Citation
Consumer and restaurant manager reaction to depurated oysters and clams

Material Information

Title:
Consumer and restaurant manager reaction to depurated oysters and clams
Alternate title:
FAMRC industry report 94-1
Creator:
Degner, Robert L.
Petrone, Carol
Place of Publication:
Gainesville, Fla.
Publisher:
Florida Agricultural Market Research Center, IFAS, University of Florida
Publication Date:
Copyright Date:
1994
Language:
English
Physical Description:
xviii, 102 p. : ill. ; 28 cm.

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Oysters -- Public opinion -- Florida ( lcsh )
Clams -- Public opinion -- Florida ( lcsh )
Cooking (Oysters) -- Public opinion ( lcsh )
Cooking (Clams) -- Public opinion ( lcsh )
Consumers -- Attitudes -- Florida ( lcsh )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (p. 65).
General Note:
"June, 1994"
General Note:
"Submitted to the Levy County Board of County Commissioners"
Statement of Responsibility:
by Robert L. Degner and Carol Petrone.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
The University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries respect the intellectual property rights of others and do not claim any copyright interest in this item. This item may be protected by copyright but is made available here under a claim of fair use (17 U.S.C. §107) for non-profit research and educational purposes. Users of this work have responsibility for determining copyright status prior to reusing, publishing or reproducing this item for purposes other than what is allowed by fair use or other copyright exemptions. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder. The Smathers Libraries would like to learn more about this item and invite individuals or organizations to contact Digital Services (UFDC@uflib.ufl.edu) with any additional information they can provide.
Resource Identifier:
AKC5277 ( notis )
31215710 ( oclc )
001948827 ( alephbibnum )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text





HISTORIC NOTE


The publications in this collection do not reflect current scientific knowledge or recommendations. These texts represent the historic publishing record of the Institute for Food and Agricultural Sciences and should be used only to trace the historic work of the Institute and its staff. Current WAS research may be found on the Electronic Data Information Source (EDIS)
site maintained by the Florida Cooperative Extension Service.






Copyright 2005, Board of Trustees, University of Florida




300


FAMRC


Industry Report 94-1
July 1994


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


100 F637fi
94-1


UnwesilOf Fluida



Consumer and Restaurant Manager Reaction
to Depurated Oysters and Clams





A Report by Robert L. Degner Carol Petrone














Consumer and Restaurant


Manager Reaction to


Depurated Oysters and Clams







submitted to the Levy County Board of County Commissioners




June, 1994



by



Robert L. Degner
and
Carol Petrone


The Florida Agricultural Market Research Center
IFAS
University of Florida










ABSTRACT


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




m = m m = m m = m m m m m m = m = m











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



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


iii


THE FLORIDA AGRICULTURAL MARKET RESEARCH CE1qTER












TABLE OF CONTENTS


TABLE OF CONTENTS . . LIST OF TABLES . LIST OF FIGURES . . LIST OF APPENDIX TABLES . EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . .


INTRODUCTION OBJECTIVES


PROCEDURE .
Consumer Survey .
Restaurant Manaaer Survey


RESULTS .
Consumer Survey . .
Composition Of The Sample . . .
General Findings .
Health factors that could
consumption .
Perceptions of health risks


affect


shellfish


associiated with


shellfish . . . . . . . . . . . .
Current Oyster Consumption .
Aversions to oysters by non-consumers .
Frequency of oyster consumption .
Number of oysters eaten per occasion
Reported changes in oyster consumption
Usual form of oysters eaten . Current Clam Consumption .
Aversion To Clams .
Freuency of clam consumption .
Number of clams eaten per occasion
Reported changes in clam consumption
Usual form of clams eaten . .


Consumers' Acceptance of Depurated Oysters and Clams
Respondents' willingness to buy depurated oysters
The impact of depurated oyster availability on
consumption *. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Respondents' willingness to buy depurated clams
The impact of depurated clam availability on
consumption ' . . .
Naming the depuration process. . The Restaurant Survey . .
Oysters . .
Potential sales of depurated oysters .
Clams . .


6


12
14 14 17 17 17
20 24 24 29


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii


. . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii


xv


3
3
4


5
5
5
5


affect


. t on of- health.ri.ks.s. . . .


O Q �










Potential sales of depurated clams . . . . . . . 60

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

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

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

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

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










LIST OF TABLES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4 Table 5 Table 6 Table 7 Table 8 Table 9 Table 10 Table 11 Table 12 Table 13 Table 14 Table 1S Table 16


vii










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

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

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

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

Primary reasons given for not eating clams during the past year by respondents that like clams . . . . . 27 Number of clams consumed per occasion in past year
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 8

Consumers' reasons for changing their clam consumption patterns during the past three years . . . . . . . 30 Usual form of clams consumed by respondents during the past year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

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

Respondents, willingness to buy depurated oysters 36 Consumers' willingness to pay for depurated oysters 37

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

Estimated economic returns to depurated oysters at various retail prices and depuration costs . . . . 44 Respondents, willingness to buy depurated clams 46 Consumers, willingness to pay for depurated clams 47 Consumption of depurated and non-depurated clams at varying price levels for depurated clams . . . . . 51

Estimated economic returns to depurated clams at various retail prices and depuration costs . . . . . . . . 54 Respondents' initial reactions to the term I'depuration"
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55


Table 17 Table 18 Table 19 Table 20 Table 21 Table 22 Table 23 Table 24 Table 25 Table 26 Table 27 Table 28 Table 29 Table 30 Table 31 Table 32 Table 33 Table 34


viii









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


Table 36 Table 37


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

Estimated effects of depurated clams on sales of nondepurated shellstock and undepurated processed clams
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61












LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Number of depurated and non-depurated oyster consumers at
various prices for depurated oysters . .39 Figure 2 Market share for depurated oysters at various price
levels .40 Figure 3 Number of depurated and non-depurated clams consumers at
various prices for depurated clams . .52 Figure 4 Market share for depurated clams at various price levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
























































































xii











Appendix Table 1 Appendix Table 2 Appendix Table 3 Appendix Table 4 Appendix Table 5




Appendix Table 6 Appendix Table 7


LIST OF APPENDIX TABLES

Number of interviews by county. .69

Socio-demographic characteristics of the sample
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

Respondents' perceived health condition and reported health problems .71

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

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

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

Respondents' suggested names for the depuration process.75


xiii
























































































xiv









EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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









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

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

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

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

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

When told that the prevailing "retail" price of oysters was
50 each, 70 percent of all those willing to buy depurated oysters were willing to pay a premium of one to 50c each for safer oysters. The simple average premium over the retail price was about 18 per oyster.

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

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


xvi









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

* Despite the somewhat lower acceptance rate of depurated clams
as compared to oysters, consumers are very positive. At a
retail price of 314, per depurated clam (sufficient to cover
depuration costs for large, efficient operations, assuming non-depurated clams retail at 30 ) the total number of occasions clams would be eaten would increase by 27 percnet, and the total number of clams consumed by nearly one-third.

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

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

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

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

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

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


xvii









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

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

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

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

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

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


xviii









INTRODUCTION


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


OBJECTIVES


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













PROCEDURE


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


Consumer Survey


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









Restaurant Manager Surve


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









RESULTS


Consumer Surve


Composition Of The Sample


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


General Findinas


Nearly 85 percent of all those surveyed said they ate some type of seafood. Incidence of consumption was statistically associated with age and education, but no other demographic variables. Seafood consumption was greater among middle-aged (3564) and older consumers (65+) and lowest in the youngest age group. Eighty-eight percent of the middle-aged group ate some type of seafood compared with 83 percent of the older consumers and only 79 percent of the youngest (Table 1).
The incidence of seafood consumption was associated with
education. About 89 percent of the college graduates consumed some type of seafood, compared with only 81 percent of those with a high school education or less (Table 1) . Respondents that ate no seafood were asked why. Dislike for the taste of seafood was by far the most frequent reason, cited by nearly 60 percent (9 percent of the total sample). Allergic reaction to seafood was the next









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


Health factors that could affect shellfish consumption


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


Perceiptions of health risks associated with shellfish


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










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


Socio-demographic Consume seafood
category n yes no Totala

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

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

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


Race
Whitec 906 84.0 16.0 100.0
Black 99 89.9 10.1 100.0

Gender
Male 357 85.2 14.8 100.0
Female 655 84.1 15.9 100.0

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


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














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


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


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


Cumulative Cumulative
Response Frequency Percent Frequency Percent


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

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


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


Table 2. Respondents' primary reasons for not eating seafood.


any type of









to major seafood production areas. However, comparison of the current survey results with Lin's 1990 findings reveals a dramatic erosion of the public's confidence in the safety of oysters.
Both the current and the 1990 surveys had respondents rate the safety of oysters and chicken on a seven-point scale where 11111 represented "not safe at all" and 11711 was "perfectly safe". The current survey also had respondents rate the safety of clams. In 1990, nine percent indicated that oysters were not safe at all; in the current survey, this percentage increased to over 31 percent. Nearly 20 percent rated clams as "not safe at all". In contrast,
the ratings for chicken were very similar for the two surveys (Table 4).
The current survey also explored respondents' perceptions as to the likelihood of illness resulting from eating one serving of raw and cooked oysters, raw and cooked clams, and chicken using a
four point semantic differential scale ranging for "very likely" to "not at all likely". They were also asked for numerical
probabilities of getting sick from eating each of these products, i.e. , of getting sick once in what number of meals. Again, the results showed little confidence in the safety of oysters or clams, particularly when eaten raw. Over 40 percent of the respondents
felt sickness from raw oysters was very likely; the comparable percentage was 38 percent for raw clams and only 3.7 percent for
chicken (Table 5). The perceived chances of getting sick from cooked oysters or clams was much more favorable, with only 6.2 and
5.6 percent, respectively, expressing the opinion that they were "very likely" to get sick from one serving of these items. Although most respondents have difficulty in expressing reasonable odds of getting sick from various foods, the expressed odds
exhibited the same lack of confidence in the safety of raw oysters and clams, with cooked products faring somewhat better (Appendix Table 4).
Approximately two-thirds of all respondents were also aware of consumer advisory notices describing health risks associated with eating raw oysters. Respondents that were middle-aged, more









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



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


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

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









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


Current Oyster Consu=tion


Aversions to oysters by non-consumers


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









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


Frequency of oyster consumDtion


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










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


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


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

Totals 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

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









Number of oysters eaten Per occasion


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


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














Cumulative Cumulative
Response Frequencya Percent Frequency Percent


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


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


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


Table 6. once.


Proportion of sample that had eaten oysters at least


Table 7. oysters.


Respondents' primary reasons for never having eaten


Primary reason for never trying oysters


Cumulative Cumulative Frequency Percent Frequency Percent









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


Cumulative Cumulative
Response Frequency Percent Frequency Percent


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












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



Reasons for Cumulative Cumulative
disliking oysters Frequency Percent Frequency Percent


Taste 74 36.6 74 36.6
slimy 40 19.8 114 56.4
Gritty 27 13.4 141 69.6
Appearance 21 10.4 162 80.2
Safety concerns 21 10.4 183 90.6
General dislike 14 6.9 197 97.5
Smell 2 1.0 199 98.5
Allergies 2 1.0 201 99.5
Medical advice 1 0.5 202 100.0









Usual form of oysters eaten


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


Current Clam Consumption


Aversion To Clams


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














Cumulative Cumulative
Frequency Number Percent Frequency Percent


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


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


Reasons for not Cumulative Cumulative
eating oysters Frequency Percent Frequency Percent


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


consumption in the past year by


Table 10. Frequency of oyster respondents that like oysters.













Number of oysters Cumulative Cumulative
eaten per occasion' Frequency Percent Frequency Percent


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


Table 12.


Number of oysters eaten per occasion in the past year.


a The average number respondents was 13.8.


per occasion


over all


of oysters eaten









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


Frequency of clam cons=ption


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










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


Percent of
positive or
Response Frequency negative reasonSa


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

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

overall total 203

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









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


Usual form Cumulative Cumulative
consumed' Frequency Percent Frequency Percent


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

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










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


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


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


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









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


Number of clams eaten per occasion


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


Reported changes in clam consumption


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










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


Cumulative Cumulative
Response Frequency Percent Frequency Percent


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






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


Cumulative Cumulative
Reason Frequency Percent Frequency Percent


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






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


Cumulative Cumulative
Response Frequency Percent Frequency Percent


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









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


Reasons for Cumulative Cumulative
disliking clams Frequency Percent Frequency Percent


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









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


Cumulative Cumulative
Response Frequency Percent Frequency Percent


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









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


Reasons for not Cumulative Cumulative
eating clams Frequency Percent Frequency Percent


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










Table 22. Number of clams consumed per occasion in past year. Number of clams Cumulative Cumulative
eaten per occasional Frequency Percent Frequency Percent


1
2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9
10
12 13
14 15 18
20 21 24 25 30 36
40 45 48 so 55 60
Do not


0.5
2.4 3.1 1.6 2.6 13.1 0.8 2.9 0.5 6.6 26.0 0.3 0.3 3.1 1.8
4.5 0.3 6.3 1.0 1.6
2.1 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.8 0.3 0.3 16.6


2
11 23 29 39 89 92 103 105 130 229 230 231
243 250 267 268 292 296 302 310 311 312 313 316 317 318 381


0.5 2.9 6.0 7.6
10.2 23.4 24.1 27.0 27.6
34.1 60.1
60.4 60.6 63.8 65.6 70.1 70.3 76.6 77.7 79.3
81.4 81.6 81.9 82.2 82.9 83.2 83.5 100.0


know


'The average number respondents was 13.2.


occasion


over all


of clams eaten per









Usual form of clams eaten


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









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

Percent of
positive or
Response Frequency negative reasons'


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

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

Overall Total 109 100.0

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










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


Usual form Cumulative Cumulative
consumed' Frequency Percent Frequency Percent


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

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









Consumers' Acceptance of Depurated oysters and Clams


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

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

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










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


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


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


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









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


Respondents' willincrness to buy deipurated oysters


About 55 percent of the potential oyster consumers expressed a willingness to buy the safer product. This represents
approximately 36 percent of the total sample. Approximately 38 percent said they would not, and nearly 7 percent were undecided.
Age was the only socio -demographic variable that was associated with willingness to buy; 63 percent of the youngest age group (1834) were willing to buy, in contrast to only 43 percent of the 65 and older group. The oldest group also had the largest proportion
of undecided respondents (Table 26) . of those that had eaten oysters within the past year, 75 percent were willing to buy pirated oysters. Respondents that expressed a willingness to buy depurated oysters were asked how much they would be willing to pay for each treated oyster if untreated oysters were selling for 50 cents each in retail seafood markets or restaurants. About 16 percent of those that said they would buy depurated oysters refused to pay a premium for them, and 15 percent were unable or unwilling to indicate what price they would pay. However, approximately 70 percent were willing to pay a premium ranging from one cent to 50 cents per oyster. Very few respondents indicated a willingness to
spend more than a dollar apiece for oysters (Table 27) The simple average price that potential consumers of depurated oysters was willing to pay was about 68 cents each.


The impact of depurated oyster availability on consumption


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









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










Table 26. Respondents' willingness to buy depurated oysters.


Socio-demographic Willingness to buy
group n yes no unsure Totals'

(-------------------------- Percent-------------All potential 654 54.9 38.4 6.7 100.0
consumers

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

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










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


Price Per Cumulative Cumulative
Oyster8 Frequencyb Percent Frequency Percentc


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


'Respondents were given a benchmark "retail" or restaurant price.


of 50 cents each as the current


b One respondent indicated a willingness to pay $3.00 each and another $5.00 each for oysters. Because these prices were so far
above the average, they were judged to be outliers and were excluded from this frequency table. Also, 55 respondents that were unable or unwilling to suggest a price are not shown. cPercentages may not sum to 100.0 due to rounding.









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









500


1-1
-400 I'
C

0
(D
-a 300
E .

E
c200
0
-0
E z o


0 L


55 60
Depurated


65 70
oyster price, cents


Figure 1.


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


D Depurated

* Non-depurated










D Depurated


55 60
Depurated


Non-depurated


65
oyster price,


70 cents


Figure 2.


Market share for depurated oysters at various price levels.


110 100

90 80


70 60 50 40









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


Respondents, willingness to buy depurated clams


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









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


The impact of de-Purated clam availability on consumption


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








Table 28. Estimated consumption of depurated varying price levels for depurated oysters.


and non-depurated oysters by respondents at


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


$0.75
Depurated 111 2,009 18.1 29,341 264 22,006 198
Non-depurated 245 2761 11.2 47,650 194 23,825 97
Total 356 4,770 13.4 76,991 216 45,831 129

$0.70
Depurated 122 2,123 17.4 30,559 250 21,392 175
Non-depurated 239 2,716 11.4 47,230 198 23,615 99
Total 361 4,839 13.4 77,789 215 45,007 125

$0.65
Depurated 181 2,825 15.6 39,949 221 25,967 143
Non-depurated 201 2,210q 11.0 36,553 181 18,277 91
Total 382 5,035 13.2 76,502 200 44,244 116

$0.60
Depurated 231 3,429 14.8 51,310 222 30,786 133
Non-depurated 165 11890 11.4 30,196 183 15,098 92
Total 396 5,319 13.4 81,506 206 45,884 116

$0.55
Depurated 270 3,996 14.8 58,890 218 32,389 120
Non-depurated 135 1,658 12.3 27,600 204 13,800 102
Total 405 5,654 14.0 86,490 214 46,189 114

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


'Prices shown greater than $0.50 are assumed to be constant at $0.50 each.


for depurated oysters only; the retail prices for untreated oysters are








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


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


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

0.55 58.9 326.6 1.7 989 5.6 -10 ---a a

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

0.65 39.9 221.6 11.7 4.619 25.9 0 0 0

0.70 30.6 169.5 16.7 5.043 28.3 5 1.510 8.5

0.75 29.3 162.7 21.7 6.291 35.3 10 2.899 16.3


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









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










Table 30. Respondents' willingness to buy depurated clams.


Socio -demographic
group n yes No Unsure Totals'

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

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

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










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


Price per Cumulative Cumulative
claMa Frequencyb Percent Frequency Percentc

(Dollars)
0.30 35 12.6 35 12.6
0.31 20 7.2 55 19.8
0.32 2 0.7 57 20.5
0.33 10 3.6 67 24.1
0.34 1 0.4 68 24.5
0.35 38 13.7 106 38.1
0.36 2 0.7 108 38.8
0.38 3 1.1 il1 39.9
0.40 45 16.2 156 56.1
0.44 1 0.4 157 56.5
0.45 21 7.6 178 64.0
0.47 1 0.4 179 64.4
0.50 60 21.6 239 86.0
0.55 6 2.2 245 88.1
0.60 16 5.8 261 93.9
0.65 1 0.4 262 94.2
0.70 3 1.1 265 95.3
0.75 6 2.2 271 97.5
0.80 1 0.4 272 97.8
0.90 1 0.4 273 98.2
1.00 3 1.1 276 99.3
1.25 1 0.4 277 99.6
1.50 1 0.4 278 100.0


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









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









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


Naming the dMuration Process


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









thing that comes to your mind" when they heard the word "depuration."1 Nearly 70 percent were unable to verbalize a response. Although 10 percent correctly associated the term with
a purification or cleansing process, even greater numbers had negative associations such as "1depurify" "deprived", "death", "disease", "unclean", and "unsanitary." No matter what the interviewees, spontaneous response, each was asked whether their
reaction to the word depuration was "positive" or "negative". Nearly 57 percent had a negative reaction, while only 25 percent responded favorably. Almost one out of five had difficulty
deciding whether their reaction was positive or negative (Table 34). Although respondents in the 18-34 and 35-64 age groups had virtually identical reactions to the word, fewer of those in the
oldest group had a positive reaction and more were undecided. Interestingly, college graduates had a less favorable reaction to
"'depuration" than those with less education, and blacks had a more favorable reaction than whites (Table 35). The spontaneous
reactions and positive vs. negative responses to the term depuration can lead to only one conclusion: it is not a term that should be used outside of technical research circles. Because of
its negative associations, the shellfish industry should avoid the term in any educational or marketing programs for shellfish treated with the depuration process and strive to develop a name with more positive connectat ions.


The Restaurant Survey


Oysters


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








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


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


$0.45
Depurated 120 1,899 15.8 27,673 231 12,453 104
Non-depurated 283 2,982 10.5 41784 148 12,535 44
Total 403 4,881 12.1 69,457 172 24,988 62

$0.40
Depurated 196 2,788 14.2 38,485 196 15,394 79
Non-depurated 223 2,600 11.7 37020 166 11,106 50
Total 419 5,388 12.9 75,505 180 26,500 63

$0.35
Depurated 238 3,301 13.9 46,970 197 16,439 69
Non-depurated 186 2,275 12.2 32,459 174 9738 52
Total 424 5,576 13.2 79,429 187 26,177 62

$0.33
Depurated 249 3,576 14.4 52,545 211 17,340 70
Non-depurated 176 2,151 12.2 30181 171 9,054 51
Total 425 5,727 13.5 82,726 195 26,394 62

$0.31
Depurated 269 3,739 13.9 55,397 206 17,173 64
Non-depurated 159 1,926 12.1 26951 169 8,085 51
Total 428 5,665 13.2 82,348 192 25,258 59

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


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







500





'400 II
C




-300
E
(I,
C

,
E u200
0
0
-D
E z 100





0


Figure 3.


30 31 33 35 40 45
Depurated clam price, cents


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


IDepurated

Non-depurated










D Depurated


Non-depurated


L~J


Depurated clam price, cents


Market share for depurated clams at various price levels.


110 100 90 80


Figure 4.








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


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

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

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

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

0.35 47.0 260.5 4.1 1,903 10.7 0.7 325 1.8

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

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


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











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


Do not know
Pure/purify/purifying
Cleansing/cleaning/sanitation/cleanliness/
to clean/washing
Depurify/unpurify/unpure Deprived/deprivation/not having/deficiency Death/disease/illness/virus/medical treatment Unclean/unsanitary/unhealthy/unsafe/
contaminated
Deterioration/disintegrating/going bad/
spoiling/filth/rotten/yucky Process for cleaning seafood Food process/food/process/cooking Something negative/something bad Water
Other (listed below)
Total

Other Responses:
Making something more or less pure Add
Something internal Becc
Somebody put something in something Divi
To deplete something Vent
Desperation Anti
Something done to you Ban
Scuba diving Ind(
Make puration Depc
It's been looked over & ok'd Sea/
Dipping in liquid Deel
Getting rid of chemicals Expi
Seafood Unde
Duplication Ste2
Making it safer Taki
Dehydration Puri
Diapers ComE
Depth Dep
Depth of something Law
My crystal water filter Sma]
Put chemicals back in something f
Pureed Decc
Milk
Separation
Irradiation
Freedom


700
58

45 37 23 23

21


69.2 5.7

4.4 3.7 2.3 2.3

2.1


16 1.6
10 1.0
8 0.8
7 0.7
5 0.5
59 5.8
1012 100.0


Lng chemicals )mes smaller, weaker ding ilation ipuration ish
pendence rtation /ocean freeze ration date mr sea ilization .ng water out ina dog food dy
ite or Government or rule .1 town girl going to raternity party rating










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

Socio-demographic Reaction

characteristic n Positive Negative Uncertain Totala

(---------------Percent---------------All respondents 1012 24.9 56.7 18.4 100.0

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

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

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

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










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










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


Potential sales of depurated oysters


Before any mention was made of the depuration process, each manager was asked for their current weekly oyster purchases. The 20 firms that bought shellstock oysters bought approximately 971 bushels each week. The 19 firms that bought shucked oysters bought 200 bushel equivalents weekly. In total, 26 restaurants bought 1,171 bushels of oysters each week (Table 3 6) . Af ter hearing a brief , non- technical description of the depuration process, each of the 37 restaurant managers was asked how many depurated oysters would be bought at a price of $30 per bushel and how
many undepurated oysters would be bought at the prevailing price of $15 per bushel. After listening to the definition of depuration and weighing the additional cost of depurated oysters, 13 of the managers said they would buy a total 255 bushels of the safer oysters, an average of just under 20 bushels per week. These 13 included three firms that do not sell oysters at present.
The number of restaurants that would buy undepurated shellstock
dropped to 14 from 20. However, these 14 firms would buy a total of 736 bushels, an average of nearly 53 bushels per week. The total quantity
of undepurated shellstock would decline by about one-fourth (24 percent).










However, it appears that smaller f irms would be more likely to buy depurated oysters. The reason for this may be a greater aversion to risk among smaller firms.
The quantity of undepurated shucked oysters bought by restaurants in the sample would decline by only two percent if depurated oysters were available. Although the number of f irms buying undepurated shucked oysters would decline by two, their combined weekly purchases only amounted to four bushels.
Although a few restaurant managers felt that depurated oysters would stimulate overall consumer demand, others judged that higher costs would necessitate higher retail prices and result in reduced demand. Thus, in the aggregate, the total oyster purchases by the restaurants
surveyed would increase by only 1. 4 percent, f rom 1, 171 to 1, 187 bushels per week (Table 36).


Clams


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










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


Potential sales of depurated clams


Restaurant managers were asked for their weekly clam purchases before any mention was made of the depuration process. After hearing a
brief, non-technical description of depuration, they were asked how many bushels of the treated clams they would buy per week.
Ten restaurant managers out of the 37 interviewed were currently buying a total of 127 bushels of raw shellstock weekly. When offered depurated clams at a cost of $60.00 per bushel compared to $44.00 for
untreated clams, 11 managers indicated a willingness to buy 112. 5 bushels of depurated clams. Five others said they would prefer to continue
purchasing undepurated oysters at the lower price. These five firms buy a total of 40.5 per week. As a result of half the restaurants shifting
to depurated clams, the total quantity of undepurated shellstock dropped from 127 per week to 40.5 bushels, a 68 percent decline (Table 37). As
the total number of firms buying shellstock increased from 10 to 166, the total quantity of raw shellstock increased from 127 bushels to 153
bushels, an increase of slightly over 20 percent (Table 37) . The impact on processed cla m rdc, i . e. , f resh and f rozen strips or tenders, was
nil. The likely reason is that virtually all of these items are served cooked, which greatly reduces the incidence of food-borne illness.










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


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


(Firms) (Bushels) (Firms) (Bushels) Undepurated shellstock 20 971 14 736 -24

Undepurated shucked 19 200 17 196 -2

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

Totals N.A. 1,171 __b 1,187 1.4

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




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


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


(Firms) (Bushels) (Firms) (Bushels) Undepurated shellstock 10 127.0 5 40.5 -68.1

Undepurated processeda 16 461.0b 16 461.0b 0.0

Depurated shellstock' 0 0.0 11 112.5 N.A.

Total shellstockd 10 127.0 16 153.0 20.5

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


































































62










CONCLUSIONS


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










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












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

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

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

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

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


REFERENCES


































































66








































APPENDIX A





































































68











Appendix Table 1. Number of interviews by county.


Cumulative Cumulative
Response Frequency Percent Frequency Percent


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











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


Socio- demographic Cumulative Cumulative
Characteristica Frequency Percent Frequency Percent


Gender
Male 357 35.3 357 35.3
Female 655 64.7 1012 100.0

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

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

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

Ae18 to 34 305 30.1 305 30.1
35 to 64 499 49.3 804 79.4
Over 65 208 20.6 1012 100.0

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


aThe survey region contains 48.4 and 51. 6 males and females, respectively. It also contains 14.1 percent blacks. Approximately 16.6 percent of the residents in the survey region are 65 years of age or older. The
questionnaire obtained respondents' ages as a continuous variable. The mean age of all respondents was 47.7 years. Statewide, 18.3 percent of
residents are college graduates, substantially lower than included in the sample. In 1990, the region contained 5.8 percent Hispanics (Florida Statistical Abstract, 1993).










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



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


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

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

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

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

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

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










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


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


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

Totals 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


aPercentages are based upon 893 observations. Totals may not sum to 100 . 0 due to rounding.











Appendix Table


Awareness


consumer


advisory notices


describing


health risks associated with eating raw oysters by all respondents and selected socio-demographic characteristics.


Socijo- demographic characteristic


Response


yes,


have


have not


Totala


seen notices


seen notices


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------.Perce.it-- ----)


All respondents


64.3


35.7


100.0


years 18-34


35-64


57.3 70.2 60.5


42.7
29.8 39.5


Education~c


High school Some college


or less


431 284


College graduate


56.6


73.4


43.4
33.1 26.6


Racecd


White Black


66.7
43.4


56.6


Genderc


Male


Female


650


39.0


61.0
66.2


Income c


Under


$20, 001 $35, 001


$50, 000+


20,000 to $3 to $S


201


55.9
64.7 62.8
75.1


44.1
35.3 37.2


a TOtals may not sum to


b Respondents


that


were


100.0 due uncertain


to rounding. as to whether


not


they


seen


advisory notices were excluded;


C Chi -square significant,


analysis
P c 0.05.


dAll non-blacks were


indicates


there were only 12, that this variable


orn.
is


1


percent.


statistically


included in the white category.










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

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

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

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

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

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










suggested names for the depuration process.


Response category/percentagesa
specific suggestions


Flush/Flushing 6.6%
Flushing
Flushing out
The flush
Fresh flush
Soaking or flushing
Flushing it with water
Fresh water flush(2)
Saniflush
Washing, rinsing, flushing
Clean water flush
Flush(2) Flusher
Flush your oyster
Water flushing
Waterflush
Flushed oysters & clams
Flushing system
Aqua flush
Hydro flush


Washing
Washing(24)
Washed
Oyster washing
Backwash
Wash
Fresh water wash
Fresh wash


Response category/percentagesa
specific suggestions


Radiation/irradiation
Irradiation(3)
Radiation(3)
Radiation process
Natural irradiation

Rinse/rinsing
Rinsing(8)
Rinsing the oysters
Water rinse(2)
Health rinse

Irrigation/irrigating
Irrigation(6)
Irrigating

Water
Water cleansing
Clean by running water
Water treatment
Fresh water(2)
Water cleaning(2)
Water infusion
Water purification
Water washing
Water removal system
Water-cleaned seafood(2)
Boiling water
Clean water processing
Water irrigation
Sea wash
Watering oysters

Sterilizing/sterilization
Sterilization(6)
Sterilizing


4.6%


Cleansing/cleaning 8.0%
Natural cleansing
Cleansing(16)
Natural water cleansing
Nature's cleansing
Cleansing process
Hydrocleansing
Social cleansing
Cleaning(13)
Oyster safety cleaning
Cleaning oysters(2) Cleaning process(2)
Oyster cleaning(2)
Clam cleaning(2)
Cleaning or stripping
Cleaning up clams
Clean clams(2)
Clean shell
Cleaning of the clams
Swish cleaning Hydro cleaning
Salt water cleaning


1.1% 1.8%




1.1% 2 .8%
















1.1%


Purifying/purification 4.0%
Purification(19)
Purifying(3)
Clam & oyster purification
Purifier(2)
Seafood purifier
Water purification


Pasteurization
Pasteurization(2)
Pasteurized


0.5%


Appendix Table 7.


Respondents'











Continued


Other 8.3%
Decaffeinating
Miracle(2)
Wipe out
Decontamination
Name after self to become rich
Filterization
Hydrologization
No red tide
Purging(2)
Rigged
Natural process
Environmental process
Safe seafood
Select process oysters
Seafood safe
Detoxing Draining
"Love those safe oysters"
Disinfecting
Natural process
Naturally processed
Preparing
Hydrolizing
Pure clean
Sanitation(2)
Sanitized


Germ safe Fresh
Desalinization Clamo
Detox Irrigation Oyster & clam distilling Car wash (I'd take my clams to the
clam wash) Aqua filter Renewal Declammer A way to make oysters taste better Filtering clams Seafood safety service Safety net oysters Crushterization Desirable clams & oysters Healthy choice for clams & oysters Process of refining Filtration Oxygenated Steaming Hydromatic Stupid Enema


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






































APPENDIX B





































































78







CONSUL OYSTER QUESTIOMULIRE


MSA-Code: ___________County Code: ____________Interviewer__________Household Code: ___________Date-MMIDDIYY:/ I
Time Started: ____AM /PM

Introduction

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

Household Composition & Randomization Screener

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

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

I= I did. [CONTINUE INTERVIEW AN]) GO TO Ql.]
2= (XXX) did. [SAY: COULD I SPEAK TO (XXX)?]
[IF THAT PERSON COMES TO THE PHONE, REPEAT INTRODUCTION.
THEN GO TO QI.I
[IF THAT PERSON IS NOT AVAILABLE, GO TO S-3.1
8= I don't know all birthdays. [GO TO S4.]

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

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

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

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

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

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




Full Text

PAGE 1

HISTORIC NOTE The publications in this collection do not reflect current scientific knowledge or recommendations. These texts represent the historic publishing record of the Institute for Food and Agricultural Sciences and should be used only to trace the historic work of the Institute and its staff. Current IFAS research may be found on the Electronic Data Information Source (EDIS) site maintained by the Florida Cooperative Extension Service. Copyright 2005, Board of Trustees, University of Florida

PAGE 2

~.,...,,..,.;----.,...;...;____.;.;.~-,--~..;.......__;,..-,---,-----'--,----r.i:. ~ . 0 Sc , i e.Q;:e i .. ~Y....... ce ... ce :. Uht a rY . S E P 221994 < University oLfJor\da ..... . .. ..... Consumer and Restaurant Manager lleaction < to Depurated Oysters and Clams . . Submitted to the . . ' . / Levy County Board of Cc>unty Commts.-ioners by l'he Florida Agricult\ual Market Research Center part of the Food and Resource Economics Department Institute of food and Agricultural Sciences .. . University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611 100 F637f i 94-1 A Report by Robert L Degner Carol Patrone

PAGE 3

Consumer and Restaurant Manager Reaction to Depurated Oysters and Clams submitted to the Levy County Board of County Commissioners June, 1994 by Robert L. Degner and Carol Petrone The Florida Agricultural Market Research Center IFAS University of Florida

PAGE 4

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

PAGE 5

ii I I I I . I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

PAGE 6

THE FLORIDA AGRICULTURAL MARKET RESEARCH CENTER The Florida Agricultural Market Research Center is a service of the Food and Resource Economics Department. Its purpose is to provide timely, applied research on current and emerging marketing problems affecting Florida's agricultural and marine industries. A basic goal of the Center seeks to provide marketing research and related information to producer organizations, trade associations, and governmental agencies concerned with improving and expanding markets for Florida's agricultural and marine producers. Client organizations are required to pay direct costs associated with their research projects. Such costs include labor for personnel and telephone interviewing, mail surveys, travel, and computer analyses. Professional time and support is provided at no charge by IFAS. Professional agricultural economists with specialized training and experience in marketing participate in every Center project. Cooperating personnel from other IFAS units are also involved whenever specialized technical assistance is needed. Dr. Robert L. Degner, Director Florida Agricultural Research Center 1083 McCarty Hall University of Florida Gainesville, Florida 32611 (904) 392-1871 iii

PAGE 7

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I iv I I ~--

PAGE 8

TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES LIST OF APPENDIX TABLES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION OBJECTIVES PROCEDURE. TABLE OF CONTENTS Consumer Survey Restaurant Manager Survey RESULTS . Consumer Survey Composition Of The Sample General Findings Health factors that could consumption affect shellfish Perceptions of heal th risks associated with shellfish Current Oyster Consumption Aversions to oysters by non-consumers Frequency of oyster consumption Number of oysters eaten per occasion Reported changes in oyster consumption Usual form of oysters eaten Current Clam Consumption Aversion To Clams Frequency of clam consumption Number of clams eaten per occasion Reported changes in clam consumption Usual form of clams eaten Consumers' Acceptance of Depurated Oysters and Clams Respondents' willingness to buy depurated oysters The impact of depurated oyster availability on consumption Respondents' willingness to buy depurated clams The impact of depurated clam availability on consumption Naming the depuration process The Restaurant Survey Oysters Potential sales of depurated oysters Clams V V vii xi xiii xv 1 1 3 3 4 5 5 5 5 6 6 11 11 12 14 14 17 17 17 20 24 24 29 32 34 34 41 42 49 50 50 58 59

PAGE 9

Potential sales of depurated clams CONCLUSIONS REFERENCES APPENDIX A Table APPENDIX B Consumer Oyster Questionnaire APPENDIX C Restaurant Manager Questionnaire vi 60 63 65 67 69 77 79 91 . . . 93

PAGE 10

Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4 Table 5 Table 6 Table 7 Table 8 Table 9 Table 10 Table 11 Table 12 Table 13 Table 14 Table 15 Table 16 LIST OF TABLES Proportion of sample consuming seafood, all respondents and by selected socio-demographic categories 7 Respondents' primary reasons for not eating any type of seafood 8 Proportion of sample with shellfish allergies or other significant health problems 8 Consumers' perceptions of the relative oysters, clams and chicken safety of 10 Consumers' perceived chances of getting sick from eating one serving of raw and cooked oysters, raw and cooked clams and chicken 13 Proportion of sample that had eaten oysters at least once 15 Respondents' oysters primary reasons for never having eaten 15 Proportion of sample that had tried oysters and liked them 16 Primary reasons given for disliking respondents who had tried them oysters by 16 Frequency of oyster consumption respondents that like oysters in the past year by 18 Primary reasons given for not eating oysters during the past year by respondents that like oysters 18 Number of oysters eaten per occasion in the past year Consumers' reasons for changing their oysters during the past three years 19 consumption of 21 Usual form of oysters consumed by respondents during the past year 22 Percentage of oysters currently eaten raw compared with three years ago 23 Proportion of sample that had eaten clams at least once 25 vii

PAGE 11

Table 17 Table 18 Table 19 Table 20 Table 21 Table 22 Table 23 Table 24 Table 25 Table 26 Table 27 Table 28 Table 29 Table 30 Table 31 Table 32 Table 33 Table 34 Respondents' clams primary reasons for never having eaten 25 Proportion of sample that had tried clams and liked them 25 Primary reasons given for disliking clams by respondents who had tried them 26 Frequency of clam consumption respondents that like clams in the past year by 26 Primary reasons given for not eating clams during the past year by respondents that like clams 27 Number of clams consumed per occasion in past year 28 Consumers' reasons for changing their clam consumption patterns during the past three years 30 Usual form of clams consumed by respondents during the past year 31 Percentage of clams currently eaten raw compared with three years ago 33 Respondents' willingness to buy depurated oysters 36 Consumers' willingness to pay for depurated oysters 37 Estimated consumption of depurated and non-depurated oysters by respondents at varying price levels for depurated oysters 43 Estimated economic returns to depurated various retail prices and depuration costs oysters at 44 Respondents' willingness to buy depurated clams Consumers' willingness to pay for depurated clams 46 47 Consumption of depurated and non-depurated varying price levels for depurated clams clams at 51 Estimated economic returns to depurated clams at various retail prices and depuration costs 54 Respondents' initial reactions to the term "depuration" 55 viii

PAGE 12

Table 35 Table 36 Table 37 Respondents' reactions to the word "depuration" by selected socio-demographic characteristics 56 Estimated effects of depurated oysters on sales of non depurated shellstock and non-depurated shucked oysters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Estimated effects of depurated clams on sales of non depurated shellstock and undepurated processed clams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 ix

PAGE 13

X

PAGE 14

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Number of depurated and non-depurated oyster consumers at Figure 2 various prices for depurated oysters. . . . . . . 39 Market share levels. for depurated oysters at various price 40 Figure 3 Number of depurated and non-depurated clams consumers at various prices for depurated clams .... . .... 52 Figure 4 Market share for depurated clams at various price levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 xi

PAGE 15

xii

PAGE 16

Appendix Table 1 LIST OF APPENDIX TABLES Number of interviews by county 69 Appendix Table 2 Socio-demographic characteristics of the sample Appendix Table 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Respondents' perceived health reported health problems condition and 71 Appendix Table 4 Consumers expressed odds of getting sick from eating one serving of raw and cooked oysters, clams and chicken ............ 72 Appendix Table 5 Awareness of consumer advisory notices describing health risks associated with eating raw oysters by all respondents and selected socio-demographic characteristics .... 73 Appendix Table 6 Respondents' perceptions regarding the necessity of selected types of consumer information 74 Appendix Table 7 Respondents' suggested names for the depuration process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 xiii

PAGE 17

xiv

PAGE 18

* * * * * * * * * EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Depuration, a process of flushing bacteria and viruses from living mollusks with purified water, can provide consumers with safer oysters and clams. This study examines the need for safer oysters and clams as expressed by consumers and restaurant managers. It documents the continuing erosion of public confidence in the safety of molluscean shellfish, particularly oysters, and explores the potential market acceptance of depurated oysters and clams. It also provides an indication of the economic feasibility of the depuration process for both types of shellfish. Two telephone surveys were conducted during May and June 1994 to meet the study's objectives. One surveyed 1,012 adults in the seven metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) within a 100 mile radius of Cedar Key. The other surveyed 37 seafood restaurant managers in the same geographic areas. These MSAs contain over 5 million residents. Residents in the survey region have a high propensity to consume seafood. About 85 percent eat one or more types of seafood. Of those that do not consume seafood, about 9 percent have concerns about its safety and wholesomeness. There has been a dramatic loss of confidence in the safety of oysters. In 1990, only 9 percent of survey respondents said that oysters were "not safe at all." In the current survey, this percentage increased to over 31 percent. Although clams were not evaluated in 1990, nearly 20 percent currently rate clams as "not safe at all." About 40 percent of the current respondents felt sickness from eating one serving of raw oysters was "very likely". Only 4 percent felt illness from chicken was "very likely". Respondents recognized that cooked oysters and clams were safer than raw. About six percent thought the chances of getting sick from one serving of cooked oysters or clams were "very likely." Two-thirds of all respondents were aware of consumption advisories for raw oysters. Although advisory notices are primarily intended for consumers that may have health conditions that put them at greater risk, advisory notices may have contributed to the loss of confidence in oyster safety. Approximately 4 7 percent of the overall sample said they liked oysters, but nearly one-third of these respondents had not eaten any within the previous year. About half of those that had not eaten oysters in the past year cited fear of illness as the primary reason. An additional 4 percent had been cautioned by their doctors not to eat oysters. xv

PAGE 19

* * * * * * * * Half of all oyster consumers said they had changed their consumption patterns within the past three years; 90 percent reduced consumption. The average frequency of consumption had dropped from 19 times per year to 11. Adverse media publicity, lack of availability, and health advisory notices were the main reasons for the changes. Consumers are now eating fewer raw oysters and more cooked. Three years ago, 39 percent ate only cooked, today about 53 percent eat only cooked. About 47 percent of the overall sample said they liked clams, but one-fifth of these had eaten none during the previous year. One-fifth of those that had not eaten clams in the past year mentioned fear of illness as the primary reason. Al though this percentage is lower than that observed for oysters, it still represents a significant problem. One-fifth of those that said they liked clams had changed their consumption patterns during the previous three years; 90 percent reported a decrease. Adverse publicity about shellfish safety was the primary reason for changing consumption. About 55 percent of all potential oyster consumers (36 percent of the total sample) said they would buy depurated oysters. Of those that had eaten oysters within the past year, 75 percent were willing to buy depurated oysters. When told that the prevailing "retail" price of oysters was 50 each, 70 percent of all those willing to buy depurated oysters were willing to pay a premium of one to 50 each for safer oysters. The simple average premium over the retail price was about 18 per oyster. At a retail price of 55 for depurated oysters (a price which assumes a five cent premium for depuration, sufficient to cover costs only for large, efficient depuration facilities) the number of oyster consumers would increase by 30 percent. The total number of occasions oysters would be eaten would be increased by nearly 60 percent, resulting in a 39 percent increase in total oyster consumption. At higher retail prices for depurated oysters, the total number of consumers willing to buy them declines slightly. Even so, there are sufficient numbers of potential customers to increase total oyster consumption by almost 25 percent over current levels, even at 65 cents and 75 cents per depurated oyster. These retail price levels would make depuration economically feasible for even the least efficient plants. However, in a competitive environment, the more efficient plants would drive prices down. xvi

PAGE 20

* * * * * * * * About 31 percent of the total sample expressed a willingness to buy depurated clams, in contrast to 36 percent for oysters. A possible reason for this lower percentage is that almost 90 percent of clams consumed are cooked rather than eaten raw, and respondents perceived less of a health hazard from cooked clams. Despite the somewhat lower acceptance rate of depurated clams as compared to oysters, consumers are very positive. At a retail price of 31 per depurated clam (sufficient to cover depuration costs for large, efficient operations, assuming non-depurated clams retail at 30) the total number of occasions clams would be eaten would increase by 27 percnet, and the total number of clams consumed by nearly one-third. The term II depuration II was not used in describing the cleansing process to consumers for fear that it could adversely affect their potential acceptance of safer oysters and clams. The survey revealed that 57 percent of all respondents had negative connotations with 11 depuration 11 and only 25 percent had positive reactions. Because of the predominance of negative reactions, the shellfish industry should avoid the term in any educational or marketing programs for shellfish treated with the depuration process and strive to develop a name with more positive connotations. About 70 percent of the seafood restaurants surveyed currently offer oysters on their menus. About half of all restaurants sell raw and cooked oysters and roughly 20 percent serve only cooked. Nearly 90 percent of the firms that do not sell raw oysters cited fear of legal liability as a major reason. Overall, restaurant managers detected declining raw oyster sales and increasing sales of cooked oysters. Slightly over 60 percent of the restaurants selling oysters have consumer health advisories posted somewhere on the premises or on their menus. About 80 percent thought the notices had no effect on oyster sales, but 13 percent thought sales had declined as a result of the notices. Restaurant managers were asked how their oyster purchases would be affected if depurated oysters were available at $30 per bushel and non-depurated at $15. The number of restaurants buying non-depurated shellstock would decline from 20 to 14. Weekly purchases of untreated shellstock would decrease from 971 to 736 bushels, a 24 percent drop. Thirteen managers said they would buy a total of 255 bushels of depurated oysters. Thus, the projected market share for depurated shellstock would be about 21 percent. The quantities of undepurated shucked oysters, most of which are xvii

PAGE 21

to 196 to the by all used for cooked products, would decline from 200 bushels per week, a 2 percent decrease. According managers, the total quantity of oysters purchased restaurants would increase only slightly, just over 1 percent. It appears that most managers may underestimate consumer reaction to depurated oysters. * Clams were also sold by 70 percent of the seafood restaurants surveyed. Only 16 percent sold raw clams, citing lack of demand, "too much trouble" "too much waste" (shrink due to spoilage) and "poor quality." Concerns about legal liability were not mentioned. * Nearly half of the restaurants serving raw clams noted declining sales trends. On the other hand, 40 percent of those serving cooked clams said cooked clam sales were increasing, and only one firm said sales were declining. * Ten of the 37 restaurants surveyed currently buy raw shellstock. When asked how many depurated clams they would buy at $60 per bushel if untreated clams sold for $44.00, five of these firms said they would switch entirely to depurated clams and five restaurants said they would continue to serve undepurated shell stock. Six firms that are not currently buying shellstock indicated they would if it were depurated. Given this scenario, purchases of undepurated shellstock would fall from 127 bushels per week to 40.5 bushels, a 68 percent decline. Total shellstock would increase to 153 bushels per week, an increase of about 20 percent. Undepurated processed clams (strips, etc.) would remain virtually unchanged. * Some, but not all, restaurant managers also appear willing to buy depurated oysters and clams. Their primary motivation is to reduce their legal liability. However, unless depuration can be demonstrated to result in a product safety record rivaling other food items, business liability underwriters will continue their current reported practices of charging higher premiums to restaurants that serve raw oysters. This could continue to depress and reduce the number of restaurants carrying raw oysters. Better quantitative data are needed to convince restaurants, and more importantly their underwriters, that depuration results in a safe, wholesome product. * In summary, consumer confidence in the safety of shellfish, particularly oysters, has greatly deteriorated during the past few years. Frequent, adverse media coverage of seafood-borne illness coupled with consumption advisory notices issued by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) have undermined public confidence. The promise of safer oysters and clams has a broad-based appeal, and consumers appear willing to pay the costs associated with the depuration process. xviii

PAGE 22

INTRODUCTION Depuration, a process of flushing living mollusks with purified water, promises to provide consumers with safer oysters and clams. Properly administered, depuration can reduce the total numbers of bacteria and viruses present in oysters and clams. This may reduce the incidence of illness caused by consumption of these shellfish. The technical process and the production economics of depuration are described in separate reports by IFAS researchers (Tamplin, 1994; Adams, 1994). Although there has been considerable research on the technical aspects of oyster and clam depuration, little is known about the public's perceived need for safer oysters and clams and the general acceptability of the depuration process. OBJECTIVES The basic objective of this study was to determine the market potential for depurated oysters and clams. Specific objectives were to: (1) determine the general public's perception of the current safety of oysters and clams (2) Determine the econimic feasibility of depuration by examining consumers' willingness to purchase depurated oysters and clams, their willingness to pay for safer them, and potential sales volume at various price levels, and (3) Examine acceptance of depurated oysters and clams by managers of seafood restaurants, an important factor in the foodservice sector. 1

PAGE 23

2

PAGE 24

PROCEDURE Two telephone surveys were conducted during April and May of 1994. One was a consumer survey, the other a survey of seafood restaurant managers. Consumer Survey A stratified sample of 1,012 households in central and north central Florida was selected for a telephone survey. The strata were defined as the seven metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) within approximately 100 miles of Cedar Key. The seven MSAs were Tallahassee, Jacksonville, Gainesville, Ocala, Lakeland/Winter Haven and Tampa/St. Petersburg. Orlando, These MSAs encompass 17 counties and contain about 5 million residents. The number of households surveyed in each county of each MSA was proportionate to its total population (Appendix A, Appendix Table 1). Telephone households were randomly selected by using a random digit dialing technique. Within each household, an adult (age 18 and older) was randomly selected using the "last-birthday" technique. Three callbacks were made to each randomly selected telephone number before selecting an alternative number; initial contacts and callbacks were made at three different times of the day, i.e., 9:00 AM to 12:00 PM, 12:01 to 6:00 PM and 6:01 to 9:00 P.M. or on weekends. Interviewing was done by professional interviewers of a commercial field service using a computer assisted telephone interviewing (CATI) program. Interviewers were monitored on-line and 10 percent of all interviews were independently validated. The questionnaire required approximately 10 minutes to complete. A copy of the questionnaire is included in Appendix B. 3

PAGE 25

Restaurant Manager Survey A random sample of independent restaurants in the seven MSAs was drawn from listings in the 1994-1995 Florida Business Directory (American Business Directories, 1994). The sample included only those listings that had a seafood oriented name or were known to serve seafood. Florida Agricultural Market Research Center Staff called approximately 100 firms and successfully interviewed 37 managers responsible for menu selection and purchasing decisions. Calls were made during non-rush hour periods, i.e., mid-mornings and mid-afternoons. Most interviews required from 15 to 20 minutes each. A copy of the questionnaire is included in Appendix C. 4

PAGE 26

RESULTS Consumer Survey Composition Of The Sample Socio-demographic information was obtained for each of the 1,012 adults interviewed. Despite the rigorous randomization procedures, the sample contained somewhat greater proportions of females, whites, high income households and older respondents than the general population, but this is commonplace in telephone surveys because of the lower incidence of telephone service among low income and black households (Appendix Table 2). Because of the disproportionate numbers of respondents in some of the socio demographic groups, care was taken to make sure that the effects of gender, race, income, education, and age on key findings were examined. General Findings Nearly 85 percent of all those surveyed said they ate some type of seafood. Incidence of consumption was statistically associated with age and education, but no other demographic variables. Seafood consumption was greater among middle-aged (3564) and older consumers (65+) and lowest in the youngest age group. Eighty-eight percent of the middle-aged group ate some type of seafood compared with 83 percent of the older consumers and only 79 percent of the youngest (Table 1). The incidence of seafood consumption was associated with education. About 89 percent of the college graduates consumed some type of seafood, compared with only 81 percent of those with a high school education or less (Table 1) . Respondents that ate no seafood were asked why. Dislike for the taste of seafood was by far the most frequent reason, cited by nearly 60 percent (9 percent of the total sample). Allergic reaction to seafood was the next 5

PAGE 27

most common reason, mentioned by about 10 percent. Concern about the safety and wholesomeness was the next most frequent reason given for not eating seafood, mentioned by about 9 percent of the non-consumers (Table 2). Health factors that could affect shellfish consumption All 1,012 respondents were asked about health problems that could adversely affect their consumption of shellfish. Seventy one, or seven percent, reported shellfish allergies (Table 3). A total of 220, about 22 percent, reported one or more serious health problems such as diabetes, heart disease, liver or stomach problems or immune system disorders which could limit their consumption of raw or partially cooked shellfish (Table 3, Appendix Table 3}. When respondents with shellfish allergies are included with those reporting other significant health problems, 29 percent of the total sample could be at risk from consuming raw or undercooked shellfish. Perceptions of health risks associated with shellfish The subset of the sample that consumed some type of seafood was asked to rate the relative "safety" of oysters, clams and chicken. Safety was not defined nor was the form of the three items; this was done so that the methodology would be similar to that used in a previous shellfish safety study (Lin, 1991). The previous study, conducted by Lin in 1990, included 11 coastal southeastern and mid-Atlantic states from Texas to Delaware (inclusive) . Responses in Lin's study were obtained from the general population, including non-consumers of seafood. Because the current safety ratings were obtained from seafood consumers within a 100 mile-radius of Cedar Key, it was hypothesized that safety ratings of the current target population would likely be more favorable than those of the previous study because of greater familiarity of seafood and because of closer geographic proximity 6

PAGE 28

Table 1. Proportion of sample consuming seafood, all respondents and by selected socio-demographic categories. Socio-demographic Consume seafood category n yes no Totaia (----------Percent----------) All respondents 1012 84.5 15.5 100.0 Age (years) b 18-34 281 79.4 20.6 100.0 35-64 499 88.0 12.0 100.0 65+ 208 83.2 16.8 100.0 Educationb High School or less 436 81. 2 18.8 100.0 Some College 287 84.7 15.3 100.0 College graduate 289 89.3 10.7 100.0 Race Whitec 906 84.0 16.0 100.0 Black 99 89.9 10.1 100.0 Gender Male 357 85.2 14.8 100.0 Female 655 84.1 15.9 100.0 Income Under $20,000 174 83.3 16.7 100.0 $20,001 to $35,000 234 86.8 13.2 100.0 $35,001 to $50,000 181 87.8 12.2 100.0 $50,000 + 201 88. 1 11. 9 100.0 aTotals may not sum to 100.0 due to rounding. bChi-square analysis indicates that this variable is statistically significant, P < 0.05. cAll non-blacks were included in the white category. 7

PAGE 29

Table 2. Respondents' primary reasons for not eating any type of seafood. Primary reason for not eating Cumulative Cumulative seafood Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Taste 93 59.2 93 59.2 Seafood allergies 15 9.6 108 68.8 Food safety/quality 14 8.9 122 77.7 Vegetarian 11 7.0 133 84.7 Do not know 11 7.0 144 91. 7 Too expensive 8 5.1 152 96.8 Smell 3 1. 9 155 98.7 Other 2 1.3 157 100.0 Table 3. Proportion of sample with shellfish allergies or other significant health problems. Response Shellfish allergies Yes No Refused to answer Number of major health problemsa None One Two Three Refused Cumulative Cumulative Frequency Percent Frequency Percent 71 932 9 783 177 40 3 9 7.0 92.1 0.9 77.4 17.5 4 . 0 0.3 0.9 71 1003 1012 783 960 1000 1003 1012 7.0 99.1 100.0 77.4 94.9 98.9 99.2 100.0 ashellfish allergies were excluded; major health problems included diabetes, heart disease, liver ailments, stomach problems and immune system disorders . When shellfish allergies are included, a total of 29 percent of the total population could be at risk from consuming raw or undercooked shellfish. 8

PAGE 30

to major seafood production areas. However, comparison of the current survey results with Lin's 1990 findings reveals a dramatic erosion of the public's confidence in the safety of oysters. Both the current and the 1990 surveys had respondents rate the safety of oysters and chicken on a seven-point scale where "l" represented "not safe at all" and "7" was "perfectly safe". The current survey also had respondents rate the safety of clams. In 1990, nine percent indicated that oysters were not safe at all; in the current survey, this percentage increased to over 31 percent. Nearly 20 percent rated clams as "not safe at all". In contrast, the ratings for chicken were very similar for the two surveys (Table 4). The current survey also explored respondents' perceptions as to the likelihood of illness resulting from eating one serving of raw and cooked oysters, raw and cooked clams, and chicken using a four point semantic differential scale ranging for "very likely" to "not at all likely". They were also asked for numerical probabilities of getting sick from eating each of these products, i . e., of getting sick once in what number of meals. Again, the results showed little confidence in the safety of oysters or clams, particularly when eaten raw. Over 40 percent of the respondents felt sickness from raw oysters was very likely; the comparable percentage was 38 percent for raw clams and only 3.7 percent for chicken (Table 5). The perceived chances of getting sick from cooked oysters or clams was much more favorable, with only 6.2 and 5.6 percent, respectively, expressing the opinion that they were "very likely" to get sick from one serving of these items. Although most respondents have difficulty in expressing reasonable odds of getting sick from various foods, the expressed odds exhibited the same lack of confidence in the safety of raw oysters and clams, with cooked products faring somewhat better (Appendix Table 4). Approximately two-thirds of all respondents were also aware of consumer advisory notices describing health risks associated with eating raw oysters. Respondents that were middle-aged, more 9

PAGE 31

Table 4. Consumers' perceptions of the relative safety of oysters, clams and chicken. Rating 1 = Not safe at all 2 3 4 5 6 7 = Perfectly safe Totals Oysters 1991a 1994b Clams 1994b Chicken 1991 a 1994b (-------------Percent-------------) 9.0 31.3 19.3 1.5 1.9 9.6 16.2 13.7 2.1 2.5 1 7. 0 15. 9 14. 9 5. 4 7. 6 21.9 13.0 16.6 12.6 14.7 21.8 14.4 19.3 29.4 33.1 11.8 4.1 9.0 24.3 17.3 8.8 5.1 7.2 24.6 22.8 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 aPercentages are based upon 916 observations for oysters and 1,060 for chicken. These data were obtained in 1990 from 11 southeastern and mid-Atlantic states (Lin, 1991). bPercentages for the 1994 survey are based upon 748, 699 and 863 respondents for oysters, clams and chicken respectively. Those that were vegetarians, suffered from seafood allergies, or did not eat seafood because of its taste or smell were excluded. Approximately 16, 22 and 3 percent of the respondents asked to rate oysters, clams and chicken, respectively, were unable to do so; they were also excluded. 10

PAGE 32

educated, white, female, and those with higher incomes had a greater awareness of advisory notices (Appendix Table 5). There was also a substantial amount of consumer support for such advisory notices, with nearly three-fourths of all respondents indicating that they were necessary. Also, nearly 87 percent felt that informational labels on proper cooking and handling practices were necessary (Appendix Tables 5 and 6). The high levels of awareness of consumption advisories for raw oysters are no doubt reaching potential consumers of raw oysters that may be at risk because of health conditions. However, these awareness levels may have contributed to a loss of confidence in oyster's safety among consumers that are at relatively low risk. Current Oyster Consumption Aversions to oysters by non-consumers Approximately three fourths of the respondents that eat seafood had eaten oysters at least once (Table 6). Nearly two thirds of those that had never eaten them said they had not because of their appearance, with 15 percent explicitly mentioning their "slimy" look. An additional 13 percent thought they would taste bad (Table 7) Slightly over 7 percent had never eaten oysters because of personal safety concerns, i.e., they were afraid of illness. One person, representing a very small percentage of total non-eaters, had been advised by a medical doctor to avoid oysters. Other reasons given for not eating oysters included a general aversion to new things, smell, and the thought of grit in the oyster's digestive system. Price was also mentioned by several respondents (Table 7). Of the respondents that had eaten oysters, slightly over two thirds liked them (Table 8). Of those that said they disliked them, taste was mentioned by about 37 percent. Texture was also a big factor, with nearly 20 percent objecting to the slimy feel and 13 percent to the grit. General appearance was mentioned by 10 11

PAGE 33

percent. Fear of illness was also cited by a total of 12 percent; this includes several respondents that were concerned about allergies and one that had been told by a medical doctor to avoid oysters (Table 9). Frequency of oyster consumption Approximately 4 7 percent of the overall sample said they liked oysters. However, nearly one-third of these respondents had not eaten oysters within the past year. An additional 44 percent ate oysters only four or less times within the preceding year. Approximately one-fourth of those liking oysters constituted the hard-core, frequent consumers. This group ate oysters at least onceper month (Table 10). The 319 respondents that ate oysters at least once during the past year averaged having oysters 11.1 times, just under once per month. Almost half of the respondents that liked oysters but had not eaten any in the preceding year cited fear of illness as their primary reason for not having eaten them. An additional four percent had been cautioned by medical doctors not to eat them {Table 11). The second most frequently mentioned reason was simply "not in the mood" or "not hungry for them", given by 20 percent. The next most frequent reason given was "lack of opportunity". This is of particular concern because many restaurants are dropping oysters from their menus because of liability considerations. Unless this trend is halted or reversed, the aggregate demand for oysters, particularly raw shellstock, could be drastically reduced from traditional levels. Only two percent of oyster consumers mentioned price or expense as the reason for not eating them in previous year. A similar number said they had not eaten oysters because of dietary concerns such as cholesterol (Table 11). 12

PAGE 34

Table 5. Consumers' perceived chances of getting sick from eating one serving of raw and cooked oysters, raw and cooked clams and chicken. Perceived chance of getting sick from Raw Cooked oysters Raw clams Cooked clams Chicken one serving oysters Very likely Somewhat likely Not too likely Not at all likely Do not know Totals (------------------Percenta------------------) 40.5 6.2 38.4 5.6 3.7 41.7 34.5 36.3 31.2 25.5 9.5 37.5 9.2 37.4 46.2 2.8 14.4 3.5 14.2 23.0 5.5 7.4 12.7 11.5 1.6 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 aPercentages are based upon 893 respondents. Those that were vegetarians, suffered from seafood allergies or did not eat seafood because of taste or smell were excluded. 13

PAGE 35

Number of oysters eaten per occasion The most frequently mentioned quantity of oysters eaten per occasion was 12, reported by nearly one-third of all those eating oysters in the previous year. Other frequently mentioned quantities were six and 24, reported by 19 and 12 percent, respectively (Table 12). The average number eaten per occasion was 13.8. Reported changes in oyster consumption Nearly half of all respondents that like oysters said they had changed their oyster consumption patterns within the past three years. Ninety percent had reduced consumption. Although the reported average quantity of oysters consumed per occasion in the past was the same as for the past year, the frequency of consumption dropped from about 19 times per year to only 11 times. The leading reason for the adverse changes in oyster consumption was negative media coverage, mentioned by nearly 55 percent of those responding. Lack of availability accounted for 13 percent. Health advisory warning signs or notices adversely affected about 8 percent. Personal illness resulting from eating oysters caused 7 percent to reduce oyster consumption. Doctors' warnings affected about 4 percent, fear of contaminated or unsafe oysters 3 percent, and friends' or relatives' illness resulting from oysters about 2 percent. Dietary concerns and poor health were mentioned by small percentages. Interestingly, price increases were cited as a reason for negative changes in consumption by about 5 percent (Table 13). About 10 percent of those that changed their oyster consumption patterns reported positive changes. The majority of those increasing consumption did so because oysters were more readily available or because they had learned to like them. Other reasons for increased consumption included better quality, lower prices, promise of improved sex life and the availability of oysters from a preferred geographic source (Table 13). 14

PAGE 36

Table 6. once. Proportion of sample that had eaten oysters at least Response cumulative cumulative Frequencya Percent Frequency Percent Yes, had eaten oysters 677 No, had not eaten oysters 216 75.8 24.2 677 893 75.8 100.0 aExcludes those that do not eat any type of seafood because of vegetarianism, seafood allergies, dislike of seafood because of taste or smell or religious reasons. Table 7. oysters. Respondents' primary reasons for never having eaten Primary reason for never trying oysters Appearance Slimy Think they taste bad Safety concerns Aversion to new things Smell Think grit is bad Price Other physical concerns Medical advice Frequency 108 31 28 15 13 6 6 2 1 1 15 Percent 51.2 14.7 13.3 7.1 6.2 2.8 2.8 0.9 0.5 0.5 Cumulative Frequency 108 139 167 182 195 201 207 209 210 211 Cumulative Percent 51. 2 65.9 79.1 86.3 92.4 95.3 98.1 99.1 99.5 100.0

PAGE 37

Table 8. them. Proportion of sample that had tried oysters and liked Cumulative Cumulative Response Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Like 459 67.8 459 67.8 Dislike 206 30.4 665 98.2 Unsure 12 1. 8 677 100.0 Table 9. Primary reasons given for disliking oysters by respondents who had tried them. Reasons for Cumulative Cumulative disliking oysters Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Taste 74 36.6 74 36.6 Slimy 40 19.8 114 56.4 Gritty 27 13.4 141 69.8 Appearance 21 10.4 162 80.2 Safety concerns 21 10.4 183 90.6 General dislike 14 6.9 197 97.5 Smell 2 1.0 199 98.5 Allergies 2 1.0 201 99.5 Medical advice 1 0.5 202 100.0 16

PAGE 38

Usual form of oysters eaten Respondents that had eaten oysters in the previous year were asked what form was usually eaten. About 53 percent said they usually ate them cooked, which included steamed, fried, baked, stewed, etc. Approximately 41 percent usually ate them raw on the halfshell. Only 4 percent ate them raw shucked oysters (from jars) and only 2 percent eat processed canned oysters (Table 14). Chi square analysis did not reveal any statistically significant relationships between the usual form of oysters eaten and respondent's age, income, gender, education or race. In order to determine what changes consumers had made in their consumption of raw versus cooked oysters, they were asked to indicate what proportion they currently ate raw compared with three years ago. There has been a marked increase in the consumption of cooked oysters. Three years ago, about 39 percent of the respondents ate only cooked oysters; today, about 53 percent eat only cooked. Similarly, three years ago 26 percent ate only raw oysters and today the percentage has declined to about 23 percent (Table 15). In the aggregate, about 23 percent of all those eating oysters in the previous year said they had reduced the proportion of oysters eaten raw; about 73 percent reported no change, and only 5 percent increased the proportion eaten raw. Current Clam Consumption Aversion To Clams Nearly three-fourths of the respondents that eat seafood had tried clams at least once (Table 16). Of those that had not, about 39 percent objected to their general appearance, and an additional 7 percent did not like their "slimy" look. About one-fourth of those that had never tried clams said they had an aversion to trying new things. Personal safety concerns, i.e., a fear of 17

PAGE 39

Table 10. Frequency of oyster consumption in the past year by respondents that like oysters. Frequency None Once Once/twice 6 months Once per month Twice per month Three times per month Four times per month More than once a week Number 152 46 161 48 36 8 15 5 Percent 32.3 9.8 34.2 10.2 7.6 1. 7 3.2 1.1 Cumulative Frequency 152 198 359 407 443 451 466 471 Cumulative Percent 32.3 42.0 76.2 86.4 94 . 1 95.8 98.9 100.0 Table 11. Primary reasons given for not eating oysters during the past year by respondents that like oysters. Reasons for not Cumulative Cumulative eating oysters Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Fear of illness 70 47.3 70 47.3 Not in the mood 30 20 . 3 100 67.6 Lack of opportunity 22 14.9 122 82 . 4 Not readily available 13 8.8 135 91. 2 Medical advice 6 4.1 141 95.3 Too expensive 3 2.0 144 97.3 Dietary concerns 3 2.0 147 99.3 Other 1 0.7 148 100.0 18

PAGE 40

Table 12. Number of oysters eaten per occasion in the past year. Number of oysters eaten per occasiona 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 12 13 15 17 18 20 24 25 30 36 40 45 48 so 60 Do not know Frequency 1 1 9 10 15 61 1 11 15 95 1 5 1 8 8 37 5 3 7 3 1 4 3 1 13 Percent 0.3 0.3 2.8 3.1 4.7 19.1 0.3 3.4 4.7 29.8 0.3 1. 6 0.3 2.5 2.5 11. 6 1.6 0.9 2.2 0.9 0.3 1.3 0.9 0.3 4.1 Cumulative Frequency 1 2 11 21 36 97 98 109 124 219 220 225 226 234 242 279 284 287 294 297 298 302 305 306 319 Cumulative Percent 0.3 0.6 3.4 6.6 11.3 30.4 30.7 34.2 38.9 68.7 69.0 70.5 70.8 73.4 75.9 87.5 89.0 90.0 92.2 93.1 93.4 94.7 95.6 95.9 100.0 aThe average number of oysters eaten per occasion over all respondents was 13.8. 19

PAGE 41

illness, was mentioned by only 3 percent, about half the number that expressed concern about oysters (Table 17). Of the respondents that had tried clams, slightly over 70 percent liked them. About one-fourth disliked clams, and a small percentage was ambivalent (Table 18). Over half the respondents that said they disliked clams cited taste as the primary reason. About 17 percent mentioned the gritty texture. Other textural attributes were found objectionable by small numbers of respondents; these objectional features were described as "slimy" and "chewy" or "rubbery". Personal safety considerations, or fear of food-borne illness, was mentioned by only 6 percent. This was about half the number that expressed a similar concern about oysters (Table 19). Frequency of clam consumption As was the case with oysters, about 47 percent of the overall sample said they liked clams. Even so, nearly one-fifth had eaten no clams within the preceding year. An additional 58 percent ate clams only one to four times during the year. Slightly less than one-fourth ate clams at least once per month (Table 20). The 379 respondents that ate clams at least once during the preceding year had them an average of 11.8 times, approximately once per month. Respondents that said they liked clams but had not eaten any during the preceding year cited a number of reasons. Slightly over one in five mentioned fear of food-borne illness as the main reason. Although this percentage is lower than observed for oysters, it still represents a significant problem. Very similar proportions, roughly 20 percent for each, said they had no clams because they had no appetite for them, had no opportunity to eat them or that clams were not available where they usually shopped or ate. About 9 percent said they had not eaten clams in the previous year because they were too expensive, while approximately 7 percent 20

PAGE 42

Table 13. Consumers' reasons for changing their consumption of oysters during the past three years. Response Negative reasons Media Lack of availability Warning signs Personal illness Price increases Doctor's warning Contamination Relative/friends illness Dietary concerns Poor health Total negative reasonsb Positive reasons More readily available Learned to like them Better quality Lower prices Promise of improved sex Geographic source Total positive reason Overall total Frequency 101 24 15 13 9 8 5 4 3 __ 2 184 7 5 3 2 2 __ 1 19 203 Percent of positive or negative reasonsa 54.9 13.0 8.2 7.1 4.9 4.4 2.7 2.2 1. 6 1.1 100.0 36.8 26.3 15.8 10.5 10.5 5.3 100.0 aPercentages may not sum to 100.0 because of rounding. bOf the 203 respondents that provided a reason for changing their consumption of oysters, 90.6 gave negative and 9.4 percent gave positive reasons. 21

PAGE 43

Table 14. Usual form of oysters consumed by respondents during the past year. Usual form consume~ Cooked Raw on the half-shell Raw from a jar Canned, from a tin Frequency 168 129 14 7 Percent 52.8 40.6 4.4 2.2 Cumulative Frequency 168 297 311 318 Cumulative Percent 52.8 93.4 97.8 100.0 aAlthough Chi-square analyses were inconclusive because of sparse data, it appears that blacks and females eat larger proportions cooked rather than raw. 22

PAGE 44

Table 15. Percentage of oysters currently eaten raw compared with three years ago. Percent of Currently Three years ago oysters Number of Percent of Number of Percent of eaten rawa respondents respondents respondents respondents 0 150 53.2 109 38.7 1 3 1.1 8 2.8 2 2 0.7 1 0.4 5 2 0.7 6 2.1 8 1 0.4 1 0.4 10 7 2.5 9 3.2 12 0 0.0 1 0.4 20 1 0.4 0 0.0 25 3 1.1 6 2.1 30 4 1.4 2 0.7 33 1 0.4 2 0.7 40 0 0.0 1 0.4 so 21 7.4 32 11.3 60 0 0.0 2 0.7 66 0 0.0 1 0.4 75 6 2.1 9 3.2 80 5 1.8 3 1.1 85 0 0.0 1 0.4 90 5 1. 8 8 2.8 95 0 0.0 1 0.4 99 5 1. 8 5 1. 8 100 --2... 23.4 _H 26.2 Totals 282 100.0 282 100.0 aThis table includes only those respondents that had eaten oysters within the past year and were able to estimate the percentage eaten raw for the previous year and three years previously. Sixty-three of the 282 respondents (22.3 percent) reduced their consumption of raw oysters. Approximately 73 percent did not change, and only 5 percent increased their consumption of raw oysters. 23

PAGE 45

cited medical advice as their primary reason. Difficult preparation and dietary concerns were also mentioned by a small numbers of respondents (Table 21). Number of clams eaten per occasion Although one dozen, one-half dozen and two dozen were the most frequently mentioned quantities eaten per occasion, there appeared to be more dispersion around these traditional quantities. Additionally, nearly 17 percent were unable to estimate the number of clams eaten (Table 22) . One explanation for the greater dispersion and the inability of respondents to estimate the number eaten compared with consumers of oysters is that clams are frequently prepared as fried clam II strips II or in chowder. The average number of clams eaten per occasion over all respondents was 13.2. Reported changes in clam consumption About one fifth of all those that liked clams said they had changed their consumption habits within the past three years. As with oysters, approximately 90 percent of those that had changed reported a decline in consumption. The major reason given for reducing clam consumption was adverse media reports, mentioned by nearly one-fourth of the respondents. Lack of availability was cited by nearly 19 percent. About 18 percent simply said they did not feel like eating clams and price increases caused about 11 percent to reduce their clam consumption. Health advisory notices (warning signs) fear of food borne illness and doctor's advice accounted for almost equal percentages, mentioned in total by just over 20 percent of the negative change (Table 23). There were only two basic reasons why a small number of respondents increased their consumption: they learned to like them and clams were more readily available. These two reasons were cited by equal numbers of respondents (Table 23). 24

PAGE 46

Table 16. Proportion of sample that had eaten clams at least once. Cumulative Cumulative Response Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Yes, had eaten clams 651 72.9 651 72.9 No, had not eaten clams 241 27.0 892 99.9 Unsure 1 0.1 893 100.0 Table 17. clams. Respondents' primary reasons for never having eaten Cumulative Cumulative Reason Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Appearance 83 38.6 83 38.6 Aversion to new things 56 26.0 139 64.7 Think taste would be bad 34 15.8 173 80.5 Slimy 16 7.4 189 87.9 Smell 9 4.2 198 92.1 Grit/internal waste 8 3.7 206 95.8 Safety concerns 7 3.3 213 99.1 Allergies, medical advice 2 0.9 215 100.0 Table 18. them. Proportion of sample that had tried clams and liked Cumulative Cumulative Response Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Like 466 71. 5 466 71.5 Dislike 167 25.6 633 97.1 Unsure 19 2.9 652 100.0 25

PAGE 47

Table 19. Primary reasons given for disliking clams by respondents who had tried them. Reasons for Cumulative Cumulative disliking clams Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Taste 84 52.5 84 52.5 Gritty texture 27 16.9 111 69.4 General dislike 16 10.0 127 79.4 Appearance 10 6.2 137 85.6 Safety concerns 10 6.2 147 91.1 Slimy 5 3.1 152 95.0 Smell 3 1. 9 155 96.9 Chewy/Rubbery 3 1. 9 158 98.7 Allergies 1 0.6 159 99.4 Medical advice 1 0.6 160 100.0 Table 20. Frequency of clam consumption in the past year by respondents that like clams. Cumulative Cumulative Response Frequency Percent Frequency Percent None 85 18.2 85 18.2 Once a year 59 12.7 144 30.9 Once or twice in 6 months 212 45.5 356 76.4 Once per month 55 11. 8 411 88.2 Twice per month 25 5.4 436 93.6 Three times per month 5 1.1 441 94.6 Four times per month 16 3.4 457 98.1 More than once a week 7 1.5 464 99.6 Do not know 2 0.4 466 100.0 26

PAGE 48

Table 21. Primary reasons given for not eating clams during the past year by respondents that like clams. Reasons for not Cumulative Cumulative eating clams Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Fear of illness 18 22.5 18 22.5 No appetite 17 21. 3 35 43.7 No opportunity 15 18.8 50 62.5 Not available 15 18.8 65 81.2 Too expensive 7 8.8 72 90.0 Medical advice 6 7.5 78 97.5 Hard to prepare 1 1. 3 79 98.7 Dietary concerns 1 1. 3 80 100.0 27

PAGE 49

Table 22. Number of clams consumed per occasion in past year. Number of clams Cumulative Cumulative eaten per occasiona Frequency Percent Frequency Percent 1 2 0.5 2 0.5 2 9 2.4 11 2.9 3 12 3.1 23 6.0 4 6 1. 6 29 7.6 5 10 2.6 39 10.2 6 50 13.1 89 23.4 7 3 0.8 92 24.1 8 11 2.9 103 27.0 9 2 0.5 105 27.6 10 25 6.6 130 34 . 1 12 99 26.0 229 60.1 13 1 0.3 230 60.4 14 1 0.3 231 60.6 15 12 3.1 243 63.8 18 7 1.8 250 65.6 20 17 4.5 267 70.1 21 1 0.3 268 70.3 24 24 6.3 292 76.6 25 4 1. 0 296 77.7 30 6 1. 6 302 79.3 36 8 2.1 310 81.4 40 1 0.3 311 81. 6 45 1 0.3 312 81. 9 48 1 0.3 313 82.2 50 3 0.8 316 82.9 55 1 0.3 317 83.2 60 1 0.3 318 83.5 Do not know 63 16.6 381 100.0 aThe average number of clams eaten per occasion over all respondents was 13.2. 28

PAGE 50

Usual form of clams eaten Respondents that had eaten clams during the previous year were asked what form was usually eaten. Eighty-nine percent said they usually eat fresh clams cooked. Only 6 percent said they ate them raw on the half-shell, and about 4 percent usually ate processed (canned) clams (Table 24). There were no statistically significant differences in the form of clams consumed by age, gender, education, race or income. In order to determine what changes consumers had made in their consumption of raw versus cooked clams, they were asked to indicate what proportion they currently eat raw compared with three years ago. Responses reveal a shift away from consumption of raw clams toward cooked, although the change has not been as great as has been the case with oysters. Three years ago, about 84 percent of the respondents ate only cooked clams. Today, about 89 percent eat only cooked. Similarly, three years ago 4 percent ate only raw clams, but that percentage is now about 3 percent. In the aggregate, 8 percent of the respondents said they had reduced their consumption of raw clams. About 91 percent said they had not changed the proportions eaten raw versus fresh and only one percent reported an increase in the proportion eaten raw (Table 25). 29

PAGE 51

Table 23. Consumers' reasons for changing their clam consumption patterns during the past three yearsa. Response Negative reasons Adverse media reports Lack of availability Did not feel like eating Clams Price increases Warning signs Personal illness Doctor's advice Dietary concerns Difficult to prepare Illness of friend/relative Total negative reasonsb Positive reasons Learned to like them More readily available Total positive reasonsb Overall Total Frequency 23 18 17 11 7 7 6 5 2 __ 1 97 6 __ 6 12 109 Percent of positive or negative reasonsa 23.7 18.6 17.5 11. 3 7.2 7.2 6.2 5.2 2.1 1.0 100.0 50.0 50.0 100.0 100.0 aPercentages may not sum to 100.0 because of rounding. bOf the 109 respondents that provided a reason for changing their consumption of clams, 89 percent gave negative and 11 percent gave positive reasons. 30

PAGE 52

Table 24. Usual form of clams consumed by respondents during the past year. Usual form consumeda Cooked fresh Raw on the half-shell Canned from a tin Frequency 340 24 17 Percent 89.2 6.3 4.5 Cumulative Frequency 340 364 381 Cumulative Percent 89.2 95.5 100.0 achi-square analyses revealed no statistically significant differences in the usual form of clams consumed by age, gender, education, race or income. 31

PAGE 53

Consumers' Acceptance of Depurated Oysters and Clams The portion of the overall sample that said they liked oysters and clams plus non-consumers that had an aversion to seafood in general, or oysters or clams in particular because of fear of foodborne illness, was read a brief, non-technical description of the depuration process. This description stated: "There are organisms in saltwater, such as bacteria and viruses, that may be present in oysters and clams. When large numbers of these organisms are present in oysters and clams, eating them may cause illness. A process has been developed which reduces the number of bacteria and viruses present in oysters and clams. This process removes most harmful bacteria and viruses by flushing them with clean water. The process does not use chemicals or irradiation and does not affect the taste." The term "depuration" was intentionally not used because it was felt that the word could possibly carry negative connotations and introduce a negative bias into stated acceptance of the depurated products. Thus, instead of using and defining the term depuration, the brief description was read and respondents were asked to name the process. Their suggested names and reaction to "depuration" are discussed in a later section. After hearing the brief description of the process and naming it, respondents were asked whether or not they would buy oysters or clams treated by the process, and if so, at what price. They were also asked to estimate the likely frequency of consumption and the quantity consumed for each occasion. The sample subgroup that was asked whether buy treated (depurated) oysters or clams or not they would did not include vegetarians, those that suffer from seafood allergies or these that object to seafood in general because of its taste or to oysters in particular because of their taste or other physical characteristics. The subgroup did, however, include those that currently eat no seafood or oysters because of fear of illness. 32

PAGE 54

Table 25. Percentage of clams currently eaten raw compared with three years ago. Percent of Currently Three years ago clams eaten Number of Percent of Number of Percent of rawa respondents respondents respondents respondents 0 288 89.2 270 83.6 1 3 0.9 2 0.6 2 1 0.3 2 0.6 5 2 0.6 2 0.6 10 2 0.6 3 0.9 15 1 0.3 1 0.3 20 2 0.6 5 1.5 25 3 0.9 7 2.2 30 1 0.3 1 0.3 50 6 1. 9 11 3.4 60 1 0.3 1 0.3 70 0 0.0 1 0.3 75 2 0.6 4 1.2 90 1 0.3 0 0.0 99 0 0.0 0 0.0 100 _lQ 3.1 _il 4.0 Totals 323 100.0 323 100.0 aThis table includes only those respondents that had eaten clams within the past year and were able to estimate the percentage eaten raw for the preceding year and three years previously. Eight percent reduced their consumption of raw clams, 91 percent made no changes, and about one percent increased their consumption of raw clams. 33

PAGE 55

The intent was to ask the largest possible sample subgroup that could be potential consumers about their willingness to buy depurated oysters or clams. Respondents' willingness to buy depurated oysters About 55 percent of the potential oyster consumers expressed a willingness to buy the safer product. This represents approximately 36 percent of the total sample. Approximately 38 percent said they would not, and nearly 7 percent were undecided. Age was the only socio-demographic variable that was associated with willingness to buy; 63 percent of the youngest age group (1834) were willing to buy, in contrast to only 43 percent of the 65 and older group. The oldest group also had the largest proportion of undecided respondents {Table 26). Of those that had eaten oysters within the past year, 75 percent were willing to buy purated oysters. Respondents that expressed a willingness to buy depurated oysters were asked how much they would be willing to pay for each treated oyster if untreated oysters were selling for 50 cents each in retail seafood markets or restaurants. About 16 percent of those that said they would buy depurated oysters refus ed to pay a premium for them, and 15 percent were unable or unwilling to indicate what price they would pay. However, approximately 70 percent were willing to pay a premium ranging from one cent to 50 cents per oyster. Very few respondents indicated a willingness to spend more than a dollar apiece for oysters (Table 27). The simple average price that potential consumers of depurated oysters was willing to pay was about 68 cents each. The impact of depurated oyster availability on consumption As mentioned earlier, the survey revealed that 319 respondents out of the total sample of 1,012 had eaten oysters during the previous year. Using their frequency of consumption and average number of oysters eaten per occasion, it is estimated that this 34

PAGE 56

group of respondents consumed about 62,200 oysters in a year (Table 28). This group, along with other respondents thought to be potential oyster customers, was read the brief description of depuration and asked about potential purchase of depurated oysters, probable frequency of consumption, the likely number consumed, and the price they would be willing to pay. Each person's responses were analyzed independently to determine the total number of depurated oysters that would be consumed annually and tabulated by selected threshold price levels. If respondents had eaten oysters in the previous year and were unwilling to buy depurated oysters, it was assumed that they would continue to buy undepurated oysters. Similarly, these respondents were assumed to continue their purchase of undepurated oysters if they indicated a willingness to buy depurated oysters, but at a price that was lower than the various threshold price categories that appear in Table 28. Thus, the number of potential depurated oyster consumers varies by each price level. For example, at a price of 55 cents per depurated oyster, 135 of the 319 current oyster consumers would buy only undepurated oysters, because they either did not want to buy depurated oysters at all, or they were not willing to pay 55 cents each (reflecting a 5 cent premium) for depurated oysters. Similarly, at a price of 55 cents, there would be 270 potential customers of depurated oysters. This group includes the balance of the 319 oyster consumers and other present nonconsumers that would now be willing to buy depurated oysters at a price of 55 cents each or more (Figure 1). Examination of respondents' reaction to the availability of depurated oysters reveals a strong potential demand for the safer product. At a retail price of 55 cents per oyster, a price which is sufficient to cover the costs of depuration only for large, efficient depuration operations, the number of oyster consumers would increase over present levels by nearly 3 O percent. More importantly, the total number of occasions when oysters would be eaten would increase by nearly 60 percent, from 3,549 to 5,654 for the sample. Total projected consumption would increase by 39 35

PAGE 57

Table 26. Respondents' willingness to buy depurated oysters. Socio-demographic group All potential consumers Age (yearc) 18-34 35-64 65+ n 654 162 341 136 Willingness to buy yes no unsure Totalsa (------------Percent-------------) 54.9 63.0 55.1 43.4 38.4 32.1 38.7 45.6 6.7 4.9 6.2 11. 0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 aTotals may not sum to 100.0 due to rounding. bThis group does not include those that are vegetarians, those that suffer from seafood allergies or object to seafood in general because of its taste or to oysters in particular because of their taste or other physical characteristics. It does include those that currently eat no seafood or oysters because of fear of food borne illness. cchi-square analysis indicates statistically significant responses by age groups, P < 0. 05. No other socio-demographic variables were found to be statistically significant. 36

PAGE 58

Table 27. Consumers' willingness to pay for depurated oysters. Price Per Cumulative Cumulative Oystera Frequenc~ Percent Frequency Percentc (Dollars) 0.50 47 15.6 47 15.6 0.51 26 8.6 73 24.2 0.52 2 0.7 75 24.8 0.53 2 0.7 77 25.5 0.55 40 13.2 117 38.7 0.60 52 17.2 169 56.0 0.65 9 3.0 178 58.9 0.70 11 3.6 189 62.6 0.75 65 21. 5 254 84.1 0.80 3 1.0 257 85.1 0.85 1 0.3 258 85.4 0.90 1 0.3 259 85.8 1.00 37 12.3 296 98.0 1.50 2 0.7 298 98.7 2.00 4 1.3 302 100.0 aRespondents were given a benchmark of 50 cents each as the current "retail" or restaurant price. bone respondent indicated a willingness to pay $3. 00 each and another $5.00 each for oysters. Because these prices were so far above the average, they were judged to be outliers and were excluded from this frequency table. Also, 55 respondents that were unable or unwilling to suggest a price are not shown. cPercentages may not sum to 100.0 due to rounding. 37

PAGE 59

percent, from about 62,200 oysters to nearly 86,500 (Table 28). At 55 cents each, depurated oysters would account for nearly 70 percent of total sales (Figure 2) and sales of non-depurated oysters would decline by slightly over SO percent (Table 28). At higher threshold prices, the total number of oyster consumers declines. Even so, for example, there were 181 respondents willing to pay 65 cents or more; at this price 201 consumers would probably buy non-depurated oysters. This price (assuming a 15 cent premium for depuration) would almost cover the costs of even the least efficient depuration plant (Dunning and Adams, 1994). At 65 cents, the total number of oyster consumers would be 20 percent greater than current levels, and total oyster sales about 23 percent greater (Table 28). Depurated oysters would account for slightly over half of total sales (Figure 2). At even higher prices, consumers expressed a continuing propensity to buy depurated oysters. At 75 cents, the total number of oyster consumers is still 12 percent greater than currently, the number of occasions is one-third greater, and total oyster consumption is nearly one-fourth greater than at present (Table 28). The total market potential for depurated oysters was estimated by taking the respondents' expressed willingness to buy and pay for depurated oysters at retail price levels ranging from 55 cents each to 75 cents and projecting it to the entire population in the 17 county market region. Estimated depurated oyster sales per 1,000 people and for the entire 5.6 million persons in the region were calculated for each price level. Finally, net economic returns to depurated oysters were calculated using the most and least efficient depuration costs as determined by Dunning and Adams. Using the most efficient cost figure of 3.3 cents per oyster at a retail price of 55 cents and assuming a prevailing retail price of 50 cents for undepurated oysters, the net markup per oyster is 1.7 cents. Given the sample's expressed willingness to buy about 58,900 oysters per 1,000 respondents at this price level results in a net return to depuration of $989 per 1,000 population, or approximately $5.6 million for the entire region (Table 29). As 38

PAGE 60

500 -------------------, C\I lli!i!!i:l!!il Depurated Non-depurated ,_. 400 1: \:/:c=:://.;:::_;;:: I ,-11 C C'CS 0 I..._., 300 E C'CS CJ) C (l) E ::) CJ) 200 ... C 0 (.) 0 (l) .0 E ::) z 100 ... 0 50 55 60 65 70 75 Depurated oyster price, cents Figure 1. Number of depurated and non-depurated oyster consumers at various prices for depurated oysters. 39

PAGE 61

110 ,----------------------100 90 80 +-' C 70 Q) u '-Q) Q_ ... 60 Q) '-ccs ..c f/) 50 +-' Q) '-ccs 40 30 20 10 0 Figure 2. B Depurated Non-depurated 50 55 60 65 70 Depurated oyster price, cents Market share for depurated oysters at various price levels. 40 75

PAGE 62

the price level increases to 75 cents, depurated oyster sales decrease, but because of greater net markups, net returns exceed $35 million. The least efficient depuration cost reported by Dunning and Adams was 15.3 cents per oyster, which was rounded to 15 cents for this analysis. Using this cost, returns would be negative at any price under 65 cents and zero at 65 cents. At prices of 70 and 75 cents, returns are estimated at $8.5 and $16.3 million for the region (Table 29). While the preceding sales and review projections appear very positive, a word of caution is necessary on two points. First, the annual sales projections are based upon what people said they would do if depurated oysters were available. Respondents accepted the brief description of the depuration process and made a very hurried judgement as to the safety of the described oysters. Given additional time to contemplate or assess the likely safety of depurated oysters in a retail environment where consumer advisories are still likely to be in effect, their actual purchase behavior might be quite different from their survey response. Another caution relates to the projected sales and revenue figures for the region. The total revenues reflect total depurated oyster sales; in reality, net revenues accruing to any one producing area would depend on that area's market share. For the market region defined in this study, there are a number of producing areas that compete for market share, and a relatively small share may adversely affect the efficiency level of any given area's depuration processing facilities. Respondents' willingness to buy depurated clams About 47 percent of the potential clam consumers (current users and those with concerns about seafood or shellfish-borne illness) said they would be willing to buy depurated clams. This represents about 31 percent of the total sample in contrast to 36 percent for oysters. A plausible reason for this somewhat lower 41

PAGE 63

acceptance rate is that a very high proportion of clams are cooked rather than eaten raw, and respondents perceive less of a health hazard from cooked clams. As with oysters, age was the only socio-demographic variable that was associated with willingness to buy, again with younger consumers more willing. About 57 percent of the 18 to 34 age group were willing to buy depurated clams compared with 48 percent of the 35 to 64 group. Only 37 percent of those 65 years of age and older were willing to buy them (Table 30). Respondents that said they were willing to buy depurated clams were asked how much they would pay for them, if untreated clams were selling for 30 cents each in retail seafood markets or restaurants. Although they were willing to buy depurated clams, about 13 percent were unwilling to pay a premium for them. However, nearly 75 percent were willing to pay a premium ranging from one cent to twenty cents. An additional 12 percent said they were willing to pay 55 cents or more for them (Table 31). The simple average price respondents were willing to pay was about 44 cents each. The impact of depurated clam availability on consumption As mentioned previously, the survey found that 379 respondents out of the total sample of 1, 012 had eaten clams during the previous year. Using their frequency of consumption and average number of clams eaten per occasion, this group of respondents consumed an estimated 62,400 clams during the year (Table 32). This group of clam consumers, along with other potential clam customers, was also read the brief description of the depuration process and asked whether or not they would buy depurated clams. Those that indicated a willingness to buy them were asked for their anticipated frequency of consumption and number consumed per occasion, and the price they would be willing to pay. The analytical process used for potential purchases of depurated clams was identical to that used for analyzing potential sales of 42

PAGE 64

Table 28. Estimated consumption of depurated and non-depurated oysters by respondents at varying price levels for depurated oysters. Oyster price, eacha type of clams Totals $0.75 $0.70 $0.65 $0.60 $0.55 $0.50 Depurated Non-depurated Total Depurated Non-depurated Total Depurated Non-depurated Total Depurated Non-depurated Total Depurated Non-depurated Total Non-depurated (Current situation) Number of Number of Average consumers occasions occasions per year 111 245 356 122 239 361 181 201 382 231 165 396 270 135 405 319 2,009 2,761 4,770 2,123 2,716 4,839 2,825 2,210 5,035 3,429 1,890 5,319 3,996 1,658 5,654 3,549 18.1 11.2 13.4 17.4 11.4 13.4 15.6 11.0 13.2 14.8 11.4 13.4 14. 8 12.3 14.0 11.1 Total Number Average of oysters number consumed eaten 29,341 47,650 76,991 30,559 47,230 77,789 39,949 36,553 76,502 51,310 30.196 81,506 58,890 27,600 86,490 62,231 per year 264 194 216 250 198 215 221 181 200 222 183 206 218 204 214 195 Annual Expenditures on Oysters Total Average on oysters (Dollars) 22,006 23,825 45,831 21,392 23,615 45,007 25,967 18,277 44,244 30,786 15,098 45,884 32,389 13,800 46,189 31,115 (Dollars) 198 _!11._ 129 175 125 143 _.ll 116 133 -2 116 120 102 114 98 •Prices shown greater than $0.50 are for depurated oysters only; the retail prices for untreated oysters are assumed to be constant at $0.50 each. 43

PAGE 65

Table 29. Estimated economic returns to depurated oysters at various retail prices and depuration costs. Potential Sales Potential Returns at Depuration Potential returns of depuration costs of 3.3 12er oyster costs of 15 12er oyster Retail price Sample Market Net Per 1,000 Market Net Per 1,000 Market region markup population regiona markup population regiona per oyster per oyster (Dollars) (1,000 (Million (cents) (Dollars) ($Million) (Cents) (Dollars) ($Million) oysters) oysters) 0.55 58 . 9 326 . 6 1. 7 989 5.6 -10 a a 0 . 60 51. 3 284.6 6.7 3.397 19.1 -5 a a 0.65 39.9 221.6 11. 7 4.619 25.9 0 0 0 0.70 30.6 169.5 16.7 5.043 28.3 5 1.510 8.5 0.75 29.3 162.7 21. 7 6.291 35.3 10 2.899 16.3 aNegative returns are not calculated because it is assumed that depurated oysters would not be produced at all where costs are greater than returns. 44

PAGE 66

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

PAGE 67

Table 30. Respondents' willingness to buy depurated clams. Socio-demographic group All potential consumersb Age (years) c 18-34 35-64 65+ n yes No Unsure Totalsa (--------------Percent---------------) 654 47.4 46.0 6.6 100.0 162 341 136 56.8 47.5 36.8 41.4 45.4 52.2 1.8 7.0 11. 0 100.0 100.0 100.0 aTotals may not sum to 100.0 due to rounding. bThis group does not include those that are vegetarians, those that suffer from seafood allergies or object to seafood in general because of its taste or to oysters in particular because of their taste or other physical characteristics. It does include those that currently eat no seafood or oysters because of fear of food borne illness. cchi-square analysis indicates statistically significant responses by age groups, P < 0. 05. No other socio-demographic variables were found to be statistically significant. 46

PAGE 68

Table 31. Consumers' willingness to pay for depurated clams. Price per Cumulative Cumulative clama Frequency> Percent Frequency Percentc (Dollars) 0.30 35 12.6 35 12.6 0.31 20 7.2 55 19.8 0.32 2 0.7 57 20.5 0.33 10 3.6 67 24.1 0.34 1 0.4 68 24.5 0.35 38 13.7 106 38.1 0.36 2 0.7 108 38.8 0.38 3 1.1 111 39.9 0.40 45 16.2 156 56.1 0.44 1 0.4 157 56.5 0.45 21 7.6 178 64.0 0.47 1 0.4 179 64.4 a.so 60 21. 6 239 86.0 0.55 6 2.2 245 88.1 0.60 16 5.8 261 93.9 0.65 1 0.4 262 94.2 0.70 3 1.1 265 95.3 0.75 6 2.2 271 97.5 0.80 1 0.4 272 97.8 0.90 1 0.4 273 98.2 1.00 3 1.1 276 99.3 1. 25 1 0.4 277 99.6 1.50 1 0.4 278 100.0 8 Respondents were given a benchmark of 30 cents each as the current "retail" or restaurant price. bThirty respondents were unable or unwilling to indicate a price that they were willing to pay for depurated clams. cPercentages may not sum to 100.0 due to rounding. 47

PAGE 69

share for depurated clams was just under 40 percent (Table 32, Figure 4). The total market potential for depurated clams as shown in Table 3 3 was determined in the same manner as for oysters. Respondents' expressed willingness to buy and pay for depurated clams at retail price levels from 31 cents to 45 cents each was calculated and projected to the entire population in the 17 county market region. Economic net returns were calculated by using the most and least efficient depuration costs as determined by Dunning and Adams (Dunning and Adams, 1994). Using the most efficient cost figure of 0.9 cents per clam at a retail price of 31 cents and assuming a prevailing retail price of 30 cents for undepurated clams, the net markup per clam is 0.1 cents. Given the sample's expressed willingness to buy about 55,400 oysters per 1,000 interviewees at this price level results is a net return to depuration of $55 per 1, 000 population, or $300,000 for the entire region (Table 32) . Holding depuration costs constant at 0.9 cents and increasing retail prices to 33, 35, 40 and 45 cents results in substantial markups per clam. Even though total depurated clam sales in the region decline from about 307 million at a price of 31 cents to 153 million at 45 cents, the net returns to depuration jump to $21.6 million (Table 33). At the least efficient depuration cost of 4.3 cents per clam, returns at 31 and 33 cents would be negative,assuming a benchmark price of 30 cents each for untreated clams. At a retail price of 35 cents, total market region returns to depuration would be just under 2 million. At prices of 40 and 45 cents, net returns jump to about $12 and $16 million, respectively (Table 33). The sales and revenue projections for clams also appear to be very positive, but the same precautions discussed for depurated oysters apply to depurated clams. Al though survey respondents accepted the brief description of the depuration process and responded in a positive manner, their actions in a real world retail environment might be less enthusiastic, particularly where consumer advisories are still likely to be present. Another 48

PAGE 70

precaution relates to the projected sales and revenue figures for the region. The total estimated revenues shown (Table 32) are based upon total depurated clam sales in the region, which most likely would be shared by a number of producing areas. A small market share could adversely affect the efficiency level of a given area's depuration processing facilities by reducing the scale of operations or forcing the operation of a facility at less than optimum volume. Naming the depuration process As mentioned earlier, the term "depuration" was not mentioned in conjunction with the brief, non-technical description of the cleansing process used with survey respondents because of concerns that the term itself might negatively affect their willingness to try treated shellfish. Instead, respondents were told "this process removes most harmful bacteria and viruses by flushing them {oysters and clams) with clean water. The process does not use chemicals or irradiation and does not affect the taste." Then respondents were asked to name this process. Because the description used the terms "flushing" "clean" and "water", it comes as no surprise that many of the suggested names contained these words or were related to them in some way. Eight percent of the suggestions were related to cleansing or cleaning; nearly 7 percent were associated with "flush" or "flushing" and nearly 5 percent to "washing". Four percent used "purification" or "purifying" in some manner, and about 3 percent mentioned "water" in some way. Despite being told that the process did not use irradiation, a small percentage suggested radiation or irradiation as a name. While most of the suggested names were uninspiring, some were just plain wrong (i.e., pasteurization) and a few were humorous. The complete list of suggestions is found in the Appendix (Appendix Table 7). One of the very last questions of the survey used a projective interviewing technique to gain insight into consumers' perceptions of the term 11 depuration". Respondents were asked to say the "first 49

PAGE 71

thing that comes to your mind" when they heard the word "depuration." Nearly 70 percent were unable to verbalize a response. Although 10 percent correctly associated the term with a purification or cleansing process, even greater numbers had negative associations such as 11 depurify" "deprived", "death", "disease", "unclean", and "unsanitary." No matter what the interviewees' spontaneous response, each was asked whether their reaction to the word depuration was "positive" or "negative". Nearly 57 percent had a negative reaction, while only 25 percent responded favorably. Almost one out of five had difficulty deciding whether their reaction was positive or negative (Table 34). Although respondents in the 18-34 and 35-64 age groups had virtually identical reactions to the word, fewer of those in the oldest group had a positive reaction and more were undecided. Interestingly, college graduates had a less favorable reaction to 11 depuration 11 than those with less education, and blacks had a more favorable reaction than whites (Table 35). The spontaneous reactions and positive vs. negative responses to the term depuration can lead to only one conclusion: it is not a term that should be used outside of technical research circles. Because of its negative associations, the shellfish industry should avoid the term in any educational or marketing programs for shellfish treated with the depuration process and strive to develop a name with more positive connectations. The Restaurant Survey Oysters Of the 37 restaurant managers interviewed by telephone, 70 percent currently offered oysters of some type on their menus. About half, 19 firms, sold both raw and cooked oysters, and seven restaurants, roughly one in five, sold only cooked. There were no firms that sold raw oysters exclusively. The remaining 11 firms, 30 percent, sold no oysters at all. Of the 18 firms that currently so

PAGE 72

Table 32. Consumption of depurated and non-depurated clams at varying price levels for depurated clams. Clam price, eacha type of clams Totals $0 . 45 $0.40 $0.35 $0.33 $0.31 Depurated Non depurated Total Depurated Non-depurated Total Depurated Non-depurated Total Depurated Non-depurated Total Depurated Non-depurated Total $0.30 Non-depurated Number of Number of Average consumers occasions occasions per year 120 283 403 196 223 419 238 186 424 249 176 425 269 159 428 379 1,899 2,982 4,881 2,788 2,600 5,388 3,301 2,275 5,576 3,576 2,151 5,727 3,739 1,926 5,665 4,463 15.8 10.S 12.1 14.2 11. 7 12.9 13.9 12.2 13.2 14.4 12.2 13.5 13.9 12.1 13.2 11. 8 Total Number Average of clams number consumed eaten 27,673 41,784 69,457 38,485 37,020 75,505 46,970 32,459 79,429 52,545 30,181 82,726 55,397 26,951 82,348 62,389 per year 231 148 172 196 166 180 197 174 187 211 171 195 206 169 192 165 Annual Expenditures on Clams Total Average on clams (Dollars) 12,453 12,535 24,988 15,394 11,106 26,500 16,439 9,738 26,177 17,340 9,054 26,394 17,173 8,085 25,258 18,718 (Dollars) 104 -1.i 62 79 _2Q 63 69 _g 62 70 _.ll 62 64 _.ll 59 49 •prices shown are for depurated oysters only; the retail prices for untreated clams are assumed to remain constant at $0 . 30 each. 51

PAGE 73

500 .-------------;;:::::===========:::::::-, 400 0 T-11 C .... 0 .... Q) a.300 E en C Q) E :J 200 0 u 0 "Q) .0 E :J z 100 0 Figure 3. 30 31 33 35 J :;jj/i/!:j: I Depurated Non-depurated 40 45 Depurated clam price, cents Number of depurated and non-depurated clams consumers at various prices for depurated clams. 52

PAGE 74

110 J :!:\:\!:i\! ] Depurated Non-depurated 100 90 80 70 C: Q) u Q) a. 60 Q) ro .c en 50 Q) ro 40 30 20 10 0 30 31 33 35 40 45 Depurated clam price, cents Figure 4. Market share for depurated clams at various price levels. 53

PAGE 75

Table 33. Estimated economic returns to depurated clams at various retail prices and depuration costs. Retail price (Dollars) $0.31 0.33 0.35 0.40 0.45 Potential Sales Sample (1,000 clams) 55.4 52.5 47.0 38.5 27.7 Market region (Million clams) 307.3 291.4 260.5 213.5 153.5 Potential Returns of Depuration at costs of 0.9 cents per clam Net Per 1,000 Market markup population regionb per clama (cents) 0.1 2.1 4.1 9.1 14.1 (Dollars) 55 1,090 1,903 3,461 3,856 ($Million) 0.3 6.1 10.7 19.4 21. 6 aAssumes a base retail price of 30 cents per undepurated clam. Potential returns of depuration at costs of 4.3 cents per clam Net Per 1,000 Market markup population regionb per clama (Cents) -3.3 -1. 3 0.7 5.7 10.7 (Dollars) -1,806 -675 325 2,168 2,926 ($Million) -10.1 -3.8 1.8 12.2 16.4 bMarket region sales are based upon potential sales as reported by the sample of 1,012 respondents, adjusted for population in the 17 county region. Because of rapid growth in many counties in the market region, a projected population of 5,613,303 {January 1995) was used. 54

PAGE 76

Table 34. Respondents' initial reactions to the term 11 depuration 11 Response Number Percent Do not know 700 69.2 Pure/purify/purifying Cleansing/cleaning/sanitation/cleanliness/ 58 5.7 to clean/washing Depurify/unpurify/unpure Deprived/deprivation/not having/deficiency Death/disease/illness/virus/medical treatment Unclean/unsanitary/unhealthy/unsafe/ 45 37 23 23 4.4 3.7 2.3 2.3 contaminated Deterioration/disintegrating/going bad/ spoiling/filth/rotten/yucky Process for cleaning seafood Food process/food/process/cooking Something negative/something bad Water Other (listed below) Total Other Responses: Making something more or less pure Something internal Somebody put something in something To deplete something Desperation Something done to you Scuba diving Make puration It's been looked over & ok'd Dipping in liquid Getting rid of chemicals Seafood Duplication Making it safer Dehydration Diapers Depth Depth of something My crystal water filter Put chemicals back in something Pureed Milk Separation Irradiation Freedom 55 21 2.1 16 1. 6 10 1. 0 8 0.8 7 0.7 5 0.5 59 5.8 1012 100.0 Adding chemicals Becomes smaller, weaker Dividing Ventilation Antipuration Banish Independence Deportation Sea/ocean Deep freeze Expiration date Under sea Sterilization Taking water out Purina dog food Comedy Depute or Government Law or rule Small town girl going to fraternity party Decorating

PAGE 77

Table 35. Respondents' reactions to the word 11 depuration" by selected socio-demographic characteristics . Socio-demographic characteristic All respondents Ageb 18-34 35-64 65+ Educationb High school or less Some college College graduate Raceb White Black Reaction n Positive Negative Uncertain Totala {---------------Percent---------------) 1012 24.9 56.7 18.4 100.0 305 26.6 59.0 14.4 100.0 499 25.4 59.1 15.4 100.0 208 21.2 47.6 31.2 100.0 436 28.4 50.7 20.9 100.0 287 26.l 58.5 15.3 100.0 289 18.3 64.0 17.6 100.0 906 23.8 57.5 18.6 100.0 99 35.3 50.5 14.1 100.0 aTotals may not sum to 100.0 due to rounding. bChisquare analyses indicated that age, education, and race were statistically significant, P < 0.05, while gender and income were not. Also, respondents' like or dislike for oysters or clams did not appear to be associated with their reaction to depuration, x 2 = 4.01 and 2.10, P = 0.40 and 0.71 respectively. 56

PAGE 78

do not sell raw oysters, half had sold them in the past, and half had not. The primary reason cited for either discontinuing or never serving raw oysters was the fear of legal liability mentioned by 75 percent of these firms. An additional 13 percent mentioned legal liability among the top two or three reasons for not serving raw oysters. Thus, 88 percent of the non-servers were very concerned about the legal implications of serving raw oysters to their clientele. In contrast, the next most often mentioned reasons for discontinuing or not serving raw oysters were "poor quality" (19 percent), and general "safety concerns" (12 percent). Equally ranked in importance were "inadequate supplies", "inadequate demand", "HRS information" and "small profit margin", each mentioned by only two firms. If the "general safety concerns" and the "HRS information" reasons are also interpreted to mean "liability concerns", it further underscores the pervasive fear that managers have of potential liabilities caused by oyster-borne illnesses. Managers of restaurants currently serving raw oysters were asked about sales trends over the past three years. Nearly 60 percent reported a decrease in sales, about one-third had seen an increase in sales, and one in ten saw no change. These responses tend to confirm the findings of the consumer survey: raw oyster sales are generally declining. Approximately 70 percent of all firms interviewed offered cooked oysters on their menus. About 19 percent said they had served cooked oysters in the past but had discontinued them, while 11 percent had never served them. Nearly two-thirds of those currently not serving them mentioned fear of legal liability as the primary reason. Small numbers of managers also cited poor quality, HRS notices, inadequate demand, small profit margins, and in-compatibility with other menu items as reasons for not serving cooked oysters. When asked about the sales trends of cooked oysters over the past three years, half of the restaurants currently selling them detected no significant sales trend. However, almost 35 percent reported an increase in cooked oyster sales and only 15 percent felt that sales had declined. Of the restaurants that currently served oysters, half of them bought both shellstock oysters by the bushel or case and shucked oysters by the gallon. About one-quarter of these firms buy shellstock exclusively and the remaining one-quarter buy shucked oysters only. For the most part, those that bought shucked oysters used them for cooking. However, there were 57

PAGE 79

several firms that bought shucked oysters exclusively that served them raw. Of those firms that serve oysters, almost 62% indicated they have consumer advisory notices posted in their facility. The most popular place for such notices was reported to be at the "Front foyer/door" (around 40 percent), "On the menu" (19 percent), and At the bar" (15 percent), while the remaining approximately 26 percent specified other areas. In the opinions of the restaurant managers interviewed, more than 81 percent saw no change in the consumption of raw oysters as a result of posting the advisory notices, while 13 percent thought consumption had decreased as a result, and about 6 percent believed that raw oyster consumption had increased as a result of the posting. When asked about the advisory notices' affects on the consumption of cooked oysters, most respondents (75 percent) saw no change in their customers' consumption habits, while 25 percent thought that consumption had increased. Thus, it appears that advisory notices may have had a slightly negative effect on raw oyster consumption, but a positive effect on cooked consumption. Potential sales of depurated oysters Before any mention was made of the depuration process, each manager was asked for their current weekly oyster purchases. The 20 firms that bought shellstock oysters bought approximately 971 bushels each week. The 19 firms that bought shucked oysters bought 200 bushel equivalents weekly. In total, 26 restaurants bought 1,171 bushels of oysters each week (Table 36). After hearing a brief, non-technical description of the depuration process, each of the 3 7 restaurant managers was asked how many depurated oysters would be bought at a price of $30 per bushel and how many undepurated oysters would be bought at the prevailing price of $15 per bushel. After listening to the definition of depuration and weighing the additional cost of depurated oysters, 13 of the managers said they would buy a total 255 bushels of the safer oysters, an average of just under 20 bushels per week. These 13 included three firms that do not sell oysters at present. The number of restaurants that would buy undepurated shellstock dropped to 14 from 20. However, these 14 firms would buy a total of 736 bushels, an average of nearly 53 bushels per week. The total quantity of undepurated shellstock would decline by abou~ one-fourth (24 percent). 58

PAGE 80

However, it appears that smaller firms would be more likely to buy depurated oysters. The reason for this may be a greater aversion to risk among smaller firms. The quantity of undepurated shucked oysters bought by restaurants in the sample would decline by only two percent if depurated oysters were available. Although the number of firms buying undepurated shucked oysters would decline by two, their combined weekly purchases only amounted to four bushels. Although a few restaurant managers felt that depurated oysters would stimulate overall consumer demand, others judged that higher costs would necessitate higher retail prices and result in reduced demand. Thus, in the aggregate, the total oyster purchases by the restaurants surveyed would increase by only 1. 4 percent, from 1,171 to 1,187 bushels per week (Table 36). Clams Clams were sold by 26 (70 percent) of the 37 restaurants surveyed. Of the 26 restaurants selling clams, 20 sold only cooked clams, and 6 offered cooked and raw. Thus, only 6 of 37 (16 percent) sold raw clams. There were no restaurants that sold raw clams exclusively. Five firms (13i) had offered raw clams on their menus in the past, but had discontinued them, and about 70 percent had never sold raw clams. The most important reason cited for either discontinuing or never serving raw clams was "lack of demand", mentioned by 28 percent. The next most frequently cited reasons were "too much trouble", mentioned by 15 percent. Other reasons, each mentioned by several managers, included "too much waste" (shrink due to spoilage), and "poor quality". Surprisingly, concerns about legal liability were not mentioned. When asked about sales trends of raw clams during the past three years, nearly 43 percent of those currently serving them reported decreases. Equal proportions (about 29 percent) thought sales had increased or remained stable. It appears from these aggregate responses that sales of raw clams have probably declined overall. Of the 13 restaurants not serving cooked clams, two had sold them in the past, but the remainder had not. The two most important reasons for either discontinuing or never having served cooked clams were "fear of legal liability" and "inadequate profit margin", each mentioned by 59

PAGE 81

three managers. Additional concerns included "information from HRS", "poor quality" and too much waste (shrink), each mentioned by one firm. Of the firms currently selling cooked clams, 56 percent saw no change in their sales of cooked clams during the past three years. However, 40 percent reported increasing sales and only 1 firm decreasing sales during the time period in question. Of those restaurants currently offering clams, either cooked or raw, 38 percent reported purchasing clam tenders, while only 10 firms (27 percent) bought raw shellstock. Seven restaurants regularly bought frozen and/or breaded clams, and only one bought canned. Of the 10 restaurants that had been buying raw shellstock, only four said they usually bought farm raised clams; four others said they did not typically buy farm produced clams and the remaining two did not know the source of their clams. Three of the four firms buying farm raised clams used relatively small quantities; they used an average of about two bushels of raw shellstock per week, but the fourth firm used about 75 bushels per week. Potential sales of depurated clams Restaurant managers were asked for their weekly clam purchases before any mention was made of the depuration process. After hearing a brief, non-technical description of depuration, they were asked how many bushels of the treated clams they would buy per week. Ten restaurant managers out of the 37 interviewed were currently buying a total of 127 bushels of raw shellstock weekly. When offered depurated clams at a cost of $60.00 per bushel compared to $44.00 for untreated clams, 11 managers indicated a willingness to buy 112. 5 bushels of depurated clams. Five others said they would prefer to continue purchasing undepurated oysters at the lower price. These five firms buy a total of 40.5 per week. As a result of half the restaurants shifting to depurated clams, the total quantity of undepurated shellstock dropped from 127 per week to 40.5 bushels, a 68 percent decline (Table 37). As the total number of firms buying shellstock increased from 10 to 166, the total quantity of raw shellstock increased from 127 bushels to 153 bushels, an increase of slightly over 20 percent (Table 37). The impact on processed clam product, i.e., fresh and frozen strips or tenders, was nil. The likely reason is that virtually all of these items are served cooked, which greatly reduces the incidence of food-borne illness. 60

PAGE 82

Table 36. Estimated effects of depurated oysters on sales of non depurated shellstock and non-depurated shucked oysters. Type of oysters Currently weekly Projected weekly Percentage purchasers and purchasers and change in quantities quantities quantity (Firms) (Bushels) (Firms) (Bushels) Undepurated shells tock 20 971 14 736 -24 Undepurated shucked 19 200 17 196 -2 Depurated shellstock N.A. 0 _ll 255a N.A. Totals N.A. 1,171 b 1,187 1.4 aThe projected market share for depurated shellstock is about 21 percent. bThe number of firms is not additive because most restaurants buy more than one type of oyster. The total number of firms selling oysters increases from 26 to 29, but the three additional firms' volume is extremely small, averaging less than two bushels per week. Table 37. Estimated effects of depurated clams on sales of non-depurated shellstock and undepurated processed clams. Type of clams Current weekly Projected weekly Percentage Purchasers and purchasers and change in quantities quantities quantity (Firms) (Bushels) (Firms) (Bushels) Undepurated shells tock 10 127.0 5 40.5 -68.1 Undepurated processeda 16 461. Qb 16 461. Ob 0.0 Depurated shellstockc 0 0.0 11 112.5 N.A. Total shellstocka 10 127.0 16 153.0 20.5 arncludes raw and frozen clam tenders (breaded and unbreaded) . Excludes 600 whole frozen clams and 9 gallons of raw shucked clams bought by four restaurants. bPounds, not bushels. cThe market share for depurated shellstock is about 74 percent. aExcludes undepurated processed shown above. 61

PAGE 83

62

PAGE 84

CONCLUSIONS Consumer confidence in shellfish, particularly oysters has greatly deteriorated over the past few years. Today, over 30 percent of the adult population in the Cedar Key market region said oysters were "not safe at all". Nearly 20 percent said the same about clams. Additionally, about 40 percent felt that the likelihood of getting sick from eating one serving of raw oysters or raw clams was "very likely". As a result of these concerns, consumers are eating fewer oysters and clams. Despite their concerns about safety and their changing consumption patterns, nearly half of the adult population still like oysters. Given the opportunity to buy safer (depurated) oysters or clams, large numbers of consumers expressed an interest in buying them. Furthermore, most were willing to pay a sufficient premium to more than cover the costs of depuration. Unless truly safer oysters and clams are available soon, a substantial portion of the market could be lost. Recapturing lost customers or gaining new ones would require large expenditures on advertising or educational programs. Restaurant managers are also very aware of the public's concern over shellfish safety particularly as reflected in declining sales trends for raw oysters. Restaurant managers are very concerned about the potential legal liabilities associated with serving oysters and clams, either raw or cooked. Managers of firms that are not currently selling oysters or clams frequently made comments such as "if I put oysters or clams on the menu, I can't afford the insurance premiums" and "if someone was to get sick (from eating oysters or clams) I would lose my business." Thus, most restaurants that are not selling oysters or clams at present have little desire to offer products with a high perceived risk. Also, because of a lack of factual information about the incidence of oyster or clam related illness and the size of financial settlements in oyster/clam/food poisoning lawsuits, it is very probable that insurance companies will continue to either exclude oysters and clams from liability insurance, raise premiums for coverage of these items, to exhorbi tant levels, or refuse to write liability coverage for restaurants offering raw molluscan shellfish. In any case, the net effect will be to dissuade restauranteurs from selling oysters and clams, further restricting their availability. This could conceivably happen even if 63

PAGE 85

restaurants purchase depurated shellfish, if underwriters are not fully convinced of their safety. Thus, it is very important to develop credible safety statistics for depurated products, if at all possible. 64

PAGE 86

REFERENCES Dunning, R. D. and C. M. Adams. Economic Analyses of the Potential For Oyster and Hard Clam Depuration in Dixie and Levy Counties, Florida. Florida Sea Grant Program, Food and Resource Economic Department Program, Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, June, 1994 Tamplin, Mark. Controlled Purification Studies. (Progress Report). Home Economics Department, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, March, 1994. Florida Business Directory. American Business Directories, American Business Information, Inc., Omaha, Nebraska, 1994. Florida Statistical Abstract 1993. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, College of Business Administration, University of Florida, University Press of Florida, Gainesville, 1993. Lin, C. -T. Jordan. Consumer Shellfish Safety Perceptions and Consumption Behavior. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Florida, 1991. 65

PAGE 87

66

PAGE 88

APPENDIX A

PAGE 89

68

PAGE 90

Appendix Table 1. Number of interviews by county. Cumulative Cumulative Response Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Alachua 35 3.5 35 3.5 Bradford 5 0.5 40 4.0 Clay 21 2.1 61 6.0 Duval 132 13.0 193 19.1 Nassau 9 0.9 202 20.0 St Johns 19 1. 9 221 21. 8 Polk 79 7.8 300 29.6 Marion 41 4.1 341 33.7 Orange 136 13 . 4 477 47.1 Osceola 23 2.3 500 49.4 Seminole 63 6.2 563 55.6 Hernando 21 2.1 584 57.7 Hillsborough 162 16.0 746 73.7 Pasco 55 5.4 801 79.2 Pinellas 165 16.3 966 95 . 5 Gadsden 8 0.8 974 96.2 Leon 38 3.8 1012 100.0 69

PAGE 91

Appendix Table 2. Socio-demographic characteristics of the sample. Socio-demographic Characteristica Frequency Percent Gender Male Female 357 35.3 655 64.7 Race White 848 Black 99 American Indian 9 Asian/Pacific Islander 18 Other 31 Refused 7 Hispanic Yes No Refused to answer Income Age Under $20,000 $20,001 to $35,000 $35,001 to $50,000 More than $50,000 Refused to answer 18 to 34 35 to 64 Over 65 Education High School or Less Some College College Graduate 77 929 6 174 234 181 201 222 305 499 208 436 287 289 83.3 9.8 0.9 1.8 3.1 0.7 7.6 91. 8 0.6 17.2 23.1 17.9 19.9 21. 9 30.1 49.3 20.6 43.1 28.4 28.6 Cumulative Frequency 357 1012 848 947 956 974 1,005 1,012 77 1006 1012 174 408 589 790 1,012 305 804 1012 436 723 1012 Cumulative Percent 35.3 100.0 83.3 93.6 94.5 96.2 99.3 100.0 7.6 99.4 100.0 17.2 40.3 58.2 78.1 100.0 30.1 79.4 100.0 43.1 71.4 100.0 aThe survey region contains 48.4 and 51.6 males and females, respectively. It also contains 14 .1 percent blacks. Approximately 16. 6 percent of the residents in the survey region are 65 years of age or older. The questionnaire obtained respondents' ages as a continuous variable. The mean age of all respondents was 47.7 years. Statewide, 18.3 percent of residents are college graduates, substantially lower than included in the sample. In 1990, the region contained 5.8 percent Hispanics (Florida Statistical Abstract, 1993). 70

PAGE 92

Appendix Table 3. Respondents' perceived health condition and reported health problems. Overall reported health condition and major health Cumulative Cumulative problems Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Overall condition Excellent 427 42.2 427 42.2 Good 437 43.2 864 85.4 Fair 115 11.4 979 96.7 Poor 24 2.4 1003 99.1 Refused to answer 9 0.9 1012 100.0 Diabetes Yes 59 5.8 59 5.8 No 943 93.2 1002 99.0 Refused to answer 10 1.0 1012 100.0 Heart disease Yes 103 10.2 103 10.2 No 896 88.5 999 98.7 Refused to answer 13 1. 3 1012 100.0 Liver ailment Yes 23 2.3 23 2.3 No 977 96.5 1000 98.8 Refused to answer 12 1.2 1012 100.0 "Stomach" problems Yes 114 11. 3 114 11. 3 No BBS 87.5 999 98.7 Refused to answer 13 1. 3 1012 100.0 Immune system disorder Yes 26 2.6 26 2.6 No 974 96.2 1000 98.8 Refused to answer 12 1. 2 1012 100.0 71

PAGE 93

Appendix Table 4. Consumers expressed odds of getting sick from eating one serving of raw and cooked oysters, clams and chicken . Odds of getting sick 1:10 or greater 1:11 to 1:100 1:101 to 1:1,000 1:1,001 to 1:10,000 Less than 1:10,000 Do not know Totals Raw oysters Cooked oysters Raw clams Cooked clams Chicken (------------------Percenta------------------) 47.3 31.5 42.6 28.3 18.9 38.4 38.9 31.5 38.1 48.9 9.0 13.4 8.2 13.1 21.1 1.3 4.9 2.4 4.8 6.5 0.4 0.4 0.1 0 . 4 0.6 3.6 10.9 15.3 15.2 4.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 apercentages are based upon 893 observations. Totals may not sum to 100. 0 due to rounding . 72

PAGE 94

Appendix Table 5. Awareness of consumer advisory notices describing health risks associated with eating raw oysters by all respondents and selected socio-demographic characteristics. Socio-demographic characteristic n Response yes, have seen notices no, have not seen notices Total a (--------------Percent---------------) All respondents 1, 001b 64.3 35.7 100.0 Age (years) c 18-34 302 57.3 42.7 100.0 35-64 494 70.2 29.8 100.0 65+ 205 60.5 39.5 100.0 Educationc High school or less 431 56.6 43.4 100.0 Some college 284 66.9 33.1 100.0 College graduate 286 73.4 26.6 100.0 Racecd White 895 66.7 33.3 100.0 Black 99 43.4 56.6 100.0 Genderc Male 351 61. 0 39.0 100.0 Female 650 66.2 33.8 100.0 Incomec Under $20,000 170 55.9 44.1 100.0 $20,001 to $35,000 232 64.7 35.3 100.0 $35,001 to $50,000 180 62.8 37.2 100.0 $50,000+ 201 75.1 24.9 100.0 aTotals may not sum to 100.0 due to rounding. bRespondents that were uncertain as to whether or not they had seen advisory notices were excluded; there were only 11, or 1.1 percent. cchi-square analysis indicates that this variable is statistically significant, P < 0.05. dAll non-blacks were included in the white category. 73

PAGE 95

Appendix Table 6. Respondents' perceptions regarding the necessity of selected types of consumer information. Type of consumer information n Consumer advisory 1,012 notices for health risksb Informational labels 1,012 on cooking and handling practicesc Necessity of information Necessary Unnecessary Unsure Totalsa (---------------Percent---------------) 73.8 23.8 2.4 100.0 86.7 11. 7 1. 7 100.0 aTotals may not sum to 100.0 due to rounding. bRespondents were told that these consumer advisory notices would be "posted in restaurants and on restaurant menus" ... and would "caution people with health problems to not eat raw or partially cooked seafood, red meats and eggs." cRespondents were asked about USDA mandated package labels which give "information on proper handling and cooking practices." 74

PAGE 96

Appendix Table 7. Respondents' suggested names for the depuration process. Response category/percentagesa specific suggestions Flush/Flushing 6.6% Flushing Flushing out The flush Fresh flush Soaking or flushing Flushing it with water Fresh water flush(2} Saniflush Washing, rinsing, flushing Clean water flush Flush(2} Flusher Flush your oyster Water flushing Waterflush Flushed oysters & clams Flushing system Aqua flush Hydro flush Washing Washing(24) Washed Oyster washing Backwash Wash Fresh water wash Fresh wash 4.6% Cleansing/cleaning 8.0% Natural cleansing Cleansing(16} Natural water cleansing Nature's cleansing Cleansing process Hydrocleansing Social cleansing Cleaning ( 13} Oyster safety cleaning Cleaning oysters(2) Cleaning process(2) Oyster cleaning(2) Clam cleaning(2) Cleaning or stripping Cleaning up clams Clean clams(2) Clean shell Cleaning of the clams Swish cleaning Hydro cleaning Salt water cleaning Response category/percentagesa specific suggestions 75 Radiation/irradiation 1.1% Irradiation(3) Radiation(3) Radiation process Natural irradiation Rinse/rinsing 1.8% Rinsing(S) Rinsing the oysters Water rinse(2) Health rinse Irrigation/irrigating 1.1% Irrigation(6) Irrigating Water 2.8% Water cleansing Clean by running water Water treatment Fresh water(2) Water cleaning(2) Water infusion Water purification Water washing Water removal system Water-cleaned seafood(2) Boiling water Clean water processing Water irrigation Sea wash Watering oysters Sterilizing/sterilization 1.1% Sterilization(6) Sterilizing Purifying/purification 4.0% Purification(l9) Purifying(3) Clam & oyster purification Purifier(2) Seafood purifier Water purification Pasteurization Pasteurization(2) Pasteurized 0.5%

PAGE 97

Other 8.3% Decaffeinating Miracle(2) Wipe out Decontamination Name after self to become rich Filterization Hydrologization No red tide Purging(2) Rigged Natural process Environmental process Safe seafood Select process oysters Seafood safe Detoxing Draining "Love those safe oysters" Disinfecting Natural process Naturally processed Preparing Hydrolizing Pure clean Sanitation(2) Sanitized Continued Germ safe Fresh Desalinization Clarno Detox Irrigation Oyster & clam distilling Car wash (I'd take my clams to the clam wash) Aqua filter Renewal Declammer A way to make oysters taste better Filtering clams Seafood safety service Safety net oysters Crushterization Desirable clams & oysters Healthy choice for clams & oysters Process of refining Filtration Oxygenated Steaming Hydromatic Stupid Enema asummary percentages are based upon 654 responses, of which 395 (60.4 percent) were unable or unwilling to suggest a name for the process. 76

PAGE 98

APPENDIX B

PAGE 99

78

PAGE 100

CoxstJXBR 0YsTBR QtmsT:t<>HHAIRE MSA-Code: County Code: Interviewer Household Code: Date-MM/DD/YY: I I Time Started: ______ AM I PM Introduction Hello, my name is ___________ . I am conducting a survey about food safety for a University of Florida research project. I am not selling any product and I am not asking for contributions. Your telephone number was randomly selected by a computer to participate in this study, and your responses will remain strictly confidential since we will have no way to associate your telephone number with your answers. Although we would like for you to answer every question, you are under no obligation to answer those that make you feel uncomfortable. If you have any questions about the survey, I will be happy to give you the phone number of the professor that is responsible for the study. Household Composition & Randomization Screener S-1. First of all, how many members of your household are 18 years of age or older? ____ (number). If ZERO, thank respondent and TERMINATE. S-2. In order to determine whom to interview, could you tell me, among the people who regularly live in your household (including yourself), who is 18 years or older and had the most recent birthday? l= I did. [CONTINUE INTERVIEW AND GO TO QI.) 2= (XXX) did. [SAY: COULD I SPEAK TO (XXX)?) [IF THAT PERSON COMES TO THE PHONE, REPEAT INTRODUCTION. THEN GO TO QI.] [IF THAT PERSON IS NOT AVAILABLE, GO TO S-3.] 8= I don't know all birthdays. [GO TO S4.J S-3. Could I speak to the person who is 18 or older and had the next most recent birthday, (including yourself)? l= [IF RESPONDENT IS, CONTINUE INTERVIEW AND GO TO QI.] 0= [IF NO ONE ELSE IS AVAILABLE, THANK RESPONDENT AND TERMINATE THE INTERVIEW.] [IF S2=8 THEN ASK:] S-4. Of the ones you do know, who is 18 or older and had the most recent birthday? I= I did [CONTINUE INTERVIEW, GO TO QI.] 2= {XXX) did. [SAY: "Could I speak to {XXX)?] [IF THAT PERSON COMES TO THE PHONE, REPEAT INTRODUCTION. THEN GO TO QI.] [IF THAT PERSON IS NOT AVAILABLE, GO TO S5.] S-5. Could I speak to anyone who is 18 or older that had the next most recent birthday, including yourself? I= [IF RESPONDENT JS, CONTINUE INTERVIEW, GO TO QI.] 0= [IF NO ONE ELSE IS AVAILABLE, THANK RESPONDENT AND TERMINATE INTERVIEW.] 79

PAGE 101

I. Do you or do you not eat any type of seafood? (1) Yes, I do eat seafood. (2) No What is the main reason you do not eat seafood? (1) Vegetarian (2) Seafood allergies (3) Taste (4) Religious purposes For responses 1-4 skip to Q39 (5) Food safety and quality concerns (6) Other (specify) 2. Think about food safety. On a scale of 1 to 7 where 7 is perfectly safe and 1 is not safe at all, a. How would you rate the safety of chicken? __ _ b. How would you rate the safety of oysters? __ _ c. And how do you rate the safety of clams? __ _ 3. Suppose a person were to eat one serving of chicken, oysters or clams at home or in a restaurant. 3a. Would you say a person's chance of getting sick from a serving of chicken is ... (Read list) (I) Very likely (2) Somewhat likely (3) Not too likely (4) Not at all likely (5) Don't know (Don't read) 3b. Would you say a person's chance of getting sick from a serving of raw oysters is ... (Read list) (I ) Very likely (2) Somewhat likely (3) Not too likely (4) Not at all likely (5) Don't know (Don't read) Jc. The chance of getting sick from eating cooked or steamed oysters is ... (Read list) (1) Very likely (2) Somewhat likely (3) Not too likely (4) Not at all likely (5) Don't know (Don't Read) 80

PAGE 102

3d. And a person's chance of getting sick from the serving of raw clams is ... (Read list) (I) Very likely (2) Somewhat likely (3) Not too likely (4) Not at all likely (5) Don't know (Don't read) 3e. Would you say a person's chance of getting sick from a serving of cooked or steamed clams is ... (Read list) (I) Very likely (2) Somewhat likely (3) Not too likely (4) Not at all likely (5) Don't know (Don't read) 3f. In your opinion, what do you feel the odds of getting sick from eating one serving of chicken would be? That is, one in how many meals? _______ _ 3g. In your opinion, what do you feel the odds of getting sick from eating one serving of raw oysters would be? One in how many meals? _____ _ 3h. ...And the odds of getting sick from eating one serving of cooked or steamed oysters would be one in how many meals? ______ _ 3i. The odds of getting sick from eating one serving of raw clams would be one in how many meals? _______ _ 3j. Finally, the odds of getting sick from eating one serving of cooked or steamed clams would be one in how many meals? ____ _ 4a. Have you eaten oysters? (I) Yes (2) No --What is the main reason you have never eaten oysters? (I) Appearance (2) Smell (3) Slimy (4) Color (5) Other physical concerns (Specify) __ _ (6) Think taste would be bad (7) Think grit/internal waste is bad (8) A version to new things no specific reason (9) Allergies Dr's. advice or personal experience (10) Doctor's advice illness, not allergies (11) Personal safety concerns/illness, not allergies Skip to Ql6a 81

PAGE 103

4b. Do you like or do you dislike oysters? (1) Like (2) Dislike---What is the main reason you dislike oysters? (1) Appearance (2) Smell (3) Slimy (4) Color (5) Other physical concerns (Specify). __ _ (6) Taste (7) Gritty texture/internal waste (8) General dislike no specific reason (9) Allergies Dr's. advice or personal experience (10) Doctor's advice illness, not allergies (11) Personal safety concerns/illness, not allergies Skip to Q16a 5. How frequently, if at all, did you eat oysters during the past year? (Do not read list) (0) None---Why did you not eat oysters during the past year? (Don't read list) (1) Medical advice of a doctor (2) Personal safety concerns (3) Lack of opportunity (didn't eat out) (4) Not readily available (5) Not in the mood / no appetite for oysters (6) Other (specify) _______ _ (Go to question 8) (I) Once (2) Once or twice every six months (3) Once per month (4) Twice per month (5) Three times per month (6) Four times per month/ Once a week (7) More than once per week--How many times per week? __ _ 6. About how many did you eat each time? ______ _ 7. In what form do you usually eat oysters? (Read list & check one) ( 1) Raw on the half shell (2) Raw from a jar (3) Cooked fresh oysters, that are steamed, fried, baked, etc. (4) Canned, from a tin 8. Have you changed the frequency of your oyster consumption in the past three years? (1) Yes (2) No (go to question 10) 82

PAGE 104

9. How frequently did you eat oysters in the past? (Don't read list) (0) Not at all (1) Once a year (2) Once or twice every six months (3) Once per month (4) Twice per month (5) Three times per month (6) Four times per month/ once per week (7) More than once per week---How many times per week? __ _ IO. Have you changed the average quantity of oysters eaten per occasion? (I) Yes (2) No (If Q8 + QlO = No, Skip to Q13, otherwise Skip to Q12) 1 I. About how many did you eat each time in the past? __ _ 12. What was the main reason that you changed your consumption of oysters? (Do not read list) Negative Reasons (1) Media ( Radio, TV, Newspaper, Magazines) (2) Price increases (3) Personal illness from eating oysters (4) Relative's or friend's illness (5) Doctor's warning about eating oysters (6) Lack of availability (7) Warning signs in seafood markets, restaurants, or on menus (8) Don't feel like eating them any more / no specific reason (9) Other (Specify), _________ _ Positive Reasons (I 0) Learned to like them (20) Lower prices (30) Better quality (40) More readily available (50) Oysters are available from favorite geographic source (60) Improved seasonal quality (70) Heard they improve your sex life (80) Other (Specify) ________ _ (90) Do not know 13A. What percentage of oysters do you~ eat raw? __ % 13B. What percentage of oysters did you eat raw three years ago? __ % 83

PAGE 105

14. Do you or do you not have a preferred geographic source for fresh oysters? (1) Yes (go to question 15) (2) No (go to question 16a) 15 . What is your preferred source? (0) Florida unspecified Florida specified: (1) Apalachicola (2) Cedar Key (3) Suwanee River Basin (4) Horseshoe Beach (5) Keaton Beach (6) Steinhatchee (7) Indian River (8) Pensacola (9) Any other Florida area, specify _________ _ Other states/ Areas (20) Louisiana (30) Mississippi (40) Texas (50) Georgia (60) Maryland (70) Chesapeake Bay (80) Washington State (90) Other (Specify) _________ _ 16a. Have you ever eaten clams? (I) Yes (2) No--What is the main reason you have never eaten clams? (I) Appearance (2) Smell (3) Slimy (4) Color (5) Other physical concerns (Specify) __ _ (6) Think~ would be bad (7) Think grit/internal waste is bad (8) A version to new things no specific reason (9) Allergies Dr's. advice or personal experience (10) Doctor's advice illness, not allergies ( 11) Personal safety concerns/illness, not allergies If 4a or 4b or 16a = 2, responses 10 or 11, skip to Q28 If 4b = I, skip to Q28 If 4a or 4b and 16a = 2, responses 1-9, skip to Q39 84

PAGE 106

16b. Do you like, or do you dislike clams? (1) Like (2) Dislike what is the main reason you do not like clams? (I) Appearance (2) Smell (3) Slimy (4) Color (5) Other physical concerns (Specify) --(6) Taste (7) Gritty texture/internal waste (8) General dislike no specific reason (9) Allergies Dr's. advice or personal experience (10) Doctor's advice illness, not allergies (11) Personal safety concerns/illness, not allergies If 4a or 4b or I 6b = 2, responses IO or 11, skip to Q28 If 4b = 1, skip to Q28 If 4a or 4b and 16b = 2, responses 1-9, skip to Q39 17. How frequently, if at all, did you eat clams during the past year? (Do not read list) (0) None---Why did you not eat clams during the past year? (Don't read list) (1) Medical advice of a doctor (2) Personal safety concerns (3) Lack of opportunity (didn't eat out) (4) Not readily available (5) Not in the mood / no appetite for clams (6) Other (specify) ________ _ (Go to question 20) (I) Once a year (2) Once or twice every six months (3) Once per month (4) Twice per month (5) Three times per month (6) Four times per month I once per week (7) More than once per week--How many times per week? --18. About how many did you eat each time? _____ _ 19. In what form do you usually eat clams? (Read list & check one) (I) Raw on the half shell (3) Cooked fresh clams, that are steamed, fried, baked, etc. (4) Canned clams, from a tin 20. Have you changed the frequency of your clam consumption in the past three years? (1) Yes (2) No (go to Q22) 85

PAGE 107

21. How frequently did you eat clams in the past? (Don't read list) (0) Not at all (I) Once a year (2) Once or twice every six months (3) Once per month (4) Twice per month (5) Three times per month (6) Four times per month / once per week (7) More than once per week--How many times per week? __ _ 22. Have you changed the average quantity of clams eaten per occasion? (I) Yes (2) No (If Q20 + Q22 = 2, skip to Q25, otherwise skip to Q24) 23 . About how many did you eat each time in the past? __ 24. What was the main reason that you changed your consumption of clams? (Don't read list) Negative Reasons (I) Media (Radio, TV , Newspaper , Magazines) (2) Price increases (3) Personal illness from eating clams (4) Rela t ive's or friend's illness (5) Doctor's warning about eating clams (6) Lack of availability (7) Warning signs in seafood markets, restaurants or on menus (8) Don ' t feel like eating them anymore / no specific reason (9) Other (Specify) __________ _ Positive Reasons (IO) Learned to like them (20) Lower prices (30) Better quality ( 40) More readily available (50) Clams are available from favorite geographic source (60) Improved seasonal quality (70) Heard they improve your sex life (80) Other (Specify) __________ _ (90) Do not know 25A. What percentage of clams do you now eat raw? __ % 25B. What percentage of clams did you eat raw three years ago? __ % 26 . Do you or do you not have a preferred geographic source for fresh clams? (I) Yes (2) No (go to question 28) 86

PAGE 108

27 . What is your preferred source? (0) Florida unspecified Florida specified: (I) Apalachicola (2) Cedar Key (3) Suwanee River Basin (4) Horseshoe Beach (5) Keaton Beach (6) Steinhatchee (7) Indian River Pensacola (8) (9) All other Florida areas, specify _________ _ Other states/ Areas (20) Louisiana (30) Mississippi (40) Texas (50) Georgia (60) Maryland (70) Chesapeake Bay (80) Washington State (90) Other (Specify) _______ _ 28. Oyster and clams are harvested from the ocean and then handled by processors, retailers and restaurants before they are sold to the public. Suppose there were food safety problems with oysters and clams. Do you think the primary source of such problems is ... (Read list) (I) In the water where the oysters and clams grow (2) In the processing and transportation of oysters and clams (3) In the stores and restaurants that sell oysters and clams ( 4) In the home when consumers prepare oysters and clams (5) Don't know (Don't read) 29. There are organisms in salt water, such as bacteria and viruses, that may be present in oysters and clams. When large numbers of these organisms are present in oysters and clams, eating them may cause illness. A process has been developed which reduces the number of bacteria and viruses present in oysters and clams . This process removes most harmful bacteria and viruses by flushing them with c]ean water. The process does not use chemicals or irradiation and does not affect the taste. 30. If you were to name this process, what would you call it? _____ _ 31. If oysters treated in this way were available , would you or would you not buy them? (I) Yes (2) No (go to question 35) 87

PAGE 109

32. If oysters now sell for $.50 each in a seafood shop or restaurant, how much would you be willing to pay for oysters treated in this manner to make them safer? $______ _ _____ each Dollars Cents 33. If oysters were treated with this process and available to you at the price you just gave me, how frequently would you eat them? (Don't read list) l (0) Never (1) Once a year (2) Once or twice every six months (3) Once per month (4) Twice per month (5) Three times per month (6) Four times per month / once per week (7) More than once per week--How many times per week? __ _ 34. About how many would you eat each time? 35. If clams treated in this way were available, would you or would you not buy them? (I) Yes (2) No (go to question 39) 36. If clams now sell for $.30 each in a seafood shop or restaurant, how much would you be willing to pay for clams treated in this manner to make them safer? $______ _ _____ each Dollars Cents 37. If clams were treated with this process and available to you at the price you just gave me, how frequently would you eat them? (Don't read list) (0) Never (1) Once a year (2) Once or twice every six months (3) Once per month ( 4) Twice per month (5) Three times per month (6) Four times per month/ once per week (7) More than once per week?--How many per week? __ _ 38. About how many would you eat each time? 39. Have you seen or not seen a consumer advisory notice describing health risks associated with eating raw oysters? (I) Yes (2) No 88

PAGE 110

40 . In a few months, USDA will require that aJI uncooked meat products sold through food stores carry a label on each package that gives information on proper handling and cooking practices. The estimated cost for the label is about li per package. In your opinion, are such labels [read, rotate (1) and (2), do not read (3)] (1) Necessary (or) (2) Unnecessary (3) Do not know [Do not read] 4 I . USDA and other governmental agencies may soon require consumers advisory notices to be posted in restaurants and on restaurant menus which caution people with heaJtb problems to not eat raw or partially cook seafood, red meats and eggs. In you opinion, are such notices [read, rotate (1) and (2), do not read (3)] (I) Necessary (or) (2) Unnecessary (3) Do not know [Do not read] 42 . What is the zip-code of your primary residence? __ _ 43. What is the number of years of schooling or the highest grade of school you completed? _______ _ 44 . Which of the following groups represents your race? (I) White (2) Black (3) American Indian (4) Asian or Pacific Islander (5) Other (9) Refused to answer (Don't read) 45. Are you of Hispanic or Spanish origin or descent? (l) Yes (2) No (9) Refused to answer (Don't read) 46. In what year were you born? ______ _ 47. INTERVIEWER: What is the gender of the interviewee? (Ask if not obvious: Are you .... ) (1) Male (2) Female 48. Would you say your health is ... (Read list) (l) Excellent (2) Good (3) Fair (4) Poor (9) Refused to answer (Don't read) 89

PAGE 111

49. Please tell me if you now have or if you have ever had any of the following health problems ... (Read list) (a) Allergic reaction to shellfish (b) Diabetes (c) Liver trouble (d) Heart problems (e) Stomach problems, for example ulcers (f) Any other immune system disorders 50a. What is the first thing that comes to your mind when you hear the word DEPURA TION? 50b. Would you say that your reaction to the word DEPURA TION is ... [Rotate] (1) Positive (2) Negative 51. Finally, I'd like to know the total before-tax money that your household earned and received from all sources during the past 12 months. 51a. Was it more or less than $35,000? (1) More (go to question 51 b) (2) Less (go to question 51c) YES (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (9) Refused to answer (Don't read ... end interview) 51b. Was it more or less than $50,000? (1) More (End interview) (2) Less (End interview) (9) Refused to answer (Don't read ... end interview) 51c. Was it more or less than $20,000? (1) More (2) Less (9) Refused to answer (Don't read) Time completed: _____ AM/PM Thank you for your time 90 NO Refused to Answer (2) (9) (2) (9) (2) (9) (2) (9) (2) (9) (2) (9)

PAGE 112

APPENDIX C

PAGE 113

92

PAGE 114

Restaurant Manager Questionnaire Hello, my name is __________ . I am conducting a survey for IFAS at the University of Florida in Gainesville. We are talking to selected foodservice operators regarding food safety concerns, particularly those related to seafood. I am not trying to sell you anything, and I'll make my questions as brief as possible. Your responses will remain strictly confidential. Our findings will be used to improve the quality of seafood available to restaurants in Florida. 1. Are you responsible for selecting the menu items for this facility? 2. (1) Yes--Skip to question 3 (2) No---Could you tell me who is responsible for selecting the menu items? -------And their phone number? --------Is available at this time? -------------(1) Yes-(Repeat greeting and start interview with question 3) (2) No--Could you tell me when the best time to reach is? -----------------------Thank you for your time. 93

PAGE 115

3a. Do you currently offer raw oysters on your menu? (1) Yes skip to question 4 (2) No 3b. Have you ever offered raw oysters on this facility's menu? { 1) Yes (2) No 3c. What are the main reasons that you (discontinued) (have never served) raw oysters? (do not read list) (As they respond. indicate order, ie ... a "l" for first, "2" for second, etc.) ___ (a) Advice of attorney (b) Afraid of liabilities --___ (c) Information sent to me from: (Check all that apply) (aa) HRS --(bb) DBR (cc) FRA --__ (dd) DEP (ee) FDACS --(d) Poor quality ----(e) Inadequate supplies ___ (f) Inadequate demand ------In your opinion, what do you think the reasons that the demand for oysters in your restaurant has decreased? (do not read list) --(a) Media (Radio, TV, Newspaper, etc) (b) Price increases ----(c) Personal illness from eating oysters (d) Relative or friends illness ----(e) Doctor's warning about eating oysters --(f) Lack of availability ___ (g) Warning signs in seafood markets, restaurants and on menus --(h) Do not feel like eating them/ no specific reason --(i) Poor quality ___ (j) Other (specify) ________ _ (g) Not large enough profit margin (h) Not compatiable with menu (i) Too much waste/shrink--Shelf life too short ___ (j) Other (specify) _____________ _ Skip to question Sa 4. Which of the following trends have you noticed in the sales of raw oysters over the past three years? (a) Increase in sales (b) Decrease in sales ( c) No change 94

PAGE 116

Sa. Do you currently offer cooked oysters on your menu? ( 1) Yes skip to question 6 (2) No Sb. Have you ever offered cooked oysters on this facility's menu? {1) Yes (2) No Sc. What are the main reasons that you (discontinued) (have never served) cooked oysters? {do not read list) {As they respond. indicate order, ie ... a "1" for first, "2" for second, etc.) --{a) Advice of attorney (b) Afraid of liabilities --___ {c) Information sent to me from: (Check all that apply) (aa) HRS --{bb) DBR --(cc) FRA --__ (dd) DEP (ee) FDACS ----(d) Poor quality ___ {e) Inadequate supplies --------(f) Inadequate demand In your opinion, what do you think the reasons that the demand for oysters in your restaurant has decreased? {do not read list) {a) Media (Radio, TV, Newspaper, etc) ---(b) Price increases --(c) Personal illness from eating oysters (d) Relative or friends illness ----(e) Doctor's warning about eating oysters --(f) Lack of availability --(g) Warning signs in seafood markets, restaurants and on menus --(h) Do not feel like eating them/ no specific reason --(i) Poor quality ___ {j) Other (specify) ________ _ {g) Not large enough profit (h) Not compatible with menu (i) Too much waste/shrink--Shelf life too short ___ (j) Other (specify) _____________ _ Skip to question 14 6. Which of the following trends have you noticed in the sales of cooked oysters in the past three years? (a) Increase in sales (b) Decrease in sales (c) No change 95

PAGE 117

7a. In what form do you presently purchase oysters? (Read list, check all that apply) (1) Raw in the shell (2) Raw by the gallon/pint (3) Cooked in a can 7b. About how many of each type do you purchase in a typical week? (1) (2) (3) Raw in the shell Bushels Raw by the gallo-n~/-p~i_n_t__ Gallons/pints Cooked in a can ____ Cans 8. Do you purchase farm raised oysters? (1) Yes (2) No (9) Do not know (don't read) 9. Do you have a preferred geographic source for fresh oysters? (1) Yes (2) No skip to question lla 10. What is your preferred source? (Don't read list) (0) Florida--unspecified Florida--specified (1) Apalachicola (2) Cedar Key (3) Suwanee River Basin (4) Horseshoe Beach (5) Keaton Beach (6) Steinhatchee (7) Indian River (8) Pensacola (9) Any other Florida area (specify) _________ _ Other states/areas (20) Louisiana (30) Mississippi (40) Texas (SO) Georgia (60) Maryland (70) Chesapeake Bay (80) Washington State (90) Other (specify) _________ _ lla . Do you or do you not have consumer advisory notices posted in your facility? (1) Yes (2) No--skip to question 14a 96

PAGE 118

llb. Where in your facility do you have these notices posted? (check all that apply) (1) At the bar (2) Front foyer/door (3) At the cash register (4) On the menu (5) Other (Specify) ______ _ 12. In your opinion, what percentage change, if any, did posting the advisory notices have on raw oyster consumption in your restaurant?(increase) (decrease) _____ % 13. What percentage change, if any, did posting the advisory notices have on cooked oyster consumption in your restaurant?(increase) (decrease) _______ % 97

PAGE 119

14 a. Do you currently offer raw clams on your menu? (1) Yes---skip to question 15 (2) No 14b. Have you ever offered raw clams on this facilities menu? (1) Yes (2) No 14c. What are the main reasons that you (discontinued) (have never served) raw clams? (do not read list) (As they respond, indicate order, ie ... a "1" for first, a "2" for second, etc.) ___ (a) Advice of attorney (b) Afraid of liabilities --(c) Information sent to me from: --(aa) HRS --__ (bb) DBR (cc) FRA --__ (dd) DEP (ee) FDACS -,-,,...,......(d) Poor quality --___ (e) Inadequate supplies --------(f) Inadequate demand In your opinion, what do you think the reasons that the demand for clams in your restaurant has decreased? (do not read list) --(a) Media (Radio, TV, Newspaper, etc) (b) Price increases ----(c) Personal illness from eating clams (d) Relative or friends illness ----(e) Doctor's warning about eating clams --(f) Lack of availability ___ (g) Warning signs in seafood markets, restaurants and on menus --(h) Do not feel like eating them/ no specific reason --(i) Poor quality ___ (j) Other (specify) ________ _ (g) Not large enough profit (h) Not compatible with menu (i) Too much waste/shrink--Shelf life too short ___ (j) Other (specify) ______________ _ Skip to question 16a 15. Which of the following trends have you noticed in the sales of raw clams in the past three years? (a) Increase in sales (b) Decrease in sales ( c) No change 98

PAGE 120

16a. Do you currently offer cooked clams on your menu? (1) Yes---skip to question 17 (2) No 16b. Have you ever offered cooked clams on this facility's menu? ( 1) Yes {2) No 16c. What are the main reasons that you (discontinued) (have never served) cooked clams? (do not read list) (As they respond, indicate order, ie ... a "1" for first, a "2" for second, etc.) ___ (a) Advice of attorney (b) Afraid of liabilities --(c) Information sent to me from: --(aa) HRS --___ (bb) DBR (cc) FRA --(dd) DEP --(ee) FDACS -,-,,-,.--___ (d) Poor quality ----(e) Inadequate supplies (f) Inadequate demand In your opinion, what do you think the reasons that the demand for clams in your restaurant has decreased? (do not read list) ___ (a) Media (Radio, TV, Newspaper, etc) ___ (b) Price increases --(c) Personal illness from eating clams (d) Relative or friends illness --___ (e) Doctor's warning about eating clams ___ (f) Lack of availability ___ (g) Warning signs in seafood markets, restaurants and on menus ___ (h) Do not feel like eating them/ no specific reason --(i) Poor quality ___ (j) Other (specify) ________ _ ___ (g) Not large enough profit (h) Not compatible with menu --(i) Too much waste/shrink--Shelf life too short --___ (j) Other (specify) _____________ _ Skip to question 22 17. Which of the following trends have you noticed in the sales of cooked clams in the past three years? {a) Increase in sales (b) Decrease in sales { c) No change 99

PAGE 121

18a. In what form do you presently purchase clams? (Read list, check all that apply) (1) Raw in the shell (2) Raw by the gallon/pint (3) Cooked in a can 18b. About how many of each type do you purchase in a typical week? (1) (2) ( 3) Raw in the shell Bushels --,.--,---Raw by the gallon/pint Gallons/pints Cooked in a can ____ Cans 19. Do you purchase farm raised clams? (1) Yes (2) No (9) Do not know (don't read) 20. Do you have a preferred geographic source for fresh clams? (1) Yes (2) No---Skip to question 22 21. What is your preferred source? (Don't read list) (0) Florida--unspecified Florida--specified ( 1) Apalachicola ( 2) Cedar Key (3) Suwanee River Basin (4) Horseshoe Beach ( 5) Kea ton Beach (6) Steinhatchee (7) Indian River ( 8) Pensacola (9) Any other Florida area (specify) _________ _ Other states/areas (20) Louisiana (3 O) Mississippi (40) Texas (SO) Georgia (60) Maryland (70) Chesapeake Bay (80) Washington State (90) Other (specify) _________ _ 100

PAGE 122

22. Oysters and clams are harvested from the ocean and then handled by processors, retailers and restaurants before they are sold to the public. Suppose there are food safety problems with oysters and clams. Do you think the primary source of such a problem is ... (Read list) (1) In the water were the oysters and clams grow (2) In the processing and transportation of oysters and clams (3) Storage at the distributors (4) In general, the way~ restaurants handle them (5) Don't know (Do not read) There are organisms in salt water, such as bacteria and viruses, that may be present in oysters and clams. When large numbers of these organisms are present in oysters and clams, eating them may cause illness. A process has been developed which reduces the number of bacteria and viruses present in oysters and clams. This process removes most harmful bacteria and viruses by flushing them with clean water. This process does not use chemicals or irradiation and does not affect the taste. 23. If you were to name this process, what would you call it? -------24. If oysters treated in this manner were available for $30.00 per bushel,and untreated regular oysters for $15.00 per bushel, how many bushels of treated oysters would you purchase in a typical week? _________ bushels 25. How many bushels, if any, would you purchase of untreated oysters? ________ Bushels per week 26. In your judgement, what percentage effect, if any, would the availability of safer oysters have on your gross sales of oysters if the wholesale price to you was $30.00 per bushel?(increase) (decrease) _______ % 27. If clams treated in this manner were available for $60.00 per bushel,and untreated regular clams were available for $44.00 per bushel, how many bushels of treated clams would you purchase in a typical week? _________ bushels 28. How many bushels, if any, would you purchase of untreated clams? ________ Bushels per week 101

PAGE 123

29. In your judgement, what percentage effect, if any, would the availability of safer clams have on your gross sales of clams at a wholesale price to you of $60.00 per bushel? (increase) (decrease) _______ % 30. How many years has your restaurant been in business? _________ Years 31. Could you tell me approximately how many seats are available in your establishment? _______ Seats 32. In your opinion, what percentage of your total food revenues are generated by seafood products? __________ % 33. For classification purposes only, could you please tell me which of the following sales categories best describes your restaurant? This information will be held confidential, and will be used for classification purposes only. (1) Less than $500,000 in annual sales (2) Greater than $500,000 but less than $1 Million in annual sales (3) $1 Million but less than $1.5 Million in annual sales (3) $1.5 Million but less than $2 Million in annual sales (4) $2 Million or more in annual sales (DO NOT READ) (9) Refused to answer 34. And, what would you say your average cover is? (dollars) (cents) Thank you for your time 102