57. Adlercreutz H. Phyto oestrogens and cancer. Lancet Oncology. 2002 Jun;3:364 73. 58. Paredes Lopez O, Cervantes Ceja ML, Vigna Perez M, Hernandez Perez T. Berries: Imp roving Human Health and Healthy Aging, and Promoting Quality Life A Review. Plant Foods for Human Nutrition. 2010 Sep;65:299 308. 59. Joseph JA, Fisher DR, Cheng V, Rimando AM, Shukitt Hale B. Cellular and Behavioral Effects of Stilbene Resveratrol Analogu es: Implications for Reducing the Deleterious Effects of Aging. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. 2008 Nov 26;56:10544 51. 60. Shakibaei M, Harikumar KB, Aggarwal BB. Resveratrol addiction: To die or not to die. Molecular Nutrition & Food Researc h. 2009 Jan;53:115 28. 61. Shahidi F, Ho C T. Phenolic Compounds in Foods and Natural Health Products: Oxford University Press; 2005.

PAGE 182

182 62. Skrede G, Wrolstad RE. Flavonoids from Berries and Grapes. In: Shi J, Mazza G, Le Maguer M, editors. Functional Foods: Biochemical and processing aspects. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press LLC; 2002. 63. Brahmachari G, Gorai D. Progress in the research on naturally occurring flavones and flavonols: An overview. Current Organic Chemistry. 2006 May;10:873 98. 64. Kuhnle GGC, Dell'A quila C, Runswick SA, Bingham SA. Variability of phytoestrogen content in foods from different sources. Food Chemistry. 2009 Apr;113:1184 7. 65. RiceEvans CA, Miller NJ, Paganga G. Structure antioxidant activity relationships of flavonoids and phenolic aci ds. Free Radical Biology and Medicine. 1996 1996;20:933 56. 66. Zafra Stone S, Yasmin T, Bagchi M, Chatterjee A, Vinson JA, Bagchi D. Berry anthocyanins as novel antioxidants in human health and disease prevention. Molecular Nutrition & Food Research. 2007 Jun;51:675 83. 67. Hollman PCH, Geelen A, Kromhout D. Dietary Flavonol Intake May Lower Stroke Risk in Men and Women. Journal of Nutrition. 2010 Mar;140:600 4. 68. Lagiou P, Samoli E, Lagiou A, Tzonou A, Kalandidi A, Peterson J, Dwyer J, Trichopoulos D. I ntake of specific flavonoid classes and coronary heart disease a case control study in Greece. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 2004 Dec;58:1643 8. 69. Kyle JAA, Sharp L, Little J, Duthie GG, McNeill G. Dietary flavonoid intake and colorectal canc er: a case control study. British Journal of Nutrition. 2010 Feb;103:429 36. 70. Spencer JPE. The impact of flavonoids on memory: physiological and molecular considerations. Chemical Society Reviews. 2009;38:1152 61. 71. USDA. USDA Definition of Specialty Crop. http://www.csrees.usda.gov/funding/pdfs/definition_of_specialty_crops.pdf; n.d. 72. Meskin MS, Bidlack WR, Davies AJ, Omaye ST. Phytochemicals in Nutrition an d Health. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 2002. 73. Trehane J. Blueberries, cranberries, and other vacciniums. Portland, OR: Timber Press Inc; 2004. 74. FAOSTAT. FAOSTAT Agriculture. Food and agriculture organization of the United Nations ; 2009. 75. Council USH B. Cultivate a Taste for the Blues. Folsom, CA.

PAGE 183

183 76. Economic Research Service, Agriculture UDo. Diet quality and food consumption: dietary trends from food and nutrient availability data. 2011. 77. Stull AJ, Cash KC, Johnson WD, Champagne CM, Cefalu WT. Bi oactives in Blueberries Improve Insulin Sensitivity in Obese, Insulin Resistant Men and Women. Journal of Nutrition. 2010 Oct;140:1764 8. 78. Wu XL, Beecher GR, Holden JM, Haytowitz DB, Gebhardt SE, Prior RL. Lipophilic and hydrophilic antioxidant capaciti es of common foods in the United States. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. 2004;52:4026 37. 79. Szajdek A, Borowska EJ. Bioactive compounds and health promoting properties of berry fruits: a review. Plant Foods for Human Nutrition. 2008;63:147 56 80. Prior RL, Cao GH, Martin A, Sofic E, McEwen J, O'Brien C, Lischner N, Ehlenfeldt M, Kalt W, et al. Antioxidant capacity as influenced by total phenolic and anthocyanin content, maturity, and variety of Vaccinium species. Journal of Agricultural and F ood Chemistry. 1998;46:2686 93. 81. Laboratory ND, Agriculture USDo, Laboratory FC, Center BHNR, Service AR. USDA Database for the Flavonoid Content of Selected Foods. Beltsville, MD; 2003. 82. Shahidi F, Naczk M. Food Phenolics: Sources, Chemistry, Effect s, Application. Lancaster, PA: Technomic Publishing Co. Inc.; 1995. 83. Hancock JF. Strawberries. Wallingford, UK: CABI Publishing; 1999. 84. Medicine Io. Dietary Reference Intakes for vitamin C, vitamin E, selenium, and carotenoids. In: Board FaN, editor. Washington D.C.: National Academy Press; 2000. 85. Meyers KJ, Watkins CB, Pritts MP, Liu RH. Antioxidant and antiproliferative activities of strawberries. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. 2003 Nov;51:6887 92. 86. Skupien K, J. O. Comparison of six cultivars of strawberries ( Fragaria x ananassa Duch.) grown in northwest Poland. Eurpoean Food Research and Technology. 2004;219:66 70. 87. Ehala S, Vaher M, Kaljurand M. Characterization of phenolic profiles of Northern European berries by capillary e lectrophoresis and determination of their antioxidant activity. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. 2005;53:6484 90. 88. Hassan Khabbar S, Vamy M, Cottart C H, Wendum D, Vibert F, Savouret J F, Therond P, Clot J P, Waligora A J, Nivet Antoine V. Pr otective effect of post ischemic treatment with trans resveratrol on cytokine production and neutrophil recruitment by rat liver. Biochimie. 2010 2010 Apr (Epub 2009 Dec;92:405 10.

PAGE 184

184 89. Jang MS, Cai EN, Udeani GO, Slowing KV, Thomas CF, Beecher CWW, Fong HH S, Farnsworth NR, Kinghorn AD, et al. Cancer chemopreventive activity of resveratrol, a natural product derived from grapes. Science. 1997;275:218 20. 90. Frankel EN, Waterhouse AL, Kinsella JE. Inhibition of human ldl oxidation by resveratrol Lancet. 199 3;341:1103 4. 91. Shigematsu S, Ishida S, Hara M, Takahashi N, Yoshimatsu H, Sakata T, Korthuis RJ. Resveratrol, a red wine constituent polyphenol, prevents superoxide dependent inflammatory responses induced by ischemia/reperfusion, platelet activating fa ctor, or oxidants. Free Radical Biology and Medicine. 2003;34:810 7. 92. Wang LS, Stoner GD. Anthocyanins and their role in cancer prevention. Cancer Letters. 2008;269:281 90. 93. Erkan M, Wang SY, Wang CY. Effect of UV treatment on antioxidant capacity, a ntioxidant enzyme activity and decay in strawberry fruit. Postharvest Biology and Techn ology. 2008;48:163 71. 94. Service ER. Vegetables and Melons Yearbook. In: Agriculture UDo, editor. http ://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/ers/89011/; 2009. 95. Lester G, Shellie K. Honew Dew Melon. In: Gross KC, Wang CY, Saltveit M, editors. Agricultural Handbook Number 66 The Commercial Storage of Fruits, Vegetables, and Florist and Nursery Stocks: Agricu ltural Research Service US Department of Agriculture; 2004. 96. Nakata E, Staub J, Lopez Sese A, Katzir N. Genetic diversity of Japanese melon cultivars (Cucumis melo L.) as assessed by random amplified polymorphic DNA and simple sequence repeat markers. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution. 2005;52:405 19. 97. Stephens JM. Melon, casaba Cucumis melo L. (Inodorus group). Gainesville, FL: University of Florida Cooperative Extension Service Institute of Food and Agriculture Science; 1994. 98. Motes J, Rob erts W, Edelson J, Damicone J, Duthie J. Cantaloupe Production. In: University OS, editor.: Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service; 2007. 99. Stephens JM. Melon, honeydew Cucumis melo L. (Inodorus group). Gainesville, FL: University of Florida Cooperative Extension Service Institute of Food and Agriculture Sciences; 1994. 100. Vinson JA, Su X, Zubik L, Bose P. Phenol antioxidant quantity and quality in foods: fruits. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. 2001;49:5315 21.

PAGE 185

185 101. Shaw NL, Cantliffe DJ, H arty JM. Galia muskmelons: evaluation for Florida greenhouse production. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida Cooperative Extension Service Institute of Food and Agriculture Science; 2003. 102. Lester GE. Antioxidant, sugar, mineral, and phytonutrient c oncentrations across edible fruit tissues of orange fleshed honeydew melon (Cucumis melo L.). Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. 2008;56:3694 8. 103. Sherman W. New Plants for Florida: Stone Fruit (1440). Gainesville: University of Florida Institu te of Food and Agricultural Sciences ; 1998. 104. Ferguson J, Andersen P, Chaparro J, Williamson J. Florida subtropical peaches: Ge neral concepts and cultivars recommended for grower trials (HS1125). Gainesville: University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences: http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/hs342; 2007. 105. Rieger M. Introduction to Fruit Crops. Binghamton, NY: The Haworth Press Inc.; 2006. 106. Gil MI, Tomas Barberan FA, Hess Pierce B, Kader AA. Antioxidant capacities, phenolic compounds, carotenoids, and vitamin C contents of nectarine, peach, and plum cultivars from California. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. 2002 Aug;50:4976 82. 107. Layne DR, Bassi D. The Peach: Botany, Production and Uses. United Kingdom: CAB International; 2008. 108. Tourjee KR, Barrett DM, Romero MV, Gradziel TM. Measuring flesh color variability among processing clingstone peach genotypes differing in carotenoid composition. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science. 1998;123:433 7. 109. Mares Perlman JA, Fisher AI, Klein R, Block G, Millen AE, Wright JD. Lutein and zeaxanthin in the diet and serum and their relation to age related maculopathy in the Third National Health and Nutrition Examinatio n Survey. American Journal of Epidemiology. 2001;153:424 32. 110. Henning W, Herrmann K. Flavonol glycosides of apricots (prunus armeniaca l) and peaches (prunus persica batsch) .13. Phenolics of fruits Zeitschrift Fur Lebensmittel Untersuchung Und Forsch ung. 1980;171:183 8. 111. Young EG, Ballard RE, Coston DC. The identification and comparison of flavonoid compounds in the fruit skins and leaves of peach cultivars Acta Horticulturae (Wageningen). 1989:35 40.

PAGE 186

186 112. Bengoechea ML, Sancho AI, Bartolome B, E strella I, GomezCordoves C, Hernandez MT. Phenolic composition of industrially manufactured purees and concentrates from peach and apple fruits. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. 1997;45:4071 5. 113. Proteggente AR, Pannala AS, Paganga G, Van Bur en L, Wagner E, Wiseman S, Van De Put F, Dacombe C, Rice Evans CA. The antioxidant activity of regularly consumed fruit and vegetables reflects their phenolic and vitamin C composition. Free Radical Research. 2002 Feb;36:217 33. 114. Perez A, Pollack S. Fr uit and Tree Nuts Outlook. In: Service ER, USDA, editors.: USDA; 2004. 115. Karadeniz F, Burdurlu HS, Koca N, Soyer Y. Antioxidant activity of selected fruits and vegetables grown in Turkey. Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry. 2005;29:297 303. 116 Gorinstein S, Martin Belloso O, Lojek A, Ciz M, Soliva Fortuny R, Park YS, Caspi A, Libman I, Trakhtenberg S. Comparative content of some phytochemicals in Spanish apples, peaches and pears. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture. 2002;82:1166 70 117. Morganelli A. The Biography of Tomatoes. New York: Crabtree Publishing Company; 2007. 118. Costa JM, Heuvelink E. Introduction: the tomato crop and industry. In: Heuvelink E, editor. Tomatoes. Wallingford, UK: CABI Publishing; 2005. 119. Mertz C, Ga ncel AL, Gunata Z, Alter P, Dhuique Mayer C, Vaillant F, Perez AM, Ruales J, Brat P. Phenolic compounds, carotenoids and antioxidant activity of three tropical fruits. Journal of Food Composition and Analysis. 2009 Aug;22:381 7. 120. Abushita AA, Hebshi EA Daood HG, Biacs PA. Determination of antioxidant vitamins in tomatoes. Food Chemistry. 1997 Oct;60:207 12. 121. Gomez Romero M, Arraez Roman D, Segura Carretero A, Fernandez Gutierrez A. Analytical determination of antioxidants in tomato: Typical compone nts of the Mediterranean diet. Journal of Separation Science. 2007;30:452 61. 122. Clinton SK. Lycopene: Chemistry, biology, and implications for human health and disease. Nutrition Reviews. 1998;56:35 51. 123. Schaefer EJ. Lipoproteins, nutrition, and hea rt disease. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 2002;75:191 212. 124. Watkins LO. Epidemiology and burden of cardiovascular disease. Clinical Cardiology. 2004 Jun;27:2 6.

PAGE 187

187 125. Rao AV. Lycopene, tomatoes, and the prevention of coronary heart disease. Ex perimental Biology and Medicine. 2002 Nov;227:908 13. 126. Safar ME, Frohlich ED. Athersclerosis, large arteries and cardiovascular risk. Switzerland: Karger; 2007. 127. Maxwell SRJ, Lip GYH. Free radicals and antioxidants in cardiovascular disease. Britis h Journal of Clinical Pharmacology. 1997 Oct;44:307 17. 128. Manson JE, Tosteson H, Ridker PM, Satterfield S, Herbert P, O'Connor GT. The primary prevention of myocardial infarction. New England Journal of Medicine. 1992;326:1406 16. 129. Program LRC. The lipid research clinics coronary primary prevention trial results, I: reduction in incidence of coronary heart disease. Journal of American Medical Association. 1984;251:351 64. 130. Program LRC. The lipid research clinics coronary primary prevention trial results, II: the relationship of reduction in incidence of coronary heart disease to cholesterol lowering. Journal of American Medical Association. 1984;251:365 74. 131. Djousse L, Arnett DK, Coon H, Province MA, Moore LL, Ellison RC. Fruit and vegetable c onsumption and LDL cholesterol: the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Family Heart Study. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 2004 Feb;79:213 7. 132. Bazzano LA. Effects of Soluble Dietary Fiber on Low Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol and Corona ry Heart Disease Risk. Current Atherosclerosis Reports. 2008 Dec;10:473 7. 133. Erkkila AT, Lichtenstein AH. Fiber and cardiovascular disease risk How strong is the evidence? Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing. 2006 Jan Feb;21:3 8. 134. Powers M. American Dietetic Association guide to eating right when you have diabetes. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc.; 2003. 135. Nelms M, Sucher K, Long S. Nutrition Therapy and Pathophysiology. Belmont, CA: Thomson Brooks/Cole; 2007. 136. Tungland BC, Meyer D. Nondige stible oligo and polysaccharides (dietary fi ber): their physiology and role in human health and food. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety. 2002;1:90 109. 137. Brown L, Rosner B, Willett WW, Sacks FM. Cholesterol lowering effects of diet ary fiber: a meta analysis. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 1999 Jan;69:30 42. 138. Duyff RL. The American Dietetic Association complete food and nutrition guide. 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 2002.

PAGE 188

188 139. Pereira MA, O'Reilly E, Augustsson K, Fraser GE, Goldbourt U, Heitmann BL, Hallmans G, Knekt P, Liu SM, et al. Dietary fiber and risk of coronary heart disease A pooled analysis of cohort studies. Archives of Internal Medicine. 2004 Feb;164:370 6. 140. Eshak ES, Iso H, Date C, Kikuchi S, Wa tanabe Y, Wada Y, Wakai K, Tamakoshi A, Grp JS. Dietary Fiber Intake Is Associated with Reduced Risk of Mortality from Cardiovascular Disease among Japanese Men and Women. Journal of Nutrition. 2010 Aug;140:1445 53. 141. Hu FB. Diet and lifestyle influence s on risk of coronary heart disease. Current Atherosclerosis Reports. 2009;11:257 63. 142. Hursting SD, Slaga TJ, Fischer SM, DiGiovanni J, Phang JM. Mechanism based cancer prevention approaches: Targets, examples, and the use of transgenic mice. Journal o f the National Cancer Institute. 1999;91:215 25. 143. Stewart JR, Artime MC, O'Brian CA. Resveratrol: A candidate nutritional substance for prostate cancer prevention. Journal of Nutrition. 2003 Jul;133:2440S 3S. 144. Sun Y. Free radicals, antioxidant enzy mes, and carcinogenesis. Free Radical Biology and Medicine. 1990;8:583 99. 145. Marnett LJ. Oxyradicals and DNA damage. Carcinogenesis. 2000 Mar;21:361 70. 146. Valko M, Rhodes CJ, Moncol J, Izakovic M, Mazur M. Free radicals, metals and antioxidants in ox idative stress induced cancer. Chemico Biological Interactions. 2006 Mar;160:1 40. 147. Valko M, Leibfritz D, Moncol J, Cronin MTD, Mazur M, Telser J. Free radicals and antioxidants in normal physiological functions and human disease. International Journal of Biochemistry & Cell Biology. 2007;39:44 84. 148. Vertuani S, Angusti A, Manfredini S. The antioxidants and pro antioxidants network: An overview. Current Pharmaceutical Design. 2004;10:1677 94. 149. Mates JM, Perez Gomez C, De Castro IN. Antioxidant en zymes and human diseases. Clinical Biochemistry. 1999;32:595 603. 150. Parkin DM. Global cancer statistics in the year 2000. Lancet Oncology. 2001 Sep;2:533 43. 151. Doll R, R. P. Epidemiology of cancer. In: Weatherall DJ, Ledingham JGG, Warrell DA, eds. Oxford textbook of medicine. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1996. p. 197 221.

PAGE 189

189 152. Norat T, Bingham S, Ferrari P, Slimani N, Jenab M, Mazuir M, Overvad K, Olsen A, Tjonneland A, et al. Meat, fish, and colorectal cancer risk: The European prospective inve stigation into cancer and nutrition. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 2005 Jun;97:906 16. 153. Slattery ML, Benson J, Berry TD, Duncan D, Edwards SL, Caan BJ, Potter JD. Dietary sugar and colon cancer. Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention. 1997 Sep;6:677 85. 154. Williams CD, Satia JA, Adair LS, Stevens J, Galanko J, Keku TO, Sandler RS. Dietary Patterns, Food Groups, and Rectal Cancer Risk in Whites and African Americans. Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention. 2009 May;18:1552 61. 155 Thompson CA, Habermann TM, Wang AH, Vierkant RA, Folsom AR, Ross JA, Cerhan JR. Antioxidant intake from fruits, vegetables and other sources and risk of non Hodgkin's lymphoma: the Iowa Women's Health Study. Int J Cancer. 2010 2010 Feb;126:992 1003. 156. Flegal KM, Carroll MD, Ogden CL, Curtin LR. Prevalence and Trends in Obesity Among US Adults, 1999 2008. Jama Journal of the American Medical Association. 2010;303:235 41. 157. Wellman NS, Friedberg B. Causes and consequences of adult obesity: health, soc ial and economic impacts in the United States. Asia Pacific Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 2002;11:S705 S9. 158. Bray GA. Medical consequences of obesity. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism. 2004 Jun;89:2583 9. 159. Rolls BJ. Dietary strategie s for the prevention and treatment of obesity. Conference on over and undernutrition: challenges and approaches, Guildford, UK, 29 June 2 July 2009; 2010: Cambridge University Press; 2010. p. 70 9. 160. Tetens I, Alinia S. The role of fruit consumption i n the prevention of obesity. Journal of Horticultural Science & Biotechnology. 2009:47 51. 161. Ello Martin JA, Roe LS, Ledikwe JH, Beach AM, Rolls BJ. Dietary energy density in the treatment of obesity: a year long trial comparing 2 weight loss diets. Ame rican Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 2007 Jun;85:1465 77. 162. Buijsse B, Feskens EJM, Schulze MB, Forouhi NG, Wareham NJ, Sharp S, Palli D, Tognon G, Halkjaer J, et al. Fruit and vegetable intakes and subsequent changes in body weight in European populati ons: results from the project on Diet, Obesity, and Genes (DiOGenes). American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 2009 Jul;90:202 9.

PAGE 190

190 163. Kalt W, Forney CF, Martin A, Prior RL. Antioxidant capacity, vitamin C, phenolics, and anthocyanins after fresh storage of small fruits. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. 1999;47:4638 44. 164. Dauthy EM. Fruit specific preservation technologies. Fruit and vegetable processing. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; 1995. 165. Murano P S. Understanding Food Science and Technology. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth; 2003. 166. Ezura H, Hiwasa Tanase K. Fruit Development. In: Pua E C, Davey MR, editors. Plant Developmental Biology Biotechnological Perspectives. New York: Springer; 2009. 167. Pech J C, Bouzayen M, Latche A. Climacteric fruit ripening: Ethylene dependent and independent regulation of ripening pathways in melon fruit. Plant Science. 2008 Jul Aug;175:114 20. 168. Kader AA. Fruit maturity, ripening, and quality relationships. Proceedings of the international symposium on effect of preharvest and postharvest factors on storage of fruit, Warsaw, Poland, 3 7 August, 1997; 1999; 1999. p. 203 8. 169. Bouzayen M, Latche A, Nath P, Pech JC. Mechanism of fruit ripening. In: Pua E C, Davey MR, edi tors. Plant Developmental Biology Biotechnological Perspectives New York: Springer; 2009. 170. Theologis A. One rotten apple spoils the whole bushel the role of ethylene in fruit ripening Cell. 1992;70:181 4. 171. Streif J, Kittemann D, Neuwald DA, Mc Cormick R, Xuan H. Pre and post harvest management of fruit quality, ripening and senescence. VI International Postharvest Symposium, Antalya, Turkey; 2010: International Society for Horticultural Science (ISHS); 2010. p. 55 68. 172. Watkins CB. Ethylene synthesis, mode of action, consequences and control. In: Knee M, editor. Fruit Quality and its Biological Basis. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press LLC; 2002. p. 320. 173. Owusu Apenten R. Introduction to Food Chemistry: CRC Press; 2004. 174. Canadian Produce Mark eting Association. Home Storage Guide for Fresh Fruits & Vegetables. 2010 [cited 2010 June 21]; Available from: http://www.cpma.ca/en_hea_storage.asp 175. Produce for Better Health Foundation. Fruit Nutrition Database. Fruits & Veggies More Matters 2010 [cited 2010 June 21]; Available from: http://www.fruitsandveggiesmorematters.org/?page_id=165

PAGE 191

191 176. Barry CS, Giovannoni JJ. Et hylene and fruit ripening. Journal of Plant Growth Regulation. 2007 Jun;26:143 59. 177. Beattie B, Wade N. Storage, ripening and handling of fruit. In: Arthey D, Ashurst PR, editors. Fruit processing. London: Blackie Academic & Professional; 1998. 178. Ser vice ER. Food CPI and Expenditures Table 7 Food expenditures by families and individuals as a share of disposable personal income. United States Department of Agriculture; 2008. 179. Jones T, Bockhorst A, McKee B, Ndiaye A. Percentage of food loss in the h ousehold: Bureau of Applied Research in Anthropology, University of Arizona; 2003. 180. Jones T. The value of food loss in the American household: Bureau of Applied Research in Anthropology A Report to Tilia Corporation, San Francisco, California; 2004. 1 81. King GA, O'Donoghue EM. Unravelling senescence: new opportunities for delaying the inevitable in harvested fruit and vegetables. Trends in Food Science & Technology. 1995;6:385 9. 182. Garde SJV, Woodburn MJ. Food discard practices of householders. Jou rnal of the American Dietetic Association. 1987;87:322 9. 183. Krueger RA, Casey MA. Focus Groups: A practical guide for applied research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.; 2000. 184. Litwin MS. How to assess and interpret survey psychometrics. 2n d ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 2003. 185. Schmitt N. Uses and abuses of coefficient alpha. Psychological Assessment. 1996 Dec;8:350 3. 186. Bland JM, Altman DG. Cronbach's alpha. British Medical Journal. 1997 Feb 22;314:572 187. Dillman DA. Mail and Internet Surveys: the Tailored Design Method. 2nd ed. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons; 2007. 188. Evans JR, Mathur, Anil. The value of online surveys. Internet Research. 2005;15:195 219. 189. Israel GD. Determining sample size (PEOD6). Gainesvill e: University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences ; 1992. 190. SPSS. SPSS Statistics Base 17.0 User's Guide. 2007.

PAGE 192

192 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Melissa Marie Daniels was born and grew up in Clearwater, Florida. After high school, she attended th science and human nutrition with an emphasis on nutritional sciences. After receiving August 2009 she enroll Nutrition Department at UF. After her graduation in December 2011, she plans to attend dental school.