Citation
Consumer attitudes toward food safety and willingness to accept selected bacterial control measures for fresh chicken : : a report

Material Information

Title:
Consumer attitudes toward food safety and willingness to accept selected bacterial control measures for fresh chicken : : a report
Creator:
Moss, Susan D.
Degner, Robert L.
Zellner, James A.
Affiliation:
University of Florida -- Food and Resource Economics Department -- Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences -- Florida Agricultural Market Research Center
Place of Publication:
Gainesville, Fla.
Publisher:
Florida Agricultural Market Research Center (FAMRC)
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
viii, 64 p. ; 28 cm.

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Chicken industry -- Public opinion
Irradiated foods -- Public opinion
Poultry -- Preservation -- Public opinion
Meat -- Contamination -- Public opinion
Food preservatives -- Public opinion
Food safety ( jstor )
Chemicals ( jstor )
Irradiation ( jstor )

Notes

General Note:
"July 1991."
General Note:
Includes bibliographical references (p. 37).
Funding:
Technical report (Florida Agricultural Market Research Center) ;
General Note:
Technical report - FAMRC ; 91-1

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
027808603 ( ALEPH )
AJG5554 ( NOTIS )
26812833 ( OCLC )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text










9,/-/




-// // ./ -/ .. ./ ,/ ,, .. ./ ,,./ .,/ -,..// ,./.,..,. ,,.,.. ,,,,,..,,.,..,,-,// ., // ./ ,....,,...-...........,. ,...,,,,,........,/ ,,,.,. ...., ....,,,.
..: .... . ... .... ...... . ...... .... ..... .... .. ... ..... .... .... ..`... .... ..... ......... ................ .`................... ..... .................. .... ..... ...... .. ..... ........ .... ... .. ..... .. .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


... :. .. .:<. ...... :.... < <... .:.:.. .. :... <,... <......:.< .. ...<...:.,.. .. ... ...:.. ...... ...... .:.:....:.:.. .:..< .:...:.::::::..:::::::...:::::::::...::::::::::::....:::::::::::.. ::::.. ::::::::... :::::.. ::.
/ / / / / ., ,. ,. ,. ,, .. . .. ,, , / . ,. ,, .' / '. ... . ..-...''. '. ''. . . . ..`. . ..'.. .' .. ... . . . ../. / / .' / .' '.
. ..::.: . ..: : .: :. .:.: :.: :.: :.: :.: :.: :.: :.: :.: :.: :.: :.: .`: .: ..:. .:. ...:. .:. .: ..:. .:. .: ..: ..: ..:. : .:. .: ..:. .:. .:. .:. .: :. .:. .:. .:. .: .:. .: ..:. .: ..:. .: ..:. .:. .:. .:. .:. .: ..:. .:. .:.
. . . .!.. . . . . . . . . . . . . .i.. .i ii.. .', i i i i i;.!.. . .;.. . . .i.. . . . . . . . . . . .i.. .i. .,.. .,.. . . . . . . ., . . . .i I .
. . . . . ..:: ::: :: ::. ::::. :: :. . :::: ::: :. ::: ::. :::::. :1 :: ::: :.: :. ::' ::. :::. ::::: :::. :. .: :::. : :: :12 ::::: :1: : ':1 :::.:::: ::: ::: :: ::: ::::: ::: :. . . . . . . . ..:: ::: ::::: ::. . .: :: :. :::. : : .::


/ / / ., ., ... .., ., . ..,..,.. . . ... ...,. ., ...,..-.- -, .-, .,, ..,, ..,, .,,. . ..,. / ,, ,,, ,,. ,,, .,. .., ,,, ,., ,.' ,,, -.,,-/ .'. . ,', .', .'. ,-. ,-, .'. ,', / .- ,., -.- ,.- ... ,.. ,, ..
. . . . . ..::: :::::: ::: : .: .:. . .:::: .: .: .::: .::: :: .: : .:: . . . . ..:: .:: . . . ..: : :: ::: ::: ::: : : .:: :: : .: :: .::: :: .::: .: .:.:: : .:.::: ..: ..::: ::: : . . . . . . . ..:. ..::.::: ::: ::: : .
. . ..::: :: .:: : . . . ..::: .::: . ..::: :: .:: .:: I::: :::: ::: ::: ::: ::: :::: ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: :::: ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: :::: ::: ::: ::: ::: :::: ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: .: .: :: ::: ::: ::: ::: :::: ::: ::: ::: ::: :::
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..:.: :. ..:.:: ::: :: ::: :: ::: :: ::: :: :: ::: :: ::: :: :::. . ..::: ::: :: ::: :: ::: :: :: ::: :: ::: :: ::: :: ::
: : : .: : : : :. .: : .: :. : : : .: :. . ... . . . .: :. .: : : : : : .:...: :. - -. :.. . . . . . .... ..:: : I . . .... : : : .: : : : : : :. : : : : :. .: : :. .: :.
.:: .:: .::: ::: :: .:.: ::: ::: :::. : .::: :: .: .: .: .: .:: .: .:: : .: : .: :: .: .: : .: .:: . .: .: : .: .:: ::: : .:: ::: ::: ::: .: .::: ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: :: .::: ::: ::: :::: ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: :: ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: :::
.' ,: . . . . . . . . . ..- . . . ..,: : :, ,:. ,: :.: :- ,:. ,: :,.:, ,:. .:. ... .. ..... .. ..: :.:-:': :." : :." .:":- ": : : " ':":':" : : ,.". .: : :':":': : :' ':":':" : : : ":': : :" ': :' : :-
. .:: : .: . .::: .:::: :: .::: -:: 1: . ..: . ..:::: : .:: .:.: : ..: :. .:. . . . . ..:::: :. .: :. . ..:: :::.:. ..: : :::: :.:.::.:: ::. .:::: :::: :::: ::::..:: ::.:...:: :::: ::::......:: ::::::...:....:.::::: :::: :::: ::::
: : : : ::: : : : ::: : : : : ::: :: ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: :: :: : ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: :::: ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: :::: : : : : : : :: ::: : :'::: : :.i :', : : : : : ,::; ? : : : ": .: : .:,4 : : : : : ::
:. . ...:. . .:. .: :. .:. .:. .: .:. .:. .: .:.: : .: :.: .: : .: :.: :.: : .: : .: ..: :.:. .:. .:. .:. .:. .: .:. .: .: .. ...: .. ..:.: :.: :.: :.: .: : .: : .: : .:.: ...:.: :.: :.:. ...: .:.: :. .:. .:. `: .:. .:. .:. .:.







: ' / ' -.' ' ' ,, , , ,: : : : . , , ' ' . . ` . .' . . .. .' .' . ` . .- .- ' . '. . ' . ` . . . . .. . . .. . . .- . . - /. . .. . . . ,:
,, .. ... .................. ........ ... .,., ....,.... ...,... ,, .... ......., ....... ..., *.",'., ..,. ........,...,./

,..,,..,. .. .,:.: : ., ,,. ,.,, ,, ., .... ,, . ,.. ,,.. :.,.,..,.,...../:: ..,..........





...- . .,.. .. . -, ,, , ,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... .. ...... ..... .. `. `.. ...... ..... ....


















Consumer Attitudes Toward Food Safety and
Willingness to Accept Selected Bacterial
Control Measures for Fresh Chicken





a report by

S.D. Moss
R.L. Degner
J.A. Zellner




July 1991




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


[ V.2;2











ABSTRACT


A telephone survey was conducted in four cities to obtain information
about consumer awareness and attitudes towards food safety, and gauge their
willingness to buy and pay for chicken made safer by better inspection,
chemical bath, or irradiation. Respondents were also queried about
willingness to spend more time in food preparation to ensure safety. Tabular
analysis, basic statistics, OLS regression and logit analysis were used to
analyze the data.

Over 30 percent of survey respondents expressed serious concern towards
food safety problems, 63 percent expressed moderate concern and 6.3 percent
expressed slight concern. When asked to name foods they no longer consumed,
or consumed less frequently due to concern over the food's safety, eight
percent of respondents surveyed identified chicken. Four percent believed
they had suffered food poisoning from chicken.

Nearly 85 percent of respondents were willing to buy safe chicken
treated by chemicals or irradiation. Respondents were indifferent between
the risk of chemical baths and irradiation.

Consumers were willing to pay about 16 cents more, per pound, for
chicken which had been carefully inspected for bacterial contamination. If
bacteria had been destroyed by chemical wash or by irradiation, consumers
would pay about 15 cents and 12 cents on average, respectively.

About 80 percent were willing to change food preparation techniques and
spend up to 20 minutes more preparation time to avoid cross contamination
with other foods.


Keywords: Food safety, Foodborne Disease, Poultry, Chicken,
Salmonella, Campylobacter, Irradiation, Contingent
Valuation.













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 is

to provide organized groups with practical solutions to their marketing

problems. 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 products.

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.

For more information about the Center, contact:



Dr. Robert L. Degner, Director
Florida Agricultural Market Research Center
1083 McCarty Hall
University of Florida
Gainesville, Florida 32611
(904) 392-1845










TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

TABLE OF CONTENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv

LIST OF APPENDIX TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi

SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii

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

OBJECTIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

PROCEDURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

FINDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Composition of the Sample and Current Buying Behavior . . . 6
Attitudes Toward Food Safety Problems . . . . . . . 7
Models of Willingness to Ensure Food Safety . . . . . 12
Factors Hypothesized to Affect Willingness to
Ensure Food Safety . . . . . . . . . 13
Demographic Variables . . . . . . . 13
Attitudinal Variables . . . . . . . 15
Treatment Variables . . . . . . . .. 16
Willingness to Buy Treated Chicken . . . . . 17
Empirical results--willingness to buy . . . 20
Willingness to Pay for Treated Chicken . . . . 22
Empirical results--willingness to pay . . . 24
Model 2A . . . . . . . . . 24
Model 2B . . . . . . . . . 26
Willingness to Spend More Time in Food Preparation . 26
Empirical results--willingness to spend more time 28

CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

APPENDIX A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Contingent Valuation and Willingness To Pay . . . . . 40
More Time, an Alternative to Money Expenditures . . 41

APPENDIX B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

APPENDIX C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49



iii










LIST OF TABLES


Table Page


1 Data sets by city. . . . . . . . . . . . 4

2 Rating of food safety concerns. . . . . . . . . 8

3 Composite of attitude towards food safety problems such as
additives, chemical residues and bacteria levels, by
selected socio-demographic variables. . . . . ... 10

4 Willingness to purchase safer chicken when informed about
alternative treatment methods. . . . . . ... 18

5 Definitions of explanatory variables used in estimates. .. . 19

6 Model 1: Maximum likelihood estimates for the logit model
of willingness to buy for all respondents answering
chemical or irradiation treatment questions, in-
cluding those biased by inspection method questions,
where buy/not buy is the dependant variable. . . . 21

7 Model 2A: Regression coefficients for the model of will-
ingness to pay for chicken made safer by better
inspection methods, by chemical or by irradiation
treatment, where price is the dependent variable. .. . 25

8 Model 2B: Regression coefficients for the model of will-
ingness to pay for chicken made safer by chemical
or irradiation treatment after the respondent was
biased by the inspection scenario, where the depen-
dent variable is the inspection price quote less the
chemical or irradiation treatment price quote. .... 27

9 Amount of additional time respondents were willing to
spend to ensure better or safer ways to handle and
prepare chicken at home by selected socio-demograph-
ic and attitudinal variables. . . . . . . ... 30

10 Model 3: Maximum likelihood estimates for the logit model
of willingness to spend more time in preparation of
chicken to avoid food poisoning, where willingness
to spend more time is the dependent variable. . . . 32










LIST OF APPENDIX TABLES


Table Page

1 Socio-demographic characteristics of respondents. . . ... 44

2 Food safety attitudes associated with consumer purchasing
behavior. . . . . . . . . . . . .. 45

3 Food related illnesses' influence on food safety
attitudes. . . . . . . . . . . .. 46

4 Household chicken consumption patterns. . . . . . ... 46

5 Food safety attitudes associated with household consump-
tion. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 47

6 Distribution of those willing to pay more, less or the
same price for treated chicken, by treatment . . . 47

















ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


We are grateful to the Economic Research Service of the United States

Department of Agriculture for their financial support of this food safety

project. We are indebted to C. B. Moss for critiquing the discussion on

logit models and the empirical results sections. Our thanks also go to Karen

Utterback-Normann, former graduate student at the University of Florida for

supervising the telephone interviews and for assisting with data processing

and statistical analyses. We also appreciate the services of Anne Kirkley in

typing the final manuscript Stephenie Mack for proof-reading.










SUMMARY


* This study surveyed consumer awareness of and attitudes toward food
safety in Orlando, Tucson, Des Moines and Spokane. Over 500 primary
food shoppers were interviewed by telephone in July and August 1988.
Consumers' willingness to buy and pay for safer chicken or spend more
time in preparation to ensure safety was evaluated by tabular analyses,
and statistical models.

* Attitudes toward food safety in general were evaluated via a numeric
rating scale focusing on (1) additives and preservatives, (2) pesti-
cides and chemical residues and (3) bacterial contamination. A
composite of responses to these three safety hazards was used to
categorize the respondents' attitudes toward food safety hazards as
slightly, moderately or seriously concerned.

* Pesticides and chemical residues concerned respondents the most.
Additives and preservatives were of less concern and roughly equal to
concern about bacterial levels.

* Nearly 59 percent of respondents said that food safety concerns
affected their buying behavior. Eight percent were specifically
concerned about contaminated chicken. Twenty-seven percent had
experienced food poisoning and about four percent believed chicken was
the cause.

* Income was the only socio-demographic variable found to be significant-
ly associated with food safety concerns. Concerns were more serious at
lower income levels.

* The evaluation of willingness to buy found all respondents willing to
buy chicken made safer by better inspection. Nearly 85 percent were
willing to purchase a chemically treated or irradiated product.
Approximately 15 percent were unwilling to buy chemically treated or
irradiated chicken even if treatment reduced the risks of salmonella.

* Those respondents with education beyond high school, females, and those
with serious food safety concerns were less likely to buy a product
treated by chemical wash or irradiation. However, these respondents
were just as likely to buy chemically treated chicken as irradiated
chicken.

* When a respondent was first given the better inspection alternative,
the probability of buying a chemically treated or irradiated product
decreased by about 8.2 percent. After being given the better inspec-
tion alternative, nearly one-fourth of the respondents were unwilling
to buy chemically treated chicken and slightly over one-fifth were
unwilling to buy irradiated chicken.











* The average price respondents were willing to pay for safer chicken was
16.2 cents per pound if inspected more thoroughly, 14.8 cents per pound
if chemically treated, and 11.7 cents per pound if irradiated.

* Females and respondents with prior experience with food poisoning would
pay more than 14.5 additional cents to ensure safer chicken. Respon-
dents over the age of 60 would pay about 10 cents more. An interper-
sonal comparison of the three different treatment scenarios showed only
irradiation treatment significantly affected the price. Respondents
given the irradiation scenario would only pay an additional 10 cents
per pound.

* An intrapersonal comparison of willingness to pay for better inspected
chicken versus chemically treated or irradiated chicken found inspec-
tion was favored by about 1.44 cents per pound. Those with moderate or
more serious food safety concerns and those from larger households
would pay more for chemically treated or irradiated chicken.

* About 80 percent of respondents were willing to spend more preparation
time to ensure safer chicken. Females were more likely to spend more
time, but individuals over 40 years of age and respondents with an
education beyond high school were less likely to spend more time.


viii













INTRODUCTION


Varying amounts of bacteria are present throughout the chicken

production and processing chain. In small quantities, the bacteria are

generally harmless; but, when present in large quantities, consumers can be

infected by them and become ill from food poisoning. Symptoms include

stomach cramps, vomiting, and diarrhea. Each year, nearly two percent of the

population suffers discomfort from some form of chicken-related, food-borne

disease, primarily salmonellosis or campylobacter. About one person per

thousand of those infected will die (National Research Council).

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) is concerned about

bacterial contamination of meat and poultry. Public awareness of potential

bacterial contamination of fresh poultry products was heightened by

television coverage on 60 Minutes in 1987. Newspapers and magazines have

printed numerous articles about the prevalence and dangers of contaminated

chickens. While industry spokespersons, regulators, and consumers may differ

in their perceptions of the severity of the problem, it is generally

recognized that a problem exists. Considerable research has been conducted

on the cost to society of food-borne disease (Roberts) and the cost of

implementing alternative means of controlling the problem (Curtin). However,

no studies of the consumers' perception of cost or willingness to pay to

remedy the problem have been identified.

The Economic Research Service (ERS) of the USDA and the Food and

Resource Economics Department (FRED) at the University of Florida (UF)

entered into a Cooperative Agreement to develop an economic model of consumer

willingness to pay for food safety and apply the model to assess consumer

willingness to pay for safer poultry. A consumer survey of food safety













attitudes, experience and opinions was conducted to provide data. Major

funding for the research was provided by USDA.


OBJECTIVES


The primary objective of this research was to measure the willingness

of consumers to accept chicken processed by various methods which would

eliminate or greatly reduce the chances of food poisoning, and their

willingness to pay for safer chicken. Specific objectives were to:

(1) review the literature on consumer willingness to pay, including

the literature on contingent valuation, and adapt appropriate

methods and procedures to evaluate consumer willingness to pay

for safer food products.

(2) provide benchmark data on consumer attitudes toward additives,

preservatives, pesticides, chemical residues and bacterial levels

in foods people eat.

(3) determine whether or not consumers would be willing to buy safer

chicken processed by one of the following methods:

(a) chemical bath

(b) irradiation

(c) cleaner plant facilities and more frequent inspec-
tion.

A related objective was to determine how much consumers would be

willing to pay for chicken processed by the aforementioned

methods.

(4) determine whether or not the meal preparer would be willing to

spend more time on hygienically improved procedures for preparing

chicken in the home.













PROCEDURE


A telephone survey of 506 primary food shoppers in Spokane, Orlando,

Des Moines and Tucson was conducted in July and August of 1988. These cities

are frequently used as test markets because of their demographic composition.

Orlando was chosen because of its relatively large population of black

residents, and Tucson for its large Hispanic population. Approximately one-

fourth of the respondents came from each city (Table 1).

Working residential exchanges were randomly selected from current

telephone directories and the last four digits randomly generated in order to

minimize the potential bias that could have resulted from using published

phone lists. Nearly 23 percent of all respondents said their telephone

numbers were unlisted. This level is consistent with telephone company

information on unlisted numbers. A few residents refused to state if their

number was listed or unlisted.

Three callbacks were made to each number before going to an alternate

number. Calls and callbacks were made on Saturdays, during weekday

afternoons, and in the early evening (local time) to ensure a broad

representation of household types.

There were three forms of the questionnaire (Appendix C). All respon-

dents were asked the same attitudinal and buying behavior queries, but then

approximately equal numbers of respondents were asked to evaluate chicken

which had been made safer through (A) cleaner processing facilities and more

careful inspection, (B) being washed in a chemical disinfectant to kill

bacteria, or (C) irradiation. In each case, the respondent was assured that

the process was safe and that the taste, texture and odor of the chicken was

unaffected by the process (Table 1). Since the risk trade-off measure being

evaluated in this manner was interpersonal, 98 of the respondents who














Table l.--Data sets by city.

City
All
Data set Des Moines Orlando Spokane Tucson cities

(----------Number of observations----------)


(A) The "Inspection" Method

Respondents asked about
safer chicken resulting
from "cleaner process-
ing facilities and more
careful inspection.
(B) The "Chemical" Method

Respondents asked about
safer chicken resulting
from being "washed with a
chemical disinfecting
solution to kill bac-
teria"
(C) The "Irradiation" Method

Respondents asked about
safer chicken resulting
from "irradiation ...
used to kill harmful
bacteria ... with low
levels of irradiation."
(D) Intrapersonal Comparisonsa

(1) Respondents asked
about both (A) and
(B)

(2) Respondents asked
about both (A) and
(C)




City totals


27 25


41 35


43 36


11 11


22 101


38 152


38 155


13 50


12 13 12 48


123 506


aFor the intrapersonal comparisons, respondents were


always asked about


the "inspection" method first; thus, potential bias resulting from asking
about the other two methods first was eliminated. This allowed the "inspec-
tion" method responses from (D) (1) and (2) to be combined with (A) for
subsequent willingness to buy and willingness to pay analyses.













were asked about cleaner facilities and more careful inspection were also

asked either the chemical or irradiation question. In this way, an

intrapersonal evaluation of perceived risk trade-off was possible for this

subgroup of respondents (Zellner and Degner).

The willingness-to-buy evaluation was based on the response to one

question: whether or not the respondent would purchase, at any price,

chicken that had been treated by the method mentioned in their respective

questionnaire, i.e. by more careful inspection, chemical disinfectant, or by

irradiation in order to make it safer.

For those expressing a willingness to purchase the safer, treated

chicken, the willingness to pay evaluation was a series of questions to

ascertain how much they would pay. They were asked a series of questions to

determine the price discount required or the premium they were willing to pay

for the safer, treated product. In order to put the price differentials in

a realistic context, respondents were given reference prices for whole

chicken, breasts, and legs and thighs, as published by the Bureau of Labor

Statistics. Socio-demographic questions were asked so that food safety-

related responses could be examined for readily identifiable market segments.

A two-stage, "double hurdle" modelling technique was used to analyze

(1) the probability of consumers' willingness to buy the safer products

described and (2) the marginal expenditures they were willing to make for the

safer, treated products (Amemiya, 1985). A similar approach was used to

analyze (1) consumers' willingness to spend more time using hygienically

improved preparation techniques and (2) the amount of time they were willing

to spend. Logit models were formulated to analyze relationships between

respondents' willingness to buy safer chicken products and willingness to

adopt preparation techniques requiring more time, and their respective














attitudes and socio-demographic characteristics. OLS regression analysis was

used to estimate the effects of attitudes and socio-demographic characteris-

tics on the amount of money respondents were willing to spend for safer

chicken.


FINDINGS


The research results that follow are organized into three major

sections: "Composition of the Sample and Current Buying Behavior,"

"Attitudes Toward Food Safety Problems" and "Models of Willingness to Ensure

Food Safety."


Composition of the Sample and Current Buying Behavior


On average, household size was 2.69, household income was $36,000, age

of primary food shopper was 40 years, and the average educational level was

13.6 years. More than 91 percent of respondents indicated their household

income level, which was queried in ranges, e.g. more or less than $35,000,

more or less than $50,000, more or less than $20,000, or more or less than

$10,000. Chicken was served in the household about twice a week. Since many

of the respondents were contacted on weekdays, the sample may be somewhat

biased toward non-working spouses and the retired or unemployed. The average

age of 40, though, is consistent with the overall U.S. population. The

average age of women over 20 years was just over 45 years in 1986 (U.S.

Department of Commerce), and 72.5 percent of the respondents were female

(Appendix B, Table 1). Nearly 59 percent of all respondents indicated that

safety concerns affected their food purchasing pattern. In an open-ended

question, eight percent mentioned chicken was of some safety concern.

Twenty-seven percent had experienced a food-related illness and about four












percent mentioned chicken as the probable cause (Appendix B, Tables 2 & 3).

All but five respondents (99 percent) included chicken in their diet

(Appendix B, Table 4). Nearly half (48 percent) of all survey respondents

consume chicken once a week or less, and nearly a quarter (24 percent)

consume chicken twice a week. About 16 percent have chicken three times a

week, and 11 percent eat chicken four or more times each week.


Attitudes Toward Food Safety Problems


Consumers' perceptions of hazards associated with additives and

preservatives, pesticides and chemicals, and bacterial contamination were

rated on a ten-point semantic differential scale where 1 represented "no

problem" and 10 represented a serious problem. The average response was 6.1

for additives and preservatives, 7.5 for pesticides and chemical residues,

and 6.2 for bacteria levels (Table 2). Thus, the greatest concern was

expressed about pesticide and chemical residues. About 11 percent of the

respondents felt additives and preservatives posed little safety hazard

(rating of less than four), 58.4 percent felt they posed moderate problems

(rating of four through seven), and over 27 percent expressed concern of a

more serious hazard (rating of eight through ten). Two percent expressed no

opinion.

Pesticides and chemical residues were found to worry respondents a bit

more, on average. Nearly 59 percent rated pesticides and chemical residues

as posing more serious safety hazards, while about 38 percent expressed

little or moderate concern. Another three percent had no opinion.

Bacteria levels in foods were rated as a moderate problem by about 38

percent of respondents, while those expressing little or serious concern













Table 2.--Rating of food safety concerns.


Food safety concerns


Additives and
Preservatives

(Number) (Percent)
26 5.1

8 1.6
23 4.5
45 8.9
137 27.1
56 10.3
61 12.1
54 10.7
21 4.2
63 12.5
12 2.4

506 100.0
6.1 --


Pesticides/
Chemical Residues

(Number) (Percent)
22 4.3
5 1.0
22 4.3
22 4.3
41 8.1
38 7.5
42 8.3
79 15.6
53 10.5
166 32.8
16 3.2
506 100.0
7.5 --


Bacteria Levels

(Number) (Percent)
29 5.7
25 4.9
39 7.7
37 7.3
76 15.0
37 7.3
42 8.3
56 11.1
32 6.3
94 18.6
39 7.7
506 100.0
6.2 --


Rating


1
2

3
4
5
6

7
8
9
10
Nb

Totals
Averaged
response
Standard
deviation


aThe rating
serious problem.


scale is from 1 to 10, where 1 is no problem and 10 is


bN represents those having no opinion.

cPercentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding.

dAverage response and standard deviation are calculated on a base of 506
observations less the number of missing responses for the respective
categories.


2.4
















represented 18 and 36 percent of the respondents, respectively. Nearly eight

percent expressed no opinion regarding bacteria levels in food.

In order to draw more generalized statements about attitudes, a

composite of the semantic differential scale responses was created by summing

the responses from all three questions for each respondent. The resulting

composite ranged from 3 to 30. The composite was then used to categorize the

respondents' attitudes towards food safety problems into three groups: (1)

slight concern towards food safety problems, representing a composite value

from three to nine; (2) moderate concern, representing a composite value from

10 to 24; and (3) serious concern,representing a composite value from 25 to

30. The composite of all three food safety hazard categories showed 6.3

percent of the respondents with slight concern towards food safety problems,

63 percent moderately concerned, and 30.6 percent with more serious concerns

(Table 3). Chi-square analyses indicated that food safety concerns were not

significantly related to any of the selected demographic characteristics

except income.

Nearly 60 percent of all respondents said that their food purchasing

patterns had been affected by food safety concerns. Among respondents that

had not altered the food purchasing patterns, nearly 90 percent harbored

moderate to serious concerns about food safety (Appendix B, Table 2).

Of the 298 respondents indicating that their food purchasing patterns

were affected by safety concerns, 40.6 were seriously concerned about food

safety, 56.4 were moderately concerned, and three percent were just slightly

concerned (Appendix B, Table 2).

For those 137 respondents that had experienced food-related illness,

33.6 percent were seriously concerned about food safety, 61.3 were moderately













Table 3.--Composite of attitude towards food safety problems such as
additives, chemical residues and bacteria levels, by selected
socio-demographic variables.

Level of Concernb

Characteristics Slight Moderate Serious

(No.) (%) (No.) (%) (No.) (%)
Household size


5.6
5.5
6.3
7.8
8.2


5 or more


67.8
62.5
57.5
67.8
57.1


26.4
32.0
36.3
24.4
34.7


Education level


Some grade school or
high school
High school or technical
school graduate
Some college or
vocational school
College graduate


3 7.0


25 58.1


10 5.8 110 63.6


5 3.8


84 63.2


14 8.9 100 63.7


15 34.9

53 30.6

44 33.1

43 27.4


Incomec


Under $10,000
$10,000-19,999
$20,000-34,999
$35,000-49,999
$50,000 or over



Under 30
30-39
40-49
50-59
60 or older


6.4 306 63.0
5.0 13 65.0



6.5 97 69.8
6.3 222 60.5


149 30.7
6 30.0



33 23.7
122 33.2
Continued


Age


4.9
4.6
8.7
3.7
8.4


48.8
58.5
62.3
71.9
65.1


46.3
36.9
29.0
24.4
26.5


Race


66.1
58.6
65.9
68.1
60.8


25.0
36.7
28.1
27.7
32.8


White
Black


Gender


Male
Female













Table 3.--Composite of attitude towards food safety problems such as
additives, chemical residues and bacteria levels, by selected
socio-demographic variables, continued.

Level of Concernb

Characteristic" Slight Moderate Serious

(No.) (X) (No.) (%) (No.) (%)

Employment

Retired 6 5.2 71 61.7 38 33.0
Employed 22 7.0 202 64.5 89 28.4
Unemployed 4 5.1 46 59.0 28 35.9

Home Economics Education

Yes 17 7.0 145 59.7 81 33.3
No 15 5.7 174 66.2 74 28.1

Household Members Over Age 65

Yes 7 6.0 71 61.2 38 32.8
No 25 6.4 248 63.6 117 30.0

Household Members Under Age 18

Yes 15 7.9 119 62.3 57 29.8
No 17 5.4 200 63.5 98 31.1

Total 32 6.3 319 63.0 155 30.6


aAll characteristic categories, except income, are
respondents. Income is based on 456 observations.


based on 506


bThe level of concern reflects a composite of three questions, each of
which was answered with a 10-point semantic differential scale by each
respondent. A "slight" concern represents a composite value ranging from 3
to 9, "moderate" represents a composite rating of 10 to 24, and "serious" 25
to 30 total points on the three questions. Percentages may not sum to 100
because of rounding.

eChi-square analysis indicates that this category is statistically
significant at .10 probability level.














concerned and 5.1 percent were slightly concerned (Appendix B, Table 3). Of

the 501 respondents that consume chicken, 63.5 percent expressed moderate

concern toward food safety, and about 30 percent expressed serious concern.

The remaining six percent indicated little concern about food safety

(Appendix B, Table 5).


Models of Willingness to Ensure Food Safety


A series of models was constructed to evaluate three important aspects

of consumer willingness to ensure food safety:

(1) consumer willingness to buy treated chicken,

(2) consumer willingness to pay for treated chicken, and

(3) consumer willingness to spend more time preparing
chicken to ensure safety.

Willingness to purchase treated chicken is simply whether or not the

survey respondent was willing to purchase, at any price, a chicken product

that had been treated chemically or by irradiation to ensure its safety. The

dependent variable used in these models is simply BUY/NOT BUY. It was not

necessary to estimate a model to examine consumers' willingness to purchase

chicken made safer through improved sanitation or inspection because all

respondents were willing to buy such a product.

Willingness to pay for treated chicken was evaluated only for those

respondents willing to purchase treated chicken. The first of two

willingness to pay models uses the price differential respondents were

willing to pay for treated chicken as the dependent variable. This

differential could be positive, negative, or zero, depending on the

respondents' willingness to pay more, less or nothing additional for the

safer, treated product. Only responses unbiased by any alternative treatment

options were included. Therefore, the model provides an interpersonal














comparison of price differentials for the three treatment scenarios. The

second willingness to pay model provides an intrapersonal evaluation of

willingness to pay for those respondents asked about better inspection and

one of the other two treatments. The dependent variable is the difference in

the price differential respondents were willing to pay for the inspection

treatment less the price differential they would pay for chemical or

irradiation treatment.

Willingness to spend more preparation time in order to assure safer

chicken was evaluated by both tabular analysis and by a model with a discrete

dependent variable, MORETIME, equal to zero if unwilling to spend more time

and one if willing to spend a minimum of five minutes longer in preparing

chicken to avoid illness.


Factors Hypothesized to Affect Willingness to Ensure Food Safety


A number of factors could bear on a consumer's willingness to take

measures, such as those mentioned above, to ensure safer chicken consumption.

These include demographic, attitudinal and exposure factors, and the type of

treatment used to effect a safer product. The following discussion of

explanatory variables applies to all three groups of models.


Demographic Variables


Demographic variables gathered in the survey included sex of respon-

dent, household size, household income, the presence of children or senior

citizens, age of respondent, employment status of respondent, education level

of respondent, and race. The larger the consuming household, the more likely

a member of the respondent's immediate family will experience one of the

diseases, and presumably the more likely the food purchaser would be to take













measures to reduce the risk of disease. A factor suggesting an inverse

relationship is that the larger the household, the larger the food budget and

the more chicken will be purchased. Hence, the desire to pay a higher price

per pound for a safer product would compete with the need to stay within the

household's food budget. Generally, one would expect that the higher the

household income the more money one would be willing to pay for safer

chicken. However, since income data were not available for about ten percent

of the observations and income was found to be highly correlated with

education level, it was more expedient to estimate the effects of education

in lieu of income. Age of the respondent was expected to be negatively

related to the willingness to take measures to ensure safer chicken, because

the older respondents are more likely to have more experience in food

handling practices. It was hypothesized that females were more likely to

have formal training in food handling and preparation techniques, be more

aware of food safety problems, and bear a larger share of the responsibility

of caring for the sick. Although the first of these factors would tend to

have a negative effect on female willingness to buy, pay for or spend more

preparation time for enhanced safety, the preponderance of factors would

suggest that females are more likely to take the additional measures. More

educated people are likely to be aware of food safety problems through

magazines, newspapers and television reports; thus, one would expect them to

be willing to pay more for safer chicken. On the other hand, more educated

people may have the knowledge to avoid or reduce the risk of food poisoning

through alternative food preparation techniques. Another factor suggesting

a negative relationship between education and willingness to buy or pay is

that more highly educated people tend to expect higher quality, are likely to

be more activist, and hence will not be willing to pay more for what they














think they should get anyway (Thorelli and Engledow). Therefore, the sign of

the education variable is unknown a prior.

The likelihood of contracting a food-borne disease is positively

related to exposure to the disease carrier. In the case of salmonellosis and

campylobacter, one measure of exposure is the frequency of chicken consump-

tion. Thus, the frequency of chicken consumption was incorporated into the

model via several variables. Another exposure variable, SICK, was used to

identify those respondents having experienced food poisoning from eating

chicken. It was hypothesized that they were more likely to take the threat

of food-borne disease seriously; therefore, the SICK variable was expected to

have a positive sign. Generally, the more extreme cases of either disease

will occur among the very young and the very old. While data were not

collected on the detailed age distribution of all members of the households,

the presence of household members under the age of 18 and over the age of 65

was obtained. Presumably, if the respondents are aware that the diseases are

likely to be most severe in the susceptible age groups, they will be willing

to take safety measures to avoid exposure to the disease. However, the age

distribution data were not used in modelling efforts since the variable

defined by the presence of children and the presence of people over age 65

was closely correlated with household size and age variables. Race was also

excluded from the models due to too few observations of non-whites.


Attitudinal Variables


A direct measure of attitude was obtained from the questionnaire.

Respondents were asked to rank, on a scale of 1 (no problem) to 10 (extremely

serious food safety problem), their perception of food additives and

preservatives, pesticides and chemical residues, and bacterial contamination













of food. The sum of the responses to each question is used as a measure of

each individual's attitude toward severity of food safety as a problem.

Three discrete attitude variables were created from the combined response to

represent slight, moderate and serious concern toward food safety problems.

The greater the concern, the more willing to purchase and pay for or spend

time to ensure a reduction in food safety risk. During the survey, it was

discovered that media attention had been given to food safety problems just

prior to initiation of the survey in Des Moines. Therefore, it was

hypothesized that the level of information held by respondents from Des

Moines was likely to be higher than in the other three cities. Increased

knowledge of the problem may result in a higher level of acceptance that

there is indeed a problem, and hence a greater willingness to take additional

safety measures to avoid illness. Thus, it was hypothesized that a positive

relationship existed between location of a respondent in Des Moines and

willingness to buy, pay for, or spend more time in preparation to ensure

safer chicken.


Treatment Variables


The variables, TREAT_C, and TREAT_I were included in modelling efforts

in order to connote the type of treatment mentioned to respondents to achieve

safer chicken. The variable TREAT_C was assigned a value of one if chemical

treatment was mentioned and zero otherwise. Likewise TREAT_I was assigned a

value of one if irradiation treatment was presented and zero otherwise. It

was hypothesized that chemical treatment would be preferred to irradiation,

and inspection would be preferred to either chemical or irradiation

treatment.













Willingness to Buy Treated Chicken


A logit model (Maddala) was used to examine the influence of attitudes

and socio-demographic characteristics on the survey respondents' willingness

to buy or not buy chicken treated with chemicals or by irradiation. The

basic assumption is that the response variable y, i.e. whether or not the

respondent said he would buy chicken which had either been washed with a

chemical or irradiated, can be explained by a set of variables, x, which

includes attitudes, selected household characteristics, and exposure

variables for that respondent. The regression relationship is:


(1) z exp(y;)
1 + exp(yi)


where Zi is the probability that an individual will buy, given his set of

socio-demographic characteristics, i is a particular individual, and y* is an

intermediate variable estimated as follows:


(2) y; = b'x, + u,



(3) y = 1 if y. > 0 (respondent is willing to buy)
y = 0 otherwise (respondent is not willing to buy)


Of the telephone survey data from 506 households in Des Moines, Tucson,

Orlando and Spokane, 401 were used to estimate the logit model (Model 1).

This subset included 151 respondents asked only about their acceptance of

chemically treated chicken, 153 asked only about their acceptance of

irradiated chicken, and 97 asked about their acceptance of chicken made safer

through chemical treatment (49 respondents) or irradiation (48 respondents)

after first being asked about acceptance of chicken processed in cleaner












facilities and carefully inspected. Those questioned only about willingness

to buy more carefully inspected chicken were excluded from this analysis

because simple tabular analysis showed all were willing to buy (Table 4).


Table 4.--Willingness to purchase safer chicken when informed about
alternative treatment methods.


Treatment method


Willing to
purchase

(No.) (%)


Not willing
to purchase

(No.) (%)


Inspection 197 100.0 0 0.0 197
Chemical 133 88.1 18 11.9 151
Irradiation 131 85.6 22 14.4 153
Inspection/chemicalb 37 75.5 12 24.5 49
Inspection/irradiationb 38 79.2 10 20.8 48

aFive respondents which did not consume chicken were excluded from
modelling efforts.
bRespondents to the inspection/chemical and inspection/irradiation
questionnaire are a subset of the 197 respondents answering the inspection
questionnaire.


Specification of Model 1 is as follows:


(+)
WTB f (DESMOIN,
(+)
MEALS4X,

(?)
TREAT C,


(+)
ATT2,
(+)
SEX,

(-)
EFFECT,


(+) (+)
ATT3, SICK,
(?) (?)
HHSIZE, AGE4060,


e)


WTB is willingness to buy safer chicken that had been treated with a chemical

wash or by irradiation and e represents unexplained variation. Expected

signs are above each independent variable name. A question mark indicates

that the variable may measure more than one thing, and hence the expected

sign is unknown. Independent variable definitions are found in Table 5.


Totals'

(No.)


(+)
MEALS2X,

(?)
AGE60+,


(+)
MEALS3X,

(?)
HIGHSCH,













Table 5.--Definitions of explanatory variables used in estimates.


Variable Name Definition


DESMOIN dummy variable equal to 1 if Des Moines, 0 otherwise (Des
Moines was differentiated due to food safety publicity prior
to the survey)

ATT2 dummy variable equal to 1 if moderately concerned about food
safety, 0 otherwise

ATT3 dummy variable equal to 1 if seriously concerned about food
safety, 0 otherwise
SICK dummy variable equal to 1 if any household member had
suffered food poisoning, 0 otherwise
MEALS2X dummy variable equal to 1 if household eats chicken twice per
week, 0 otherwise

MEALS3X dummy variable equal to 1 if household eats chicken three
times per week, 0 otherwise
MEALS4X dummy variable equal to 1 if household eats chicken four or
more times per week, 0 otherwise

SEX dummy variable equal to 1 if respondent was female, 0 other-
wise
HHSIZE number of people in household
CHILDREN dummy variable equal to 1 if children under age 18 resided in
household, 0 otherwise

SENIORS dummy variable equal to 1 if any household members were over
65, 0 otherwise

AGE4060 dummy variable equal to 1 if respondent was age 40 to 59
years, 0 otherwise
AGE60+ dummy variable equal to 1 if respondent was 60 years of age
or older, 0 otherwise

HIGHSCH dummy variable equal to 1 if respondent had education beyond
high school, 0 otherwise

TREAT_C dummy variable equal to 1 if responding to chemical
treatment, 0 otherwise

TREAT_I dummy variable equal to 1 if responding to irradiation
treatment, 0 otherwise

QEFFECT dummy variable equal to 1 if respondent was first asked about
the cleaner facilities and more careful inspection scenario
before responding to the chemical or irradiation treatment
methods, 0 if only asked about chemical or irradiation
treatments.












Empirical results--willingness to buy


Results for Model 1 are presented in Table 6. The estimated coeffi-

cients and their corresponding Chi-square ratios are presented in the first

two columns; marginal probabilities, i.e. the marginal impacts of the

independent variables on a respondent's willingness to buy, computed at

sample means, are presented in the third column; the sample means or

proportions and their associated standard errors are presented in the last

two columns of each table.

The dependent variable mean showed that 84.54 percent of respondents

indicated they were willing to buy chicken treated by either chemicals or

irradiation. The variables ATT3, SEX and HIGHSCH were significant socio-

demographic characteristics contributing to willingness to buy. The

estimated coefficients for ATT3, SEX and HIGHSCH show that the likelihood a

respondent will buy a chemically treated or irradiated chicken is negatively

related to the respondent having serious food safety concerns, the respondent

being a female or attaining some education beyond the high school level. The

marginal probability estimate for ATT3 indicates that, if the respondent was

seriously concerned about food safety, the probability of buying a treated

chicken decreased by 15.24 percent. The marginal probability estimates for

SEX and HIGHSCH showed that the probability of buying decreases by about

eight percent when the respondent is female, and by about seven percent when

the respondent had attained some education beyond high school. The variable

representing questionnaire bias, QEFFECT, was also significant. The

coefficient for QEFFECT indicates that respondents which were first asked

about their acceptance of the better inspection and cleaner processing

facilities alternative were less likely to buy chemically treated or

irradiated chicken.













Table 6.--Model 1: Maximum likelihood estimates for the logit model of
willingness to buy for all respondents answering chemical or
irradiation treatment questions, including those biased by
inspection method questions, where buy/not buy is the dependant
variable.


Explanatory Parameter Wald Marginal Standard
variable estimate Chi-square probability Mean error


CONSTANT 3.5418 16.66a 0.4005 1.0000 0.8676
DESMOIN 0.4102 1.18 0.0464 0.2469 0.3772
ATT2 -0.4906 0.59 -0.0555 0.6484 0.6373
ATT3 -1.3479 4.35b -0.1524 0.2943 0.6460
SICK 0.0099 0.00 0.0011 0.2643 0.3326
SEX -0.7191 3.61c -0.0813 0.7182 0.3785
MEALS2X -0.2763 0.59 -0.0312 0.2519 0.3609
MEALS3X -0.2770 0.46 -0.0313 0.1571 0.4064
MEALS4X -0.1295 0.08 -0.0146 0.1122 0.4705
HHSIZE 0.0996 0.67 0.0113 2.6808 0.1215
AGE4060 -0.4792 1.87 -0.0542 0.2569 0.3503
AGE60+ -0.2064 0.27 -0.0233 0.2519 0.3979
HIGHSCH -0.6270 3.92b -0.0709 0.5611 0.3167
TREAT_C 0.0994 0.12 0.0112 0.4988 0.2924
QEFFECT -0.7250 5.25b -0.0820 0.2419 0.3163

Observations: 401

Percent correctly predicted: 84.0

Dependent mean: 0.8454

aStatistically different from zero at .01 level, two-tailed test.

bStatistically different from zero at .05 level, two-tailed test.

cStatistically different from zero at .10 level, two-tailed test.












The marginal probability estimate showed those 97 respondents were 8.2

percent less likely to buy chemically treated or irradiated chicken when

first offered the better inspection alternative.

It should also be noted that the TREAT C variable was not significant,

indicating that respondents were no more or less likely to buy chemically

treated than irradiated chicken.


Willingness to Pay for Treated Chicken


An objective of this study was to estimate the willingness to pay for

safer chicken which, in a hypothetical scenario, had been inspected more

thoroughly, chemically treated, or irradiated. Since the respondents'

willingness to pay was not observable, the contingent valuation method was

used to evaluate willingness to pay (Appendix A). Given one of the three

treatment scenarios, the respondents willing to buy were simply asked how

much more or less he would be willing to pay for the treated product. The

reported price differential was defined as the respondents' willingness to

pay. Using ordinary least squares, the following model (Model 2A) was

constructed to estimate willingness to pay.



(+) (+) (+) (+) (+) (+)
WTP f (DESMOIN, ATT2, ATT3, SICK, MEALS2X, MEALS3X,

(+) (+) (?) (?) (?) (?)
MEALS4X, SEX, HHSIZE, AGE40_60, AGE60+, HIGHSCH,
(-) (-)
TREAT_C, TREAT_I, e)



where WTP is willingness to pay in cents per pound and the other variables

are as defined in Table 5. The two dummy variables representing treatment,

TREATC and TREAT_I, allow for an evaluation of interpersonal risk trade off













between bacterial contamination and the method used to eliminate bacteria.

The term interpersonal is used because each respondent evaluates his

willingness to pay for lowered bacterial levels by only one of the three

possible treatments. The coefficients for TREAT_C and TREAT_I provide

estimates of how much more or less, on average, respondents would pay if the

chicken had been treated by a method other than inspection (chemical wash or

irradiation). Note that all observations used to estimate this model were

unbiased; respondents were asked about only one treatment scenario.

A second willingness to pay model (Model 2B) was constructed to make

intra-personal comparisons by using data from surveys in which respondents

were asked about willingness to pay for two different treatment methods.

This model is specified as follows:



(+) (+) (+) (+) (+) (+)
WTP* f(DESMOINS, ATT2, ATT3, SICK, MEALS2X, MEALS3X

(+) (+) (?) (?) (?) (?)
MEALS4X, SEX, HHSIZE, AGE4060, AGE60+, HIGHSCH,
(-)
TREATC, e )



where WTP* is the difference between the price a respondent is willing to pay

for the inspection method less the price he is willing to pay for either

chemical or irradiation treatment. The independent variables are defined as

in Table 5. The coefficient for TREATC estimates how the mean difference in

price changes when the respondent is asked about chemical wash treatment

versus irradiation.

All 197 respondents who were asked if they would buy chicken made safer

by better inspection methods were willing to do so. Therefore, this

subsample of respondents, along with the subsample of 264 respondents willing













to buy safer chicken treated by a chemical wash or by irradiation, were used

to estimate Model 2A. Model 2B was estimated for the 75 respondents willing

to buy chemically treated or irradiated chicken after first being asked how

much more or less they were willing to pay for better inspection.


Empirical results--willingness to pay


The average price respondents were willing to pay for chicken made

safer by better inspection was 16.25 cents per pound (Appendix B, Table 6).

Over 79 percent were willing to pay a premium. The average price

differential respondents were willing to pay for chicken made safer by

chemical treatment was 14.80 cents per pound and for irradiated chicken,

respondents were willing to pay 11.66 cents per pound more (Note that these

respondents were not biased by hearing the inspection scenarios first).

Eight-five percent of those willing to pay for chemically treated chicken

would pay a premium, two percent required a discount in price and nearly 13

percent would pay no more or less. Of those willing to buy irradiated

chicken, 76.3 percent would pay more, 20.6 percent would pay the same, and

3.1 percent would require a price discount (Appendix B, Table 6).

Model 2A.--Model 2A (Table 7) showed that SICK, SEX, AGE60+ and TREAT_I

were significant in determining the price differential respondents would pay

for safer, treated chicken. Those respondents with prior experience with

food poisoning would pay about 3.6 cents more per pound, and female

respondents would pay about five cents more. Respondents over the age of 60

and those given the irradiation treatment scenario reduced the average price

differential by about 4.3 and 4.5 cents per pound, respectively.













Table 7.--Model 2A: Regression coefficients for the model of willingness
to pay for chicken made safer by better inspection methods, by
chemical or by irradiation treatment, where price is the
dependent variable.


Explanatory Parameter Standard
variable estimate t-value Prob > Iti Mean error


CONSTANT 0.1203 3.352a 0.0009 1.0000 0.0359
DESMOIN 0.0122 0.754 0.4512 0.2581 0.0161
ATT2 -0.0210 -0.780 0.4355 0.6638 0.0269
ATT3 -0.0052 -0.183 0.8550 0.2820 0.0283
SICK 0.0359 2.257b 0.0245 0.2646 0.0159
MEALS2X -0.0016 -0.091 0.9277 0.2495 0.0172
MEALS3X -0.0049 -0.241 0.8099 0.1518 0.0204
MEALS4X 0.0304 1.266 0.2062 0.1020 0.0239
SEX 0.0500 3.214a 0.0014 0.7158 0.0156
HHSIZE 0.0021 0.411 0.6809 2.6920 0.0051
AGE4060 -0.0128 -0.757 0.4494 0.2581 0.0169
AGE60+ -0.0430 -2.296b 0.0221 0.2408 0.0187
HIGHSCH 0.0218 1.537 0.1250 0.5597 0.0142
TREAT_C -0.0053 -0.317 0.7510 0.2885 0.0167
TREAT_I -0.0447 -2.672a 0.0078 0.2842 0.0167


Observations: 461

Adj. R2: 0.0495


Average price differential (dependent mean):


0.1452


aStatistically different from zero at .01 level, two-tailed test.

bStatistically different from zero at .05 level, two-tailed test.













Model 2B.--The dependent mean for Model 2B shows that, on average, the

75 respondents were willing to pay 1.44 cents more for chicken made safer by

improved inspection than for chemically treated or irradiated chicken (Table

8, footnote). ATT2, ATT3 and HHSIZE were significant independent variables

affecting the difference. The coefficients for ATT2 and ATT3 indicate that

moderate or serious concern towards food safety issues affected the price

difference negatively. Respondents indicating moderate or serious concern

towards food safety would pay more for chemical or irradiation treatments

than for inspection. This may be the result of the questionnaire bias

induced by prolonging discussion of the problem of bacterial contamination.

HHSIZE also affected the difference negatively. The coefficient for HHSIZE

was greater than the dependent mean, in absolute terms, indicating that

larger households would pay more for chemically treated or irradiated chicken

than for chicken made safer by better inspection methods. Again, TREAT_C was

not significant, indicating indifference between chemical and irradiation

treatment.


Willingness to Spend More Time in Food Preparation


An alternative approach for achieving food safety might be consumers'

willingness to spend more time preparing chicken in a safer manner. Proper

handling and thorough cooking greatly reduce the likelihood of illness.

Respondents were given the opportunity to state how much extra time, if any,

they would be willing to spend preparing chicken in the home to eliminate

risk of bacterial infection. Since it was not possible to observe the

respondent spending more time in preparation, the respondents were, in

effect, asked for a contingent valuation of their time (Appendix A).













Table 8.--Model 2B: Regression coefficients for the model of willingness
to pay for chicken made safer by chemical or irradiation
treatment after the respondent was biased by the inspection
scenario, where the dependent variable is the inspection price
quote less the chemical or irradiation treatment price quote.


Explanatory Parameter Standard
variable estimate t-value Prob > Itl Mean error


CONSTANT 0.2072 2.870a 0.0056 1.0000 0.0722
DESMOIN 0.0091 0.237 0.8133 0.2667 0.0383
ATT2 -0.1322 -2.833a 0.0062 0.6000 0.0467
ATT3 -0.0959 -0.847b 0.0696 0.2933 0.0519
SICK -0.0096 -0.269 0.7885 0.2933 0.0355
MEALS2X -0.0331 -0.724 0.4716 0.1733 0.0457
MEALS3X 0.0125 0.277 0.7826 0.1867 0.0451
MEALS4X -0.0475 -0.924 0.3589 0.1333 0.0513
SEX -0.0079 -0.206 0.8372 0.6533 0.0382
HHSIZE -0.0251 -1.877b 0.0653 2.6400 0.0134
AGE4060 0.0352 0.910 0.3662 0.2800 0.0386
AGE60+ -0.0289 -0.661 0.5111 0.2000 0.0437
HIGHSCH 0.0136 0.356 0.7230 0.5467 0.0381
TREAT_C -0.0314 -0.989 0.3266 0.4933 0.0317

Observations: 75

Adj. R2: 0.0203

Average difference in price differentials (dependent mean): 0.0144

aStatistically different from zero at .01 level, two-tailed test.

bStatistically different from zero at .10 level, two-tailed test.













Responses fell into one of four categories: (1) unwilling to spend any more

time (2) willing to spend up to five minutes, (3) willing to spend up to ten

minutes, and (4) willing to spend up to 20 minutes.

Like willingness to buy, the model of willingness to spend more time in

food preparation was estimated in a logit model for all 501 respondents which

consume chicken. The dependent variable, MORETIME, was equal to one if the

respondent was willing to spend more time in safe food preparation techniques

(Model 3), and zero if unwilling. The model of willingness to spend more

time is specified as follows:



(+) (+) (+) (+) (+) (+)
MORETIME f (DESMOIN, ATT2, ATT3, SICK, MEALS2X, MEALS3X,

(+) (+) (?) (-) (-) (-)
MEALS4X, SEX, HHSIZE, AGE4060, AGE60+, HIGHSCH,
(-)
EFFECT, e)



where MORETIME is willingness to spend more time in safe chicken preparation.

All independent variables are as previously defined (Table 5) and expected

signs are above the variable names. Most expected signs are the same as in

other models; however, the effect of household size is uncertain because it

is reasonable to assume that respondents with large households will likely

have more constraints on their time and will be less likely to spend extra

time on food preparation, but on the other hand a greater number of

individuals could benefit from the additional preparation time.


Empirical results--willingness to spend more time


About 80 percent of the 501 respondents who consume chicken indicated

willingness to spend more time in preparation to reduce risk. Chi-square













analysis showed gender, age, presence of children, presence of senior

citizens, household size, employment status, and attitude toward food safety

all to be significant in determining how much additional time respondents

were willing to spend (Table 9). Females were willing to spend more time for

safer preparation techniques than were males. Younger respondents, those

with children and those households with senior citizens would also spend more

time. Those employed would not spend as much time as retired or unemployed

respondents, and serious food safety concerns were related to willingness to

spend a greater amount of time in preparations to ensure its safety.

When willingness to spend more time in food preparation was evaluated

with a logit model, sex, age and education were all significant (Table 10).

The estimated coefficient for sex indicates that females were more likely to

spend more time in food preparation than males. The marginal probability

estimate indicates that if the respondent is female, the probability of

spending more time increased by about six percent. The estimated

coefficients for the age variables, AGE4060 and AGE60+, indicated that the

likelihood of spending more time in food preparation is negatively related to

the respondent being age 40 or older. The marginal probability estimates

indicate that the probability of spending more time in food preparation

decreases by about ten percent for respondents between 40 and 60 years of

age, and by about fifteen percent for respondents 60 years of age or older.

The probability of a respondent spending more time in food preparation

decreases by about twelve percent when the respondent has some education

beyond high school.














Table 9.--Amount of additional time respondents were willing to spend to
ensure better or safer ways to handle and prepare chicken at
home by selected socio-demographic and attitudinal variables.

Additional time respondents were
willing to spend (minutes)

Percentage
Characteristic 0 5 10 20 totals"

(------------------Percent----------------------)
Household size
1 25.3 16.12 25.3 33.3 100.0
2 25.8 12.1 32.8 29.3 100.0
3 10.1 10.1 36.7 43.0 100.0
4 13.5 13.5 47.2 25.8 100.0
5 or more 14.6 16.7 29.2 39.6 100.0

Education level
Some grade or high
school 16.7 16.7 28.6 38.1 100.0
High school or
tech school grad 14.0 14.5 37.8 33.7 100.0
Some college or
vocational school 24.1 9.0 34.6 32.3 100.0
College graduate
37.0 33.3 28.5 28.2 100.0

Income
Under $10,000 20.0 10.0 27.5 42.5 100.0
$10,000-19,999 19.0 9.5 30.2 41.3 100.0
$20,000-34,999 19.6 17.4 36.2 26.8 100.0
$35,000-49,999 17.2 11.2 36.6 35.1 100.0
$50,000 or over 26.5 14.4 32.5 26.5 100.0

Ageb
Under 30 13.9 17.2 36.9 32.0 100.0
30-39 14.1 10.9 43.0 32.0 100.0
40-49 18.3 15.8 34.2 31.7 100.0
50-59 27.7 6.4 36.2 29.8 100.0
60 or older 30.3 12.3 22.1 35.2 100.0

Race
White 21.8 13.3 33.9 32.0 100.0
Black 0.0 10.0 45.0 45.0 100.0

Genderb
Male 25.2 16.6 38.1 20.1 100.0
Female 18.0 11.9 32.9 37.3 100.0


Continued













Table 9.--Amount of additional time respondents were willing to spend to
ensure better or safer ways to handle and prepare chicken at home
by selected socio-demographic and attitudinal variables,
continued.

Additional time respondents were
willing to spend (minutes)

Percentage
Characteristic 0 5 10 20 totals*


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


Employment
Retired
Employed
Unemployed

Hj- Ea> iam


Ed4ii crti a,


Yes
No

Household Members Over
Age 65b
Yes
No

Household Members Under
Age 18b
Yes
No

Attitude Toward Food
Safet1bc
Slight concern
Moderate concern
Serious concern

All respondents


29.5
18.9
10.4


16.1
23.6


27.4
17.8



12.2
24.7



25.8
21.7
15.1

20.0


10.7
15.7
6.5


13.6
12.7


10.6
13.9



12.7
13.5



25.8
13.5
9.9

13.2


26.8
36.5
36.4


33.9
34.8


24.8
37.1



40.7
30.4



29.0
36.5
30.9

34.3


33.0
28.8
46.8


36.4
29.0


37.2
31.2



34.4
31.4



19.4
28.3
44.1

32.5


100.0
100.0
100.0


100.0
100.0


100.0
100.0



100.0
100.0



100.0
100.0
100.0

100.0


"Totals may not sum to 100.0 due to rounding.


bChi-square analysis indicates that the variable is statistically
significant at the .05 probability level.

c"Attitude toward food safety" represents a composite of attitudes
toward food additives and preservatives, pesticide and chemical residues, and
bacterial levels.

dAll variables, except for income, are based upon 501 observations.
Income had 458 observations.













Table 10.--Model 3: Maximum likelihood estimates for the logit model of
willingness to spend more time in preparation of chicken to
avoid food poisoning, where willingness to spend more time is
the dependent variable.


Explanatory Parameter Wald Marginal Standard
variable estimate Chi-square probability Mean error


CONSTANT 1.3578 5.14a 0.2047 1.0000 0.5991
DESMOIN 0.1756 0.40 0.0265 0.2495 0.2779
ATT2 0.1479 0.11 0.0223 0.6427 0.4464
ATT3 0.5372 1.24 0.0810 0.3034 0.4819
SICK 0.2268 0.67 0.0342 0.2695 0.2778
MEALS2X -0.1271 0.19 -0.0192 0.2415 0.2880

MEALS3X -0.1056 0.10 -0.0159 0.1597 0.3413
MEALS4X 0.1305 0.11 0.0197 0.1098 0.3925
SEX 0.4284 2.82b 0.0646 0.7226 0.2550
HHSIZE 0.1615 2.60 0.0243 2.6886 0.1001
AGE4060 -0.6759 5.27a -0.1019 0.2575 0.2943
AGE60+ -1.0339 11.660 -0.1558 0.2435 0.3027
HIGHSCH -0.8193 10.460 -0.1235 0.5729 0.2533
QEFFECT -0.0357 0.01 -0.0054 0.1936 0.2949


Observations: 501


Percent correctly predicted:


80.64


Dependent mean: 0.8004

aStatistically different from zero at .05 level, two-tailed test.

bStatistically different from zero at .10 level, two-tailed test.

'Statistically different from zero at .01 level, two-tailed test.












CONCLUSIONS


This study found the survey respondents to be moderately concerned

about food safety hazards. On a rating scale of 1 to 10, the average rating

of safety hazards presented by additives and preservatives, pesticides and

chemical residues, and bacterial contamination was 6.3. Pesticides and

chemical residues were rated as the most serious safety hazard followed by

additives and preservatives and bacteria levels. Less than four percent

expressed no opinions about additives and preservatives or chemicals and

pesticides, but nearly eight percent had no opinion about bacteria levels.

This may indicate that more people are unaware of the risk of bacterial

contamination and more informed about other possible safety hazards.

The majority (59 percent) of respondents indicated their food

purchasing patterns were affected by food safety concerns and eight percent

were specifically concerned about the safety of chicken. Twenty-seven percent

had experience with food poisoning and roughly four percent mentioned chicken

as the probable cause of their food poisoning.

When informed about different treatments used to reduce the risk of

illness from bacterial contamination in meats and poultry products, most

respondents were willing to purchase treated chicken. All were willing to

purchase a product that had been treated by better sanitation and more

careful inspection. Eighty-eight percent were willing to purchase chicken

which had been treated by a chemical wash and nearly 86 percent were willing

to buy irradiated chicken.

Consumers' perceptions about hazards of chemical treatment and

irradiation were evaluated using a subsample of respondents asked if they

would purchase chicken treated by chemicals or by irradiation after first

being presented with the better inspection and sanitation alternative. About














one-fourth of these respondents were unwilling to buy the chemically treated

or irradiated product; 75.5 were willing to purchase chemically treated

chicken given the better inspection alternative and 79.2 percent were willing

to buy irradiated chicken.

A logit model indicated few socio-demographic characteristics had any

effect on willingness to buy. An education beyond high school, serious food

safety concerns, and the respondent being female decreased the probability of

buying a chicken treated by irradiation or chemicals. Willingness to buy was

not significantly affected by the method of treatment. Respondents seemed

indifferent between chemical and irradiation treatments. However,

respondents first given by the inspection alternative were 8.2 percent less

likely, after adjusting for all other factors, to buy a chicken which had

been treated by chemicals or irradiated. This could indicate that the

perceived risk of bacterial contamination was less than the perceived risk

associated with irradiation or chemical treatment.

Willingness to pay was evaluated for all those respondents willing to

buy. On average, respondents were willing to pay 16.2 cents more for a pound

of chicken treated by better inspection and sanitation methods, 14.8 cents

more for chemically treated chicken, and 11.7 cents more for irradiated

chicken (Appendix B, Table 6).

Nearly 80 percent of respondents willing to buy chicken treated by

better inspection methods were willing to pay more for the inspection while

about 20 percent were unwilling to pay more. One percent required a price

reduction; this small percentage probably represents respondents that either

misunderstood the question or else were expressing frustration with the

poultry inspection system. Nearly 85 percent of those willing to buy a

chemically treated chicken were willing to pay more while 12.8 percent would













pay no more and 2.3 percent required a decrease in price. Over 76 percent of

those willing to buy irradiated chicken would pay more, 20.6 percent would

not pay any more and about three percent required a price decrease (Appendix

B Table 6).

Females and respondents with prior experience with food poisoning would

pay more than 14.5 additional cents for chicken which had been treated by

better inspection methods, chemical treatment or irradiation, while those

over age 60 and those given the irradiation scenario would only pay about ten

cents more. Respondents first given the inspection alternative were willing

to pay slightly over one cent per pound more for chicken which had been

irradiated or treated with chemicals to ensure safety. Those with moderate

or serious food safety concerns and those with larger households were willing

to pay more for irradiation or chemical treatment than for better inspection

when first given the better inspection alternative. This may have been a

result of questionnaire bias introduced when the problem of bacterial

contamination was iterated twice; suspicions regarding the adequacy of

inspection methods may have been raised.

About 80 percent of respondents were willing to spend more time in

preparation to reduce the risk of bacterial contamination. Females were more

likely to spend more time than males, those with more than a high school

education were less willing to spend more time, and those over age 40 were

less willing to spend more time.

Findings from this study indicate that the general public is less aware

of bacterial contamination and its seriousness compared to awareness of the

hazards of chemical residues and additives and preservatives. Public

education efforts aimed at identifying bacterial contamination as a serious

health hazard are needed. Since most respondents were willing to spend more














time in preparation to ensure a higher level of food safety, these education

efforts should include information on safer food preparation techniques.

Overall, survey results showed that most consumers are willing to

accept and pay for chicken made safer by irradiation or chemical treatment.

However, a significant proportion had aversions to the irradiated or

chemically treated products, particularly when chicken made safer by

traditional inspection methods were also discussed during the interview.

Respondents were indifferent between the chemical and irradiation treatments

when told that the treatments would not affect product appearance or taste.

However, because of the relatively small sample size of the survey and the

limited geographic scope, further study of consumer perceptions and

acceptance of chemical treatment or irradiation may be needed.













REFERENCES


Amemiya, T.,Advanced Econometrics. Cambridge: Harvard University Press,
1985.

Curtin, Leo., "Economic Control of Salmonella Poisoning and Control Measures
in Canada." Working Paper 11/85, Agriculture Canada, Ottawa, 1984.

Ippolito, Pauline M. and Richard A. Ippolito, "Measuring the Value of Life
Saving from Consumer Reactions to New Information." Journal of Public
Economics, 25(1984):53-81.

Just, Richard E., Darrell L. Hueth, and Andrew Schmitz, Applied Welfare
Economics and Public Policy. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1982.

Maddala, G.S., Limited-Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics.
Econometric Society Monographs, Cambridge University Press, pp. 21-23,
1983.

National Research Council, Food and Nutrition Board, "Poultry Inspection:
The Basis for a Risk-Assessment Approach." National Academy Press,
Washington D.C. 1987.

Roberts, Tanya, "Microbial Pathogens in Raw Pork, Chicken, and Beef: Benefit
Estimates for Control Using Irradiation." American Journal of
Agricultural Economics, 67(1985):957-965.

Thorelli, Hans B., and Jack L. Engledow, "Information Seekers and Information
Systems: A Policy perspective." Journal of Marketing, 44(1980):9-27.

U.S. Environment Protection Agency, "A Comparison of Alternative Approaches
for Estimating Recreation and Related Benefits of Water Quality
Improvement." Washington D.C., March, 1983.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract of
the United States, 1989. Washington D.C., 1990.

Zellner, James A. and Robert L. Degner, "Consumer Willingness to Pay for Food
Safety." Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics, 21(1989):186.








































APPENDIX A

Contingent Valuation and Willingness to Pay*




























*Excerpt from "Consumer Willingness to Pay for Food Safety," (Zellner
and Degner).













Contingent Valuation and Willingness To Pay


The concept of willingness to pay is well known in welfare economics

literature (Just, et. al., U. S. Environmental Protection Agency). The

compensating and equivalent variation measures can be given a willingness to

pay interpretation. For instance, for a price increase, "compensating

variation is the minimum amount the consumer must be paid or is willing to

accept to tolerate the higher price" (Just, et. al. p 87). Under circum-

stances where income elasticity of the good in question is small, the

familiar measure of consumers' surplus is a reasonable approximation of

willingness to pay, and usually more easily measured empirically (Willig).

Willingness to pay is directly applicable to the case where the price of a

good changes, resulting in a movement along a single demand curve. However,

numerous studies have applied the concept to shifts in the demand curve, as

for instance when the quality of the good changes, or the level of risk or

expected risk is altered (Smith, et. al., U.S. EPA, Ippolito).

Often one is interested in measuring how much a person would pay for a

unit of a good if it were offered. When the good being measured is a non-

market good or a hypothetical change in quality or a safety improvement in an

existing good, some form of willingness to pay measurement other than direct

observation is often necessary. Perhaps the most basic way of estimating

willingness to pay is to apply the contingent valuation method, that is,

simply asking the person how much they would pay. This method was used in

the current study, as a direct measure of the consumer's willingness to pay

for an improvement in product safety in a hypothetical arrangement that

approximates a market for the safety improvement. While the approach does

not require observation of individual's decisions it does assume that the

individual's response in the hypothetical market is the same as it would be












in the real market. There is an implicit assumption that there is no

strategic behavior, and that there is no survey instrument or enumerator

bias.

A more accurate method would be to offer consumers chickens of

different safety levels and observe their behavior, but such products are not

available in the market. Further, such an approach is likely to never be

available to researchers in the food safety area because of ethical

considerations. Another approach would be to observe purchase behavior of

individuals vis a vis different forms of chicken which carried a different

food safety risk. For instance, most of the disease is transmitted through

cross contamination, as when a chicken is cut up and other foods are prepared

on the same surface without adequate cleansing. Chicken parts or pre-cooked

chicken would be less likely to result in such cross contamination and hence

would be a less risky product. While the level of safety may differ between

fresh whole chicken and chicken parts or a pre-cooked product, and the

products obviously have different prices, that price differential includes

more than just the marginal cost of safety. Further, it is not clear that

respondents perceive cut-up or pre-cooked chicken as a safer alternative to

fresh chicken. Thus, absent a directly observable measure of willingness to

pay, we chose to use the contingent valuation method.


More Time, an Alternative to Money Expenditures


An alternate technique often used in the environmental and resource

literature is the so-called travel cost method. Since consumers cannot be

directly observed choosing between clean and polluted lakes, for instance,

their willingness to travel greater distances and incur greater travel costs

is used as a surrogate for the direct measure of the value of clean water. An










42



alternative approach for food safety might be consumers' willingness to spend

more time searching for a safer food product, or preparing a product in a

safer manner. In this study respondents were also asked whether, and if so,

how much more time they would spend to prepare a safer chicken. Since we

were not actually observing the respondent spending more time in preparation,

we were, in effect, asking respondents for a contingent valuation of their

time.





































APPENDIX B

Tables











Appendix B, Table 1.--Socio-demographic characteristics of respondents.

Characteristics Number Percent


Gender
Male
Female
Totals

Age
Under 30
30-39
40-49
50-59
60 or older
Totals


Household members under age 18
Yes
No
Totals

Household members over age 65


No
Totals


Pre-tax household income
Under $10,000
$10,000-19,999
$20,000-34,999
$35,000-50,000
Over $50,000
Totals'


Education
Some grade or high school
High school or tech school graduate
Some college or vocational school
College graduate
Totals


Household size (persons)


4
5 or more
Totals


139
367
506


124
128
82
47
125
506


191
315
506


116
390
506


41
65
138
135
83
462


27.5
72.5
100.0


24.5
25.3
16.2
9.3
24.7
100.0


37.7
62.3
100.0


22.9
77.1
100.0


9.0
14.1
29.9
29.2
18.0
100.0


8.5
34.2
26.3
31.0
100.0


17.2
39.5
15.8
17.8
9.7
100.0


Continued










Appendix B, Table 1.--Socio-demographic characteristics of respondents,
continued.

Characteristics Number Percent

Race
White 486 96.1
Black 20 4.0
Totals 506 100.0

Employment
Retired 115 22.7
Employed 313 61.9
Unemployed 78 15.4
Totals 506 100.0

Training in food handling
Yes 244 48.2
No 262 51.8
Totals 506 100.0


aForty-four survey respondents were
information.


Appendix B, Table


unwilling to provide income


2.--Food safety attitudes associated with consumer
purchasing behavior.


Food Purchasing
patterns affected by Slight Moderate Serious All
safety concerns" concern concern concern respondents

(No.) (X) (No.) (%) (No.) (Z) (No.) (%)
Yes 9 3.0 168 56.4 121 40.6 298 58.9

No 23 11.1 151 72.6 34 16.4 208 41.1
Totals 32 6.3 319 63.0 155 30.6 506 100.0

"Number of respondents 506. Chi-square analysis showed food safety
attitudes and purchasing patterns are significantly related at the 99 percent
probability level.

bEight percent of the 506 respondents mentioned chicken as one source
of food safety concern.











Appendix B, Table 3.--Food related illnesses' influence on food safety
attitudes.


Food Safety Attitudes


Experienced food- Slight Moderate Serious All
related illness concern concern concern respondents'

(No.) (%) (No.) (%) (No.) (%) (No.) (%)


Yes 7 5.1 84 61.3 46 33.6 137 27.1
No 25 6.8 235 63.7 109 29.5 369 72.9
Totals 32 6.3 319 63.0 155 30.6 506 100.0

aFour percent of the 506 respondents mentioned chicken as the probable
cause of a food poisoning experience. Chi-square analysis showed cross-
classifications insignificant at the .05 level.









Appendix B, Table 4.--Household chicken consumption patterns.


Number of meals per week
which include chicken


Frequency


(Number) (Percent)


Never eat chicken 5 1.0
One 245 48.4
Two 121 23.9
Three 80 15.8
Four 55 10.9
Totals 506 100.0











Appendix B, Table 5.--Food safety attitudes associated with household
consumption.


Slight Moderate Serious All
Consume chicken concern concern concern respondents

(No.) (%) (No.) (X) (No.) (%) (No.) (%)

Yes 31 6.2 318 63.5 152 30.3 501 99.0
No 1 20.0 1 20.0 3 60.0 5 1.0
Totals 32 6.3 319 63.0 155 30.6 506 100.0

aChi-square analysis was invalid due to sparse data.


Appendix B, Table 6.--Distribution of those willing to pay more, less or
the same price for treated chicken, by treatment.


Willing to buy
Required Willing to given no price
Treatment price decrease pay a premium difference Totalsa Mean

(No.) (%) (No.) (%) (No.) (%) (No.) (Cents/lb)

Inspection 2 1.0 156 79.2 39 19.8 197 16.25
Chemical 3 2.3 113 85.0 17 12.8 133 14.80
Irradiationb 4 3.1 100 76.3 27 20.6 131 11.66


bDoes not include respondents first hearing the inspection alternative.


aChi-square analysis was invalid due to sparse data.







































APPENDIX C

Questionnaires











NO METHOD STATED


1)
2)
3)


Interviewer No. Telephone No.


4) _____






INTERVIEWER: MAKE THREE ATTEMPTS AT DIFFERENT TIMES OF THE DAY BEFORE
DISCARDING A TELEPHONE NUMBER. DISCARD IF A NON-WORKING NUMBER OR A NON-
RESIDENTIAL NUMBER. RECORD RESULTS OF NON-COMPLETED CALLS AS, e.g., BUSY,
NO-ANSWER, DISCONNECTED, DECLINED INTERVIEW, etc.




FIRST ATTEMPT: Time Date Result
SECOND ATTEMPT: Time Date Result
THIRD ATTEMPT: Time Date Result





Hello, my name is and I am involved in a research
project at the University of Florida to find out through interviews how the
public feels about the safety and quality of the food we eat. Let me assure
you that we will not try to sell you anything, we only want to know your
opinions which will be an important part of the research project we are
conducting. This interview will take about 5 minutes.




Do you buy most of the groceries for your household?

YES (Continue with introduction)
NO (If NO: Could I speak to the person that does?)


IF HOME--REPEAT FIRST PART OF INTRODUCTION

IF NOT AT HOME--THANK RESPONDENT FOR TIME AND CONCLUDE INTERVIEW.


TELEPHONE NO. FROM WHICH INTERVIEW CONDUCTED


, ,









[READ] Your answers to my questions will be strictly confidential. We generated
your phone number randomly so we don't know your name, address, or even if your
phone number is listed. We would appreciate your help. May I take about 5
minutes to ask you some questions on food safety, and your dietary practices?

5. On a scale of 1 to 10, how do you view food additives and preservatives in
foods people eat, where 1-No problem, and 10-an extremely serious problem.
(CIRCLE) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 N(-0) (5)
(Allow respondents to state no opinion (N), but do not prompt them)

6. On a scale of 1 to 10, how do you view pesticide or other chemical residues
in foods people eat, where 1-No problem and 10-an extremely serious problem
(CIRCLE) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 N(-O) (6)_
(Allow respondents to state no opinion (N), but do not prompt them)

7. On a scale of 1 to 10, how do you view bacteria levels in foods people eat,
where 1-No problem and 10-an extremely serious problem
(CIRCLE) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 -N(-O) (7)
(Allow respondents to state no opinion (N), but do not prompt them)

8. Do you presently avoid buying, or buy less of, any foods because you are
concerned about their safety YES(-l)
__ NO(-2) (8)
If YES, what specific food(s) are they?


9. Do you think that you or a member of your household has become ill during the
past five years from food poisoning? YES(-l)
__ NO(-2) (9)

If YES, what specific food(s) do you think caused the food poisoning?



10. How many times per week, if ever, does your household eat chicken, in meals
eaten at home and in restaurants combined? [times per week]
Never eat chicken __ (-0)
1 time or less per week __ (-1)
2 times per week __ (-2)
3 times per week __ _(-3)
4 or more times per week (-4) (10)

11. How many times per month, if ever, does your household eat shellfish,
(including shrimp, oysters, crabs, lobster, clams, scallops), in meals
eaten at home and in restaurants combined? [times per month]
Never eat shellfish __ (-0)
1 time or less per month __ (-1)
2 times per month __ (-2)
3 times per month __ (-3)
4 times per month __ (-4)
5 times per month ____(-5)
6 or more times per month __ (-6) (11)












(Illness--No Method Stated) (Items 12-22) (Enumerator, read the following)

Now I would like to ask you some questions about an illness which is sometimes
called food poisoning. This is caused by bacteria in fresh beef, pork and
poultry. First let me give you a little bit of information.

Small amounts of bacteria are found throughout the production and processing
chain for all beef, pork, and poultry products. In small quantities these
bacteria are generally harmless, but when present in large quantities, consumers
can be infected by them and become ill. About 2 persons in 100, or 2 percent of
the population, will get food poisoning from eating chicken each year. Symptoms
include stomach cramps, vomiting, and diarrhea, and in rare instances complica-
tions can lead to death. It is possible to reduce the amount of these bacteria
through better sanitation and more careful inspection. This would virtually
eliminate any chance of becoming ill. Nationwide, whole chickens cost about 85
cents per pound, and chicken parts cost between $1.15 per pound (for legs and
thighs) to $1.65 per pound (for breasts). If you could buy a chicken, or chicken
parts, which had almost no likelihood of making you ill:

Would you buy such a product?


(12)


YES(-1) (circle) NO(-2)
4 If NO, ask "Why Not?"


If YES: Would you be willing 4
to pay more for the product? 4


NO(-2) (13)


4 Would you buy it
4. for the same price?
4 YES(-l) (circle) NO(-2) (14)

4 (STOP)


If NO: Would you buy the
product if it cost less?
YES(-I) (circle) NO(-2)


Would you pay
more than 10 cents
per pound extra?
4YES() (circle) (NO2) (17)
YES(-1) (circle) (NO-2) (17)


If YES:


How much extra would 4
you pay? 4
(19)__cents 4
INTERVIEWER: If NO:
(verify that range o
this is cents m
total how muc
increase) you pay


(21) ___


In the
f 1 to 10
ore per pound
h more would
?1 to 10 cents
1 to 10 cents


Would you buy it if its
price were cut from one
to ten cents per pound?
YES(-l) (circle) NO(-2)
4 4.

If YES: 4
By how much less? 4
(18)___ cents (STOP) 4.
(1 to 10 cents) 4.


(STOP)


(16)


4 4
Would you buy it if
its price were cut by
more than 10 cents per
pound? NO(-2) (STOP)
(20) YES(-l) (
4 (


By how much would the
price have to be cut?
(22) ____ (STOP) (22)
INTERVIEWER: verify that
this is total price cut.


YES(-l) (circle)


(13)



(14)

(15)_


(16)
(17)_


18)__
19)__





20)_
21)_


(:
(








53



(Enumerator read the following paragraph to respondent)

These illnesses we have described can also be avoided by more careful handling
of meat or poultry products in the home. Rubber gloves could be worn while
handling chicken; and hands, utensils and countertops could be thoroughly
disinfected before preparing other foods to avoid cross contamination. We
estimate that the average household spends about twenty (20) minutes preparing
chicken for cooking in the home. More careful handling of raw chicken would be
more time-consuming. If you could learn of better, or safer, ways to handle and
prepare chicken in your kitchen:


23. Would you be willing to make changes ___ YES(-l)
in food preparation techniques? ____ NO(-2)
DON'T KNOW(-3)

If NO, skip question number 24, go to question number 25.

24. Would you be willing to spend as much as five more minutes
preparing chicken to avoid the chance of illness? ___ (-5)
10 more minutes (-10)
20 more minutes ___ (-20)

(Enumerator read this aloud)... I appreciate your cooperation on
these food safety questions. Before we end I would like to know
a little about you and your household.


(23)


(24)


25. Are you male or female?


____ Male(-l)
Female(-2)


26. How many people, including yourself, do you
usually shop for when you buy groceries? (record number)

27. How many of these are under 18 years of age? (record number)


(25)


(26)_

(27)_


28. How many of these are 65 years of age or older?(record number) (28)_


29. Are you in your 20's
in your 30's
in your 40's
in your 50's
in your 60's
in your 70's
in your 80's
in your 90's
over 100


(-20) (check the appropriate box)
-_ (-30)
____ (-40)
__ (-50)
___ (-60)
____ (-70)
___(-80)
___(-90)
___(-00)


30. Are you: Retired (check the appropriate box)
Employed full time
Employed part time
Not employed and looking for work?
Not employed and not looking for work?


___(-0)
_ (-1)
___(-2)
____ (-3)
____ (-4)


(29)





(30)_











31. What is the highest grade in school that you have completed? (CIRCLE)

Some grade school: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (circle highest grade completed)
Grade school graduate: 8
Some high school: 9 10 11
High school or technical school graduate: 12
Some college or vocational school: 13 14 15
College graduate: 16
Advanced college degree: 17+ (insert highest number circled) (31)

32. Have you ever had any formal schooling or other training in food handling
or food preparation, such as home economics? ___ YES(-l)
NO(-2) (32)_

If YES, what kind?

33. What race do you consider
yourself to be? Are you: ___ White(-l)
SBlack(-2)
Oriental(-3)
Other Asian(-4)
Hispanic(-5)
Am. Indian(-6)
SOther?(-7)
specify other (33)

34. Was the approximate annual income for all members of your household from
employment and from all other sources, before taxes, last year--1987:

--more or less than $35,000? enumeratorr: check appropriate boxes)

MORE (-1) LESS (-2)

--more or less than $50,000? or --more or less than $20,000

MORE(-3) __LESS(-4) ___MORE(-5) ___LESS(-6)

--more or less than $10,000

MORE(-7) LESS(-8)

highest numbered box checked (enter number from 1 to 8) (34)

35. One last question: Because your number was selected randomly, is your
phone:

Listed(-l)
Unlisted(-2) (35)


THANK YOU FOR TAKING THE TIME TO SHARE YOUR OPINIONS WITH US.











IRRADIATION METHOD


2)
3)__


Interviewer No.___Telephone No.


4) _____





INTERVIEWER: MAKE THREE ATTEMPTS AT DIFFERENT TIMES OF THE DAY BEFORE DISCARDING
A TELEPHONE NUMBER. DISCARD IF A NON-WORKING NUMBER OR A NON-RESIDENTIAL NUMBER.
RECORD RESULTS OF NON-COMPLETED CALLS AS, e.g., BUSY, NO-ANSWER, DISCONNECTED,
DECLINED INTERVIEW, etc.




FIRST ATTEMPT: Time Date Result
SECOND ATTEMPT: Time Date Result


THIRD ATTEMPT:


Time Date Result


Hello, my name is and I am involved in a research project
at the University of Florida to find out through interviews how the public feels
about the safety and quality of the food we eat. Let me assure you that we will
not try to sell you anything, we only want to know your opinions which will be
an important part of the research project we are conducting. This interview will
take about 5 minutes.




Do you buy most of the groceries for your household?

YES (Continue with introduction)
NO (If NO: Could I speak to the person that does?)


IF HOME--REPEAT FIRST PART OF INTRODUCTION

IF NOT AT HOME--THANK RESPONDENT FOR TIME AND CONCLUDE INTERVIEW.


TELEPHONE NO. FROM WHICH INTERVIEW CONDUCTED


% .











[READ] Your answers to my questions will be strictly confidential. We generated
your phone number randomly so we don't know your name, address, or even if your
phone number is listed. We would appreciate your help. May I take about 5
minutes to ask you some questions on food safety, and your dietary practices?

5. On a scale of 1 to 10, how do you view food additives and preservatives in
foods people eat, where 1-No problem, and 10-an extremely serious problem.


(CIRCLE) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 N(-O)
(Allow respondents to state no opinion (N), but do not prompt them)


(5)


6. On a scale of 1 to 10, how do you view pesticide or other chemical residues
in foods people eat, where 1-No problem and 10-an extremely serious problem


(CIRCLE) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 N(-O)
(Allow respondents to state no opinion (N), but do not prompt them)


(6)


7. On a scale of 1 to 10, how do you view bacteria levels in foods people eat,
where 1-No problem and 10-an extremely serious problem


(CIRCLE) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 N(-O)
(Allow respondents to state no opinion (N), but do not prompt them)


(7)


8. Do you presently avoid buying, or buy less of, any foods because you are
concerned about their safety ___ YES(-1)
__ NO(-2) (8)_
If YES, what specific food(s) are they?


9. Do you think that you or a member of your household has become ill during the
past five years from food poisoning? YES(-l)
NO(-2) (9)_

If YES, what specific food(s) do you think caused the food poisoning?


10. How many times per week, if ever, does your household eat chicken, in meals
eaten at home and in restaurants combined? [times per week]
Never eat chicken (__ (=0)
1 time or less per week __ (-1)
2 times per week (-2)
3 times per week __ (-3)
4 or more times per week ___(-4) (10)

11. How many times per month, if ever, does your household eat shellfish,
(including shrimp, oysters, crabs, lobster, clams, scallops), in meals
eaten at home and in restaurants combined? [times per month]
Never eat shellfish (-0)
1 time or less per month (-1)
2 times per month (-2)
3 times per month _(-3)
4 times per month (-4)
5 times per month (-5)
6 or more times per month (-6) (11)











(Illness--Irradiation Method) (Items 12-22) (Enumerator, read the following)

Now I would like to ask you some questions about an illness which is sometimes
called food poisoning. This is caused by bacteria in fresh beef, pork and
poultry. First let me give you a little bit of information.

Small amounts of bacteria are found throughout the production and processing
chain for all beef, pork, and poultry products. In small quantities these
bacteria are generally harmless, but when present in large quantities, consumers
can be infected by them and become ill. About 2 persons in 100, or 2 percent of
the population, will get food poisoning from eating chicken each year. Symptoms
include stomach cramps, vomiting, and diarrhea, and in rare instances complica-
tions can lead to death. Irradiation is a method that could be used to kill
harmful bacteria on chickens with low level doses of radiation. This would
virtually eliminate any chance of becoming ill. The method is harmless, and has
no effect on the taste, texture, odor, or other characteristics of the chicken.
Nationwide, whole chickens cost about 85 cents per pound, and chicken parts cost
between $1.15 per pound (for legs and thighs) to $1.65 per pound (for breasts).
If you could buy a chicken, or chicken parts, which had almost no likelihood of
making you ill:

Would you buy such a product?

YES(-l) (circle) NO(-2) (12)
4 If NO, ask "Why Not?"

If YES: Would you be willing 4
to pay more for the product? 4


(circle)


NO(-2) (13)


Would you buy it
for the same price?
YES(-l) (circle) NO(-2) (14)

(STOP)


Would you pay
more than 10 cents
per pound extra?
4
YES(-l) (circle) (N0-2) (17)
4 4
If YES: 4


How much e
you pay?
(19) _cen
INTERVIEW
(verify th
this is
total
increase)


4
would 4
4


.R: If NO: In the
at range of 1 to 10
cents more per pound
how much more would
you pay?
(21) ____ 1 to 10 cents


If NO: Would you buy the
product if it cost less?
YES(-l) (circle) NO(-2)
4 4


Would you buy it if its
price were cut from one
to ten cents per pound?
YES(-I) (circle) NO(-2)
4 4

If YES: 4
By how much less? 4
(18)__ cents (STOP) 4
(1 to 10 cents) 4


(STOP)


4


(16)


4


4 4
Would you buy it if
its price were cut by
more than 10 cents pe
pound? NO(-2) (STOP)
(20) YES(-l)


(13)_



(14)

(15)_



(16)
(17)


(18)_
(19)



r

(20)
(21)


By how much would the
price have to be cut?
(22) ____ (STOP) (22)
INTERVIEWER: verify that
this is total price cut.


YES(-1)
4


xtra

ts











(Enumerator read the following paragraph to respondent)

These illnesses we have described can also be avoided by more careful handling
of meat or poultry products in the home. Rubber gloves could be worn while
handling chicken; and hands, utensils and countertops could be thoroughly
disinfected before preparing other foods to avoid cross contamination. We
estimate that the average household spends about twenty (20) minutes preparing
chicken for cooking in the home. More careful handling of raw chicken would be
more time-consuming. If you could learn of better, or safer, ways to handle and
prepare chicken in your kitchen:


23. Would you be willing to make changes YES(-l)
in food preparation techniques? NO(-2)
___ DON'T KNOW(-3)

If NO, skip question number 24, go to question number 25.

24. Would you be willing to spend as much as five more minutes
preparing chicken to avoid the chance of illness? ___ (-5)
10 more minutes ____ (-10)
20 more minutes ____ (-20)

(Enumerator read this aloud)... I appreciate your cooperation on
these food safety questions. Before we end I would like to know
a little about you and your household.

25. Are you male or female? Male(-l)
Female(-2)

26. How many people, including yourself, do you
usually shop for when you buy groceries? (record number)

27. How many of these are under 18 years of age? (record number)


(23)


(24)


(25)

(26)

(27)_


28. How many of these are 65 years of age or older?(record number) (28)_


29. Are you in your 20's
in your 30's
in your 40's
in your 50's
in your 60's
in your 70's
in your 80's
in your 90's
over 100


___ (-20) (check the appropriate box)
____ (-30)
____ (-40)
____ (-50)
____ (-60)
___ (-70)
____ (-80)
___ (-90)
__ (-00)


30. Are you: Retired (check the appropriate box)
Employed full time
Employed part time
Not employed and looking for work?
Not employed and not looking for work?


__ (-0)
_ (-1)
__ (-2)
___(-3)
_ (-4)


(29)




(30)










31. What is the highest grade in school that you have completed? (CIRCLE)

Some grade school: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (circle highest grade completed)
Grade school graduate: 8
Some high school: 9 10 11
High school or technical school graduate: 12
Some college or vocational school: 13 14 15
College graduate: 16
Advanced college degree: 17+ (insert highest number circled) (31)

32. Have you ever had any formal schooling or other training in food handling
or food preparation, such as home economics? YES(-l)
NO(-2) (32)_

If YES, what kind?

33. What race do you consider
yourself to be? Are you: ___ White(-l)
Black(-2)
Oriental(-3)
Other Asian(-4)
Hispanic(-5)
Am. Indian(-6)
Other?(-7)
specify other (33)

34. Was the approximate annual income for all members of your household from
employment and from all other sources, before taxes, last year--1987:

--more or less than $35,000? enumeratorr: check appropriate boxes)

MORE (-1) LESS (-2)

--more or less than $50,000? or --more or less than $20,000

MORE(-3) __LESS(-4) ___MORE(-5) __LESS(-6)

--more or less than $10,000

MORE(-7) LESS(-8)

highest numbered box checked (enter number from 1 to 8) (34)

35. One last question: Because your number was selected randomly, is your
phone:

Listed(-l)
Unlisted(-2) (35)


THANK YOU FOR TAKING THE TIME TO SHARE YOUR OPINIONS WITH US.











CHEMICAL METHOD


2)


Interviewer No. Telephone No.


INTERVIEWER: MAKE THREE ATTEMPTS AT DIFFERENT TIMES OF THE DAY BEFORE DISCARDING
A TELEPHONE NUMBER. DISCARD IF A NON-WORKING NUMBER OR A NON-RESIDENTIAL NUMBER.
RECORD RESULTS OF NON-COMPLETED CALLS AS, e.g., BUSY, NO-ANSWER, DISCONNECTED,
DECLINED INTERVIEW, etc.




FIRST ATTEMPT: Time Date Result


SECOND ATTEMPT:


Time Date Result


THIRD ATTEMPT: Time Date Result




Hello, my name is and I am involved in a research project
at the University of Florida to find out through interviews how the public feels
about the safety and quality of the food we eat. Let me assure you that we will
not try to sell you anything, we only want to know your opinions which will be
an important part of the research project we are conducting. This interview will
take about 5 minutes.




Do you buy most of the groceries for your household?

YES (Continue with introduction)
NO (If NO: Could I speak to the person that does?)


IF HOME--REPEAT FIRST PART OF INTRODUCTION

IF NOT AT HOME--THANK RESPONDENT FOR TIME AND CONCLUDE INTERVIEW.


TELEPHONE NO. FROM WHICH INTERVIEW CONDUCTED












[READ] Your answers to my questions will be strictly confidential. We generated
your phone number randomly so we don't know your name, address, or even if your
phone number is listed. We would appreciate your help. May I take about 5
minutes to ask you some questions on food safety, and your dietary practices?

5. On a scale of 1 to 10, how do you view food additives and preservatives in
foods people eat, where 1-No problem, and 10-an extremely serious problem.
(CIRCLE) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 N(-O) (5)
(Allow respondents to state no opinion (N), but do not prompt them)

6. On a scale of 1 to 10, how do you view pesticide or other chemical residues
in foods people eat, where 1-No problem and 10-an extremely serious problem
(CIRCLE) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 N(-0) (6)
(Allow respondents to state no opinion (N), but do not prompt them)

7. On a scale of 1 to 10, how do you view bacteria levels in foods people eat,
where 1-No problem and 10-an extremely serious problem
(CIRCLE) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 N(-O) (7)
(Allow respondents to state no opinion (N), but do not prompt them)

8. Do you presently avoid buying, or buy less of, any foods because you are
concerned about their safety YES(-l)
__ NO(-2) (8)__
If YES, what specific food(s) are they?


9. Do you think that you or a member of your household has become ill during the
past five years from food poisoning? ___ YES(-1)
___ NO(-2) (9)

If YES, what specific food(s) do you think caused the food poisoning?


10. How many times per week, if ever, does your household eat chicken, in meals
eaten at home and in restaurants combined? [times per week]
Never eat chicken __ _(-0)
1 time or less per week __ .(-1)
2 times per week (-2)
3 times per week _(-3)
4 or more times per week __ (-4) (10)

11. How many times per month, if ever, does your household eat shellfish,
(including shrimp, oysters, crabs, lobster, clams, scallops), in meals
eaten at home and in restaurants combined? [times per month]
Never eat shellfish __ _(-0)
1 time or less per month __ (-1)
2 times per month ____(-2)
3 times per month ___(-3)
4 times per month ____(-4)
5 times per month __ (-5)
6 or more times per month (-6) (11)__












(Illness--Chemical Method) (Items 12-22) (Enumerator, read the following)

Now I would like to ask you some questions about an illness which is sometimes
called food poisoning. This is caused by bacteria in fresh beef, pork and
poultry. First let me give you a little bit of information.

Small amounts of bacteria are found throughout the production and processing
chain for all beef, pork, and poultry products. In small quantities these
bacteria are generally harmless, but when present in large quantities, consumers
can be infected by them and become ill. About 2 persons in 100, or 2 percent of
the population, will get food poisoning from eating chicken each year. Symptoms
include stomach cramps, vomiting, and diarrhea, and in rare instances complica-
tions can lead to death. Chickens can be washed with a chemical disinfecting
solution to kill most of these bacteria during processing. This would virtually
eliminate any chance of becoming ill. The process is harmless, and has no effect
on the taste, texture, odor, or other characteristics of the chicken.
Nationwide, whole chickens cost about 85 cents per pound, and chicken parts cost
between $1.15 per pound (for legs and thighs) to $1.65 per pound (for breasts).
If you could buy a chicken, or chicken parts, which had almost no likelihood of
making you ill:

Would you buy such a product?


(12)


YES(-1) (circle) NO(-2)
4 If NO, ask "Why Not?"


If YES: Would you be willing
to pay more for the product? 4


YES(-l) (circle)


NO(-2) (13)


4 Would you buy it
4 for the same price?
4 YES(-l) (circle) NO(-2) (14)
4 4(STOP)
4 (STOP)


Would you pay
more than 10 cents
per pound extra?
4
YES(-l) (circle)

If YES:


How much e
you pay?
(19)_ cen
INTERVIEW
(verify th
this is
total
increase)


xtra would 4
4ts
ts 4


(NO-2) (17)
4


If NO: Would you buy the
product if it cost less?
YES(-l) (circle) NO(-2)
4 4.


4
4
4
(16) 4
4


Would you buy it if its
price were cut from one
to ten cents per pound?
YES(-l) (circle) NO(=2)
4 4

If YES: 4
By how much less? 4
(18)_ cents (STOP) 4
(1 to 10 cents) 4


R: If NO: In the
at range of 1 to 10
cents more per pound
how much more would
you pay?
(21) ____ 1 to 10 cents (STOP)


(13)


(14)

(15)_



(16)
(17)


4 (18)
4 (19)__


4 4
Would you buy it if
its price were cut by
more than 10 cents per
pound? NO(-2) (STOP)
(20) YES(-I) (20)
4 (21)_
By how much would the
price have to be cut?
(22) (STOP) (22)
INTERVIEWER: verify that
this is total price cut.











(Enumerator read the following paragraph to respondent)

These illnesses we have described can also be avoided by more careful handling
of meat or poultry products in the home. Rubber gloves could be worn while
handling chicken; and hands, utensils and countertops could be thoroughly
disinfected before preparing other foods to avoid cross contamination. We
estimate that the average household spends about twenty (20) minutes preparing
chicken for cooking in the home. More careful handling of raw chicken would be
more time-consuming. If you could learn of better, or safer, ways to handle and
prepare chicken in your kitchen:


23. Would you be willing to make changes ___ YES(-l)
in food preparation techniques? __ NO(-2)
DON'T KNOW(-3)

If NO, skip question number 24, go to question number 25.

24. Would you be willing to spend as much as five more minutes
preparing chicken to avoid the chance of illness? ___ (-5)
10 more minutes ____ (-10)
20 more minutes ___ (-20)

(Enumerator read this aloud)... I appreciate your cooperation on
these food safety questions. Before we end I would like to know
a little about you and your household.

25. Are you male or female? ____ Male(-l)
Female(-2)

26. How many people, including yourself, do you
usually shop for when you buy groceries? (record number)


(23)


(24)


(25)

(26)


27. How many of these are under 18 years of age? (record number) (27)

28. How many of these are 65 years of age or older?(record number) (28)


29. Are you in your 20's
in your 30's
in your 40's
in your 50's
in your 60's
in your 70's
in your 80's
in your 90's
over 100


____ (-20) (check the appropriate box)
___(-30)
____ (-40)
__ (-50)
(-60)
___(-70)
___(-80)
___(-90)
___ (-00)


30. Are you: Retired (check the appropriate box)
Employed full time
Employed part time
Not employed and looking for work?
Not employed and not looking for work?


___(-0)
_ (-1)
_ (-2)
___(-3)
____ (-4)


(29)




(30)_











31. What is the highest grade in school that you have completed? (CIRCLE)

Some grade school: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (circle highest grade completed)
Grade school graduate: 8
Some high school: 9 10 11
High school or technical school graduate: 12
Some college or vocational school: 13 14 '15
College graduate: 16
Advanced college degree: 17+ (insert highest number circled) (31)

32. Have you ever had any formal schooling or other training in food handling
or food preparation, such as home economics? ___ YES(-l)
NO(-2) (32)_

If YES, what kind?

33. What race do you consider
yourself to be? Are you: White(-l)
SBlack(-2)
Oriental(-3)
Other Asian(-4)
SHispanic(-5)
Am. Indian(-6)
Other?(-7)
specify other (33)

34. Was the approximate annual income for all members of your household from
employment and from all other sources, before taxes, last year--1987:

--more or less than $35,000? enumeratorr: check appropriate boxes)

MORE (-1) LESS (-2)

--more or less than $50,000? or --more or less than $20,000

MORE(-3) LESS(-4) ___MORE(-5) ___LESS(-6)
--more or less than $10,000

__MORE(-=7) LESS(-8)

highest numbered box checked (enter number from 1 to 8) (34)

35. One last question: Because your number was selected randomly, is your
phone:

Listed(-l)
Unlisted(-2) (35)


THANK YOU FOR TAKING THE TIME TO SHARE YOUR OPINIONS WITH US.




Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
fcla fda yes
dl
METS:mets OBJID UF00049214_00001
xmlns:METS http:www.loc.govMETS
xmlns:mods http:www.loc.govmodsv3
xmlns:xlink http:www.w3.org1999xlink
xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance
xmlns:daitss http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss
xsi:schemaLocation
http:www.loc.govstandardsmetsmets.xsd
http:www.loc.govmodsv3mods-3-2.xsd
http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitss.xsd
METS:metsHdr CREATEDATE 2008-05-02T14:07:24Z ID LASTMODDATE 2008-05-02T14:07:21Z RECORDSTATUS NEW
METS:agent ROLE CREATOR TYPE ORGANIZATION
METS:name UF
OTHERTYPE SOFTWARE OTHER
Go UFDC - FDA Preparation Tool
INDIVIDUAL
SMATHERSLIB\matmari
METS:dmdSec DMD1
METS:mdWrap MDTYPE MODS MIMETYPE textxml LABEL Metadata Object Description Schema
METS:xmlData
mods:mods
mods:titleInfo
mods:title Consumer attitudes toward food safety and willingness to accept selected bacterial control measures for fresh chicken : : a report
mods:relatedItem type series
Technical report - FAMRC ; 91-1
mods:name personal
mods:namePart Moss, Susan D.
mods:role
mods:roleTerm authority marcrelator Creator
Degner, Robert L.
Creator
Zellner, James A.
Creator
mods:originInfo
mods:place
mods:placeTerm text Gainesville
mods:publisher FAMRC, Food and Resource Economics Dept., IFAS, University of Florida
mods:dateIssued 1991
mods:language
mods:languageTerm English
mods:identifier ALEPH 001752599
NOTIS AJG5554
OCLC 26812833
mods:note "July 1991."
Includes bibliographical references (p. 37).
funding Technical report (Florida Agricultural Market Research Center) ;
mods:subject
mods:topic Chicken industry -- Public opinion.
Irradiated foods -- Public opinion.
Poultry -- Preservation -- Public opinion.
Meat -- Contamination -- Public opinion.
Food preservatives -- Public opinion.
original
mods:physicalDescription
mods:extent viii, 64 p. ; 28 cm.
mods:location
mods:physicalLocation code UF
METS:amdSec
METS:digiprovMD AMD_DAITTS
OTHERMDTYPE DAITTS
daitss:daitss
daitss:AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
METS:fileSec
METS:fileGrp
METS:file GROUPID G1 T1 textplain CHECKSUM d57872f5a02e2da1be0b466d2d007d64 CHECKSUMTYPE MD5 SIZE 589
METS:FLocat LOCTYPE OTHERLOCTYPE SYSTEM xlink:href 00000.txt
G2 T2 1e45cf27a4dde790a5a40214feac89ab 5654
00001.txt
G4 T4 06373f5eb359b7d57caf9ccded69d32d 578
00003.txt
G6 T6 81d94c0442e0a1f88344ac983cb522cf 1764
00005.txt
G8 T8 0cd122e6d69118efd75c38553e0155e1 1652
00007.txt
G10 T10 5f0ed3643043d353916cfe58969685e9 2682
00009.txt
G12 T12 8cd29f9801b1967df2cde2dfda194c14 2242
00011.txt
G14 T14 fb343bf04b08a595e3bc87f64b0324c4 846
00013.txt
G16 T16 e06c5791c71cf52e18c5a9534e94d675 666
00015.txt
G18 T18 050f693415ec31ac2c33a1d91f46a79e 2695
00017.txt
G20 T20 9d4258e70d99bda035e88c24a6c4362f 1418
00019.txt
G22 T22 6917c568b3fb20600d6dd0dc0d540f21 1922
00021.txt
G23 T23 56680ca1bdc8364916b87d0d6a2fbe04 1673
00022.txt
G24 T24 e3598294b1f48a807343060a7cb088df 1981
00023.txt
G25 T25 a995d127c43c49ae83b58b05f55cd2fc 1677
00024.txt
G26 T26 691dba961e761e56bd615808c6c3af18 2046
00025.txt
G27 T27 332a232f7a59049b7beb5da426adb614 1799
00026.txt
G28 T28 8abf2dde19fb4fa54ae52c0bd3325c3f 1843
00027.txt
G29 T29 617238c8c08ae4073f9fd31a0d21d7e5 1559
00028.txt
G30 T30 f15f37fd0b3f411655791c8447e62765 1949
00029.txt
G31 T31 47590f4dae52c3bbc00cd84ab0aa0ebc 1438
00030.txt
G32 T32 c999ade2345e9b33d482b7b98187729d 1954
00031.txt
G33 T33 3692f11b42e0c4372deb3418717f1c4c 1921
00032.txt
G34 T34 997b31b9cf70e87d8240580fa139441f 1806
00033.txt
G35 T35 67e596c45f54e6a7d63296cce296d76e 2120
00034.txt
G36 T36 6c23dedd1becb06a6b9e6998d14948b5 1965
00035.txt
G37 T37 cd3e85965b03c6f82c19e5798d2cb9ce 1793
00036.txt
G38 T38 b07a23dd779dbcd601240ab61a8f6fef 1690
00037.txt
G39 T39 7cc8b933373ae6f33676a324d8020991 1913
00038.txt
G40 T40 35031bd55e022e6de09a1a612f2fefc6 2272
00039.txt
G41 T41 d3996af4aa430275f0b567c2f95014da 1972
00040.txt
G42 T42 08ebc934d53cc102348f85cddd40f722 1943
00041.txt
G43 T43 59f0a4bde6f44a147f2c55049dfce837 1798
00042.txt
G44 T44 390b3226e116b58c1d0300630b446970 1910
00043.txt
G45 T45 197dcbde3c4e2eb1d668857f2193f348 1826
00044.txt
G46 T46 9ac1f7cacf0790b2a5582f1a986a4920 1780
00045.txt
G47 T47 36f5880c9c42e25ad2a119baa4828aed 1886
00046.txt
G48 T48 1622e237894be7ae881248ec4b03ee3f 1858
00047.txt
G49 T49 ce7f7cbf1f949f4090694a44de41d395
00048.txt
G50 T50 4ae5ccd06f4268998bbb8612106cc9de 1827
00049.txt
G51 T51 7ec8af1c9864ae1329aa655674939fa4 2471
00050.txt
G52 T52 2e768ff4e091ab52005ebe92c55e4fc2 1904
00051.txt
G53 T53 11d6a22b78d941f566f7ca7ed905f644 1776
00052.txt
G54 T54 a2c6fc4132ccac07e0e4b3244a34f0f1 1997
00053.txt
G55 T55 0a9d021e84e9b6047f4027827d409a66 2019
00054.txt
G56 T56 4ef65ca338946ddea6bb39a585d2f68e 1996
00055.txt
G57 T57 6c8c87d6496cd1a27e9be0cea0d881c2 932
00056.txt
G58 T58 e2cb5601ae632aa9e9931d06e5c8b22e 1855
00057.txt
G59 T59 bc949ea893a9384070c31f083ccefd26 3
00058.txt
G60 T60 c38add28791af0e270f77c5395c9f61c 326
00059.txt
G61 T61 272fa0aadc7c08d4cf7fe49ae7fb0c5b 2093
00060.txt
G62 T62 0f291fc3a8c22e775de773db9a7608ea 1937
00061.txt
G63 T63 b8fac0b3dbfe665793d9354495c35925 543
00062.txt
G64 T64 c62c22ba7e32e36b6752f3d46d9eda0c 95
00063.txt
G65 T65 0c6adb328548054fd91a2d07cb29f9cc 1123
00064.txt
G66 T66 c532f5f13ee6ad4540a85e2781f95a84 1915
00065.txt
G67 T67 a5e72fceea921c133352466c31e60f00 1508
00066.txt
G68 T68 6e9f483d08b4199b203f02df5100d2bc 1432
00067.txt
G69 T69
00068.txt
G70 T70 16746cb41e822ef74cb38b8150ee5068 101
00069.txt
G71 T71 cf37f6208671b153f9790742d085451f 1426
00070.txt
G72 T72 0f6d4cc80cc238676ab71b4c1a957329 2877
00071.txt
G73 T73 81e04ed75d9c12d40c55776628788d7b 2787
00072.txt
G74 T74 c0726713331ecd89e3170a57390bf68f 2430
00073.txt
G75 T75 307f3af510fe450b83b7d73504a403cf 2015
00074.txt
G76 T76 c0a0209c7eb9c06478dda2de3f51e692 1491
00075.txt
G77 T77 ad4c0e501ac9380fb4acd4152b6b02e6 2900
00076.txt
G78 T78 77e4690c4477024cc9e58dc05ff979a1 2927
00077.txt
G79 T79 284d3b8e13806e76437e3410589815e0 2409
00078.txt
G80 T80 9086392d29ddda08dff3f3dc2ee98616 2022
00079.txt
G81 T81 63dedd855577eac5d5f46d99c001d82d 1307
00080.txt
G82 T82 27ba36ddb5519cd6ff3cb1d71ffda6a8 2874
00081.txt
G83 T83 fcae095dd1d36a62539ae0651a7f7b7f 2889
00082.txt
G84 T84 ece55d5e850f3b0ee73562ea81d05d7b 2403
00083.txt
G85 T85 c58440d4351fddc968637e34ee919e0d 2011
00084.txt
R1 textx-pro 737ec8b6636df70a689d95597aea8a06 15662
00000.pro
R2 e2ddd5f91867b35a56a335c0809f8a88 129925
00001.pro
R4 f01bfc653fbd186631151f70b1a79340 10310
00003.pro
R6 ffda20e4cf0f3b5d4beac32ba2c0a99c 43203
00005.pro
R8 0722f0fde4b9ef459f02f2c4b1275c23 35364
00007.pro
R10 334be7d70bb13700284aab2801cf2090 59618
00009.pro
R12 78d35827471f355d2990181f9aa34e20 47128
00011.pro
R14 b8fdd5ab065a05b55c5d157b396bdc80 18657
00013.pro
R16 0e2acfd06d0b2b424f959cb1cb1cf9ed 15499
00015.pro
R18 64c80a2a282971604ff488264bc79115 61611
00017.pro
R20 066a4a7d2a568b5cb70bf6c9ad89f326 32420
00019.pro
R22 d323f670806bbfd2c79d0926b72683f3 46294
00021.pro
R23 379a8fac366c8c5c0b5ee189f49007ee 33630
00022.pro
R24 c53901743dcb5224583c15f6c769defe 46959
00023.pro
R25 e4f3df07b0eebf13b875d906b81aa129 33487
00024.pro
R26 05f2d6ddf8b9bd304c7d8f0736527aed 49338
00025.pro
R27 37a3e62d2fb14e68e10b6350602da8c2 43674
00026.pro
R28 8ac3184c9b983ec1f293c2eb7ad668a3 43785
00027.pro
R29 4e67d0a2b85b0e67a92dd962a7fa01f0 28455
00028.pro
R30 972f547da36aafdbe3a12757c33942e0 48594
00029.pro
R31 b7e769ecd5bac45840f67ae715da5e06 29034
00030.pro
R32 2cd78fd5051b9af5231735136e97c17a 38096
00031.pro
R33 19a05fa92933b48b5a377a8b7191f361 44825
00032.pro
R34 3876e8aea9223e478c161d2e7be05aca 45054
00033.pro
R35 50f44e67eb9a579ebd7b3cf67fa4f7a8 51719
00034.pro
R36 6127e33deeff1ad976e633cc7408eaca 47407
00035.pro
R37 d66ac007da8bf8742ff46310a2983b59 44751
00036.pro
R38 a5f91449054929c3fe0e7fcf92b1613a 38344
00037.pro
R39 f523579abac0af49f083bfac540aef1e 40987
00038.pro
R40 befe46c816de6151fd2f73a65199ec63 47448
00039.pro
R41 59f78e7624e96125b33d90faacacaef6 47482
00040.pro
R42 0878b9fddc2e3454bd2925498d19502b 39013
00041.pro
R43 f25fe4fa6f6079a720fcd115ae001d80 40980
00042.pro
R44 388fda00ec66da7249164d96e4ce22ce 43185
00043.pro
R45 cd3532213266107367cfc337cbae0bc8 43792
00044.pro
R46 98f6df68eb3f0446e319da2ae1e7e900 36118
00045.pro
R47 3b56847a9276cdbc75bd7146be7870c4 45313
00046.pro
R48 a2f94d6487d7d6e1d8ae2ab1366308a6 37425
00047.pro
R49 43498d6e175abb1108850d2276005755 40976
00048.pro
R50 b813d53167ce5c9215d992d6e84198f3 43828
00049.pro
R51 d8d86a80bf12462af69c27537b32ab8f 43035
00050.pro
R52 0c541d4bd360461b0c8bae0bc4e2bb59 38298
00051.pro
R53 47e80e0178df95c807277b22cd0cf61d 36224
00052.pro
R54 b907a80f5cd4d7d621abf39f027c81bf 48891
00053.pro
R55 8a36c55aabae592d1a1767b2a44f26f3 48732
00054.pro
R56 afebec3f8b80932e74bf1814dcfc5120 48180
00055.pro
R57 e8fed60af8ccbdecb48f6815d3463b43 22033
00056.pro
R58 620b7a98e95bdb213df0efb6d5819819 43437
00057.pro
R59 bd823a91ab0a2a4d6d1dc8ede44a66d6 228
00058.pro
R60 fef52806747769eb6cdf32c5d3fdbd04 3944
00059.pro
R61 1a27cb3f1e256ea67579353c6b30a496 50454
00060.pro
R62 06da1d0a1abc8ff3c9dc1c33c8c101db 46614
00061.pro
R63 160bcda3e241e34d9833e16149b81c24 11941
00062.pro
R64 a570651e834a15f7fe3c6ae55705d606 736
00063.pro
R65 a23952df02bbe5397729f5af0b73999d 22926
00064.pro
R66 003b9672257e5ab93d228b379056efe4 36401
00065.pro
R67 2bf153b41c5b768a2572ff09a3b144dc 27695
00066.pro
R68 c4cc90c9fe04b3d9247134f55a0d076d 27157
00067.pro
R69 7aa3d1ef2cdbcb95ebdbfd79dd902d41
00068.pro
R70 fe1b06e0e9c47d26d92b97fb331a184b 920
00069.pro
R71 add94a17d73095c711d2f5d97ccec9b1 30891
00070.pro
R72 25d693510a3f20acb8a06c0357d2dd7d 60254
00071.pro
R73 a62d559733d2106f67f71fdaf37c9416 66333
00072.pro
R74 d8da2e9a0fceb6026b92076211fdab96 50923
00073.pro
R75 77ac18e9798ecab03eb921ed9cb91f01 36073
00074.pro
R76 db9cae4d9a51725b7139cb937e7c4244 31807
00075.pro
R77 c784247de1d6743ce63d3c1cc1a345c2 60251
00076.pro
R78 ffccd3770c7741ccd261d00d3b841aac 66184
00077.pro
R79 5e540965af862bfc5fbdaae59b9d43d0 50580
00078.pro
R80 7859524094d0fb854a0f28a15d7b447c 36237
00079.pro
R81 9b57063dab4f18ce7c4dcef03629fea5 29935
00080.pro
R82 a22870d14c18813edaad5056e7ba9f37 61372
00081.pro
R83 6a158b1545909eb6ad2e8ac8a7bfcadd 68000
00082.pro
R84 ee40ab7f13fcd6e59c09f785f9ab2262 50197
00083.pro
R85 aa36c1f5e8f4b0b7c128a96d6bcf642d 37529
00084.pro
E1 imagejp2 239d961acddfec0f1ebde9460f9d4060 40410
00000.jp2
E2 14bd219bf810058efcaeede88cde4840 330219
00001.jp2
E4 c23131ff93d8618d032eac5c40c45f6c 30421
00003.jp2
E6 bfa85ff7d0ab9da31791379f417ed8bb 91902
00005.jp2
E8 61acacee862b44c3ad297b7033990e42 88250
00007.jp2
E10 935880c5ee62a89b30632a956e58e25f 76318
00009.jp2
E12 a701fad34dc615f0f4a52fc0e5e4f7e7 96798
00011.jp2
E14 34c08d7b2b5692560771f05d5785492a 32962
00013.jp2
E16 2485e1bca323166af2904028191c8086 41261
00015.jp2
E18 1658dc8e216d2540cbb9ddf53877dff3 138232
00017.jp2
E20 6af2b75e7ed36cc5b29bce23f57a83b5 74600
00019.jp2
E22 ac19a83eb208a068ce4c6ea018057005 111546
00021.jp2
E23 c35b26b3e8b42d3e331f7093632655ce 82966
00022.jp2
E24 a74a8d54ac27cd463ae0937c3fa5bf23 111754
00023.jp2
E25 8af2f7d2582ff812f6a530450b728b2c 78716
00024.jp2
E26 92642f744efcf6a50d9037d7a414152d 118131
00025.jp2
E27 028da6e0e5cdbbbe9bb5f7756491e03a 102200
00026.jp2
E28 aabc45a2e05986a7dfacdb75796aaca1 104868
00027.jp2
E29 4fc866439e516dc28e84148226a9d7d8 63267
00028.jp2
E30 6f53a60be7a0495c5a598db741377f0d 111584
00029.jp2
E31 50a2a7bd56278c6c5a2e7f57b3d11802 74064
00030.jp2
E32 bb0fd1bb8cfd11b69fd7df611665b1e1 84106
00031.jp2
E33 098ad5c6df939a8868488a5e542d59c2 108011
00032.jp2
E34 8ea116dbcbfdcfbf47eee1358a127958 104533
00033.jp2
E35 ae98c759813357b551b5e35c48749cf8 122545
00034.jp2
E36 3cef9e616ecd51508e5b9d061cf09a46 113598
00035.jp2
E37 f6815b45d6845962f244a875b44d77fe 104755
00036.jp2
E38 2f40f4f38eddda651d8dbf8829285e8e 87092
00037.jp2
E39 3695f2740413c28b7690b47bbb07d2f7 94095
00038.jp2
E40 3db9ed515e5540e8f84e8a300c86292f 105727
00039.jp2
E41 7508627fa85c64642a51784bf3e7e18d 114625
00040.jp2
E42 a24a890219eb08b5237f0de64a0c15b8 84578
00041.jp2
E43 ce49f9ef49ca1646fa6933d2bcc6db4c 95591
00042.jp2
E44 8654749ea154a988ec55283e6add2637 101646
00043.jp2
E45 b4bfff5d7e9b8c74028972fa11b12857 105488
00044.jp2
E46 3ef54f8c906f876d9de4e929b64983a5 77287
00045.jp2
E47 59dcc45b244560a37dbe855f0f40043d 110563
00046.jp2
E48 be44b5c2f8d9c478b90ee478d8daa7eb 77457
00047.jp2
E49 20822a41fc539a2c119a330087e6f500 97864
00048.jp2
E50 236ab24c632cb4732e7580c002a37c71 105749
00049.jp2
E51 03e0da63b34d45092f0f93a674b02747 81478
00050.jp2
E52 86168043c9646b1e65b4a1f621ee45b5 89413
00051.jp2
E53 1006d85caea0b3751e8bba78aec45dd9 78826
00052.jp2
E54 0f4c2850c763b077dfe446bb53a20219 114788
00053.jp2
E55 2930634ef28352c2b6abfbf3efbcf9a0 116268
00054.jp2
E56 e721d30f0bdfcec154ec254f2c97ee19 114109
00055.jp2
E57 798d40e696e1f25ceb93d97cecad6ebe 56833
00056.jp2
E58 f043529e3bd6ba3c5fb689dbf684095a 100044
00057.jp2
E59 9db021a1ee6b25031e9504eaf31d2d94 4594
00058.jp2
E60 b42a4c9a335ea3abc1b7acbe26000911 14695
00059.jp2
E61 9e484ad05c8b33443fd0fec1aa777458 118800
00060.jp2
E62 c8553c45394f1d85efc5ec0969dc22d1 110905
00061.jp2
E63 71fe6db233a3796e9c817f10802a3870 31926
00062.jp2
E64 fd73853db25e384bd9452f8b68470d7a 5702
00063.jp2
E65 b0d4829fcaf57715f712e2a509d89f78 61073
00064.jp2
E66 4de80871306bb9295b9ffde4a224b2c4 75056
00065.jp2
E67 e9fd31b9258eacf1d8a2a44086aef81a 61156
00066.jp2
E68 3049f7e9ffcc8779c0ce535b4e7110c6 65738
00067.jp2
E69 c86753376d248e0536a39d7252a68a76 4553
00068.jp2
E70 362c1c376b948ebc6c32c7475b4b298e 5941
00069.jp2
E71 129b5c9e6aa11fc3f3d12836808ca7d2 76930
00070.jp2
E72 f3778b5c834b1f54552c9bd8943dc72c 118068
00071.jp2
E73 3978612e75610f0196ecb90406c9f65d 132024
00072.jp2
E74 01954fca51b314e5f8e53e3cd6d60c9c 110254
00073.jp2
E75 0a242ef0be9ef21b5ac701fdd0969181 85069
00074.jp2
E76 9f8fe7a092a0316c476df0941cf48d06 75317
00075.jp2
E77 2320dc7f3a945f96314f474e9e74fe0f 125179
00076.jp2
E78 9c342c380c546201b8a7fc9e8f93122c 136540
00077.jp2
E79 b462d5139de0070c24d8962bb4830730 109784
00078.jp2
E80 6b1341e80ce7b01a00a82143c08d11c6 83851
00079.jp2
E81 0f1ca213be29bd9d5694926b8aa6e29e 76060
00080.jp2
E82 f4a16eb2c94f584507f11c13bc05ea5c 124512
00081.jp2
E83 17c7abcd5eda36b14a937151f2f841a5 137103
00082.jp2
E84 92fcf7bc306aed5019ed87cc2ba0b3a9 109030
00083.jp2
E85 a458420735acac09bc89c8670b2b65b3 84725
00084.jp2
F1 imagetiff 6.0 d7b61ff96139afe1d7e9186f7fe09869 557172
00000.tif
F2 494ecdaa493c4c54fa43b0be50b0e882 1108208
00001.tif
F4 8c099364ab0c1dc84a1b8ab0899f9877 1100836
00003.tif
F6 7df1b10c6a1dc746cec070c529ac15d2 1093221
00005.tif
F8 0130656ede9d6d7c2000db5a07a3317a 1163992
00007.tif
F10 dda23884ca82af9d04b25c158e64d6fa 1108476
00009.tif
F12 0f026797011e05f425e1e6fed2c45b4b 1108828
00011.tif
F14 015d8ff2c909eded33ddcc4fe3925555 1090380
00013.tif
F16 7a0dbb0dd40b5602915b24af2448f73e 1157188
00015.tif
F18 73202be57ef63014c64334128fca482c 1111188
00017.tif
F20 df9578e8c425057e4dfd2fcaf048605c 1080288
00019.tif
F22 0b5f87015b5daa5f1ce8073f05a88b1e 1120316
00021.tif
F23 e3b3d02715b24ecfc7bfdfbcfe972b6e 1116900
00022.tif
F24 0719d12ea476bbd07e24e88539441c4b 1118116
00023.tif
F25 20fd9d630cc3720319251eaee1800083 1112964
00024.tif
F26 1f7fcf1d28ffd8a2d4646cd47a170c6c 1117064
00025.tif
F27 1874f5f457d4948d5f914c7aaa7f5246 1115188
00026.tif
F28 658672666ff3ae518b359789e101c221 1112496
00027.tif
F29 8008a89c41750fa3d6a7de2d7e401d2b 1107036
00028.tif
F30 94239f3d16195bd27f7fd853c0de9f70 1112808
00029.tif
F31 0e9037acf19a63de14972fbeb8da15a6 1107588
00030.tif
F32 b69471b2b48949d5f09fada581014d47 1108548
00031.tif
F33 3d3071f313e41bf14d6298da65937555 1113944
00032.tif
F34 daae5eef4d138800f9b52356b1ffc32a 1117976
00033.tif
F35 dd7d0d272f555841fe5de675830936a2 1119368
00034.tif
F36 40cd5c39fc7329ece1f5406929780724 1172388
00035.tif
F37 e94b07c7c2f912600195ba15dfdf8bb1 1171460
00036.tif
F38 9839b4bdc8a50b64cf43fa223c08a250 1094481
00037.tif
F39 c4ee4365b7beee59fff681df74e73dfb 1114636
00038.tif
F40 6ccf393cbdd9462a919d360042203e4f 1089752
00039.tif
F41 39f159faec7c70c86bec8a2ef24a0b9f 1113424
00040.tif
F42 7cb8da5461b5afcab6ae1707c7379c89 1165536
00041.tif
F43 9333ade730e083f00e84e1876255ef88 1167952
00042.tif
F44 8b9790bf60378b33b13fef39fe25e3ba 1115980
00043.tif
F45 ebfd4e3fa4eddef03e6f3eb554b7d45b 1115492
00044.tif
F46 985b702b875ac87de1448068d74151f8 1112324
00045.tif
F47 a9ee18b4f1d898bfe10f54e9914fce78 1117236
00046.tif
F48 5dc5ea73bafa031eae3380173d33c233
00047.tif
F49 a4c7038b10759d9b4ef9c48de97146ce 1115540
00048.tif
F50 814fd8df1f75293753e399fa7817a2ae 1110956
00049.tif
F51 5c7c17b256eee7a4eb1edeb1005ca992 1107244
00050.tif
F52 16190392c28d5bc5ab3523988bb54422 1112204
00051.tif
F53 10df7a02f5b77f4a8cdee58224bc25bc 1111140
00052.tif
F54 7a83888476c987079c4b8436c80bc13a 1117112
00053.tif
F55 2d3fee4af997b3e9de23750942db4624 1117140
00054.tif
F56 78e535222f8a022ca1544d786624590c 1117224
00055.tif
F57 7bd1b93483179e6bb83582b772623468 1108200
00056.tif
F58 bdbd7cddd9d7160366300918285894f8 1113280
00057.tif
F59 e575483b6b84e5243146fc3b29f11419 1100616
00058.tif
F60 1131ae1be48c26c966c4b64ce1bab2fd 1102096
00059.tif
F61 53b0c1b0a6efc953979674f6eca4a7f2 1117268
00060.tif
F62 54cfaa21d6708aa53af253e5e5c48406 1116272
00061.tif
F63 2f4bcc00585102a10c06933e657e1eb4 1104812
00062.tif
F64 5d193826f78e228ac937be4fd3f86581 1093851
00063.tif
F65 def3c273268b9597320131389525776a
00064.tif
F66 f2b1f9053f40f6a3e62eecfa44186945 1111804
00065.tif
F67 95b1b09111a4382fa40cce28313a68e8 1110176
00066.tif
F68 97e74338da24211624dfe46db1aabf19 1110920
00067.tif
F69 5b5ad0250c1edbc62ee4d35a913e6be5
00068.tif
F70 2bfb0d0852d864f92137db21ca635a0b
00069.tif
F71 66047216a155ab7353bc86737dfc556f 1111000
00070.tif
F72 2445682888304d6afceb8b15d22b3284
00071.tif
F73 01955b555316e9912ece8b24ba2fcdd0 1116232
00072.tif
F74 e8b5cafa6fb96bd6c73886356f729545 1114656
00073.tif
F75 418ccd3b38eb06bd8fe3e26220e42cba 1112748
00074.tif
F76 9d0bb3bfc2c06feec179f48e65ed691b 1111892
00075.tif
F77 c5442bd1c962ede6843c0f46ec85668e 1117344
00076.tif
F78 4895d370cd17ec7be78601b30f3d4bd0 1115820
00077.tif
F79 f03c516ffc8e4a7686dfd787e2bc1be7 1113632
00078.tif
F80 7a1e29273b4303d6616c7ab163181f3a 1110804
00079.tif
F81 1236ceb0ba771f3cf38c01a1df7d4167 1108936
00080.tif
F82 1036ad6ec03334efaf756a3bb4234ba1 1114504
00081.tif
F83 06efcf1fcc2863c9870e61cceae993d0 1114180
00082.tif
F84 58e8b61a8ce1b9397d81326937a98f36 1113340
00083.tif
F85 1fff47f86c650dc396141e677445f9a0 1111740
00084.tif
J1 imagejpeg 7edbc645ee05f66d21e76a8ca9141868 121381
00000.jpg
J2 dabd0a1988419d8c215e48f977e51c4e 247888
00001.jpg
J4 630a46880d2be4c496e5db507cc390d8 49435
00003.jpg
J6 12ef640d0f558197ea12fcec9dbae5f7 130300
00005.jpg
J8 1b91960996c17b6e6091e7583041a48e 135151
00007.jpg
J10 814315ca38b6441bea11edb80dd6b632 119788
00009.jpg
J12 10728f1a8b5a6ed387aea8dfcd90955d 136346
00011.jpg
J14 5846b28ca7e60f5c36f366bccb516baf 59613
00013.jpg
J16 f05561942d12c1c30ba4983f0bf01fc8 71089
00015.jpg
J18 c8cecee5dd6462a81febe6b15be8003b 180487
00017.jpg
J20 58a7f3496ec4b75f8d48bbd998d33fb9 108345
00019.jpg
J22 40f8621266a0e6b3eff6cd141fd7f3cc 161898
00021.jpg
J23 6887ade1613b10788a3fe5083fd549e3 101430
00022.jpg
J24 ebf35b913ec356dd7aa9dde1dc88f2ea 172542
00023.jpg
J25 1460e94a803add46742184a17e8362a2 108294
00024.jpg
J26 bf7f388ea713c204f380f547e7b2f537 181478
00025.jpg
J27 24ba71dc65d82a415115388479cc7de9 156443
00026.jpg
J28 8e86f75e8ad742abeb464c7dcf4c7acd 146595
00027.jpg
J29 11aed74d8f8ccebd179c41a8dc18d875 92654
00028.jpg
J30 cb8ec34afe6e5b668c264b5912b15e8c 173995
00029.jpg
J31 8c0fa307926b43f6efe45dea475b8fcd 99658
00030.jpg
J32 d24ef31c8c3e7c7bf62939f2ba7ad602 116561
00031.jpg
J33 a915f968c3fce55f543b9cbaeaacdba2 150849
00032.jpg
J34 91e9f46e3d86febbdc705ad5e4646907 121829
00033.jpg
J35 938e9279eff3e77bf55bc22079061368 147229
00034.jpg
J36 5049dc8e321475bebaf3f70fca905633 170956
00035.jpg
J37 267979b17bbd71f188bcaa8bbb6015a8 145779
00036.jpg
J38 afd296c7cb891618788ea5d04e9374dc 126748
00037.jpg
J39 84b53c99467a2a4815c9592de68649fd 122485
00038.jpg
J40 43e0e0bc47299b4c4dce492800999796 148436
00039.jpg
J41 72d15c1e7bd7d17fcfa350af9949886b 136401
00040.jpg
J42 1c8120a35c27ffb16f00a3719c7b87cf 120867
00041.jpg
J43 6cc57cbcfce4e861ccaae590d8e2e3dc 123431
00042.jpg
J44 2844d39e2808faf7767682f279f3b083 133952
00043.jpg
J45 45449b4b35797a2c4be6f08fba25e338 161046
00044.jpg
J46 6bfadb7ef27582418fac764880f64173 108347
00045.jpg
J47 a79e3d65b5e2293a00cf29d9c214223d 125953
00046.jpg
J48 a97a1f0ea37591a8d424677c8eeba188 115075
00047.jpg
J49 9f06a75706c58be169f9be2ec82962d2 128685
00048.jpg
J50 197d3208a5cfc8f9e2dbc5ce62bd7c98 161843
00049.jpg
J51 208efe3519d53b1f0d85fb348a762cc7 115585
00050.jpg
J52 31204d9fc8e93e35434a1b36ca87dba1 123393
00051.jpg
J53 c661e4be41a27bba8dbd30284d1d5b83 111596
00052.jpg
J54 5f8faf87299afa8e339fcf7f3240efa2 163233
00053.jpg
J55 e90ec4cc2d55c8964d045cd36e0173fb 176171
00054.jpg
J56 18fce64b55b742d56421b95dfc65ff70 137782
00055.jpg
J57 88889da6c779c12904aa523db7ec0005 80286
00056.jpg
J58 6eee4d8928ccfa52f04356586467adf1 130744
00057.jpg
J59 bb51112c8bbf9b644d946faf22c0b071 19918
00058.jpg
J60 549fcd1d4f27f82fae0aa16c58f839de 30469
00059.jpg
J61 94cdb5bde679121aeb7f1e85d6eb7de4 178782
00060.jpg
J62 92b619c0de0be9810726fc97d6121f83 128966
00061.jpg
J63 3c0378c9d014a87ba45c5854b37c5878 47456
00062.jpg
J64 bad2d823c9b80a6bac027ae306ce032c 21140
00063.jpg
J65 4ee6252937c8e70e14f02ee4b67a8a3c 86077
00064.jpg
J66 73348d88578873cb2429873a47fde33c 106519
00065.jpg
J67 16042cafb6f35446ce64f8be580e6b7f 91346
00066.jpg
J68 28b460b54f8bb232c8c96ea67fcf1e94 97996
00067.jpg
J69 91917adaea0316f87967ac546debb200 19861
00068.jpg
J70 2e51bce6b471b2f798ac1e60da0e193f 21374
00069.jpg
J71 cffa56767d0931677aee9d7fc99d1673 107469
00070.jpg
J72 ce47794890955edc578d938ebd899704 176746
00071.jpg
J73 1c57f3a3650a7636b83aec192bc5d55c 174162
00072.jpg
J74 fe0dd96caaf5034fd187c2df9253baff 149407
00073.jpg
J75 a69137075dc1bbcae82a0dd1be6c3432 119193
00074.jpg
J76 1e8372f74d82f94eff054424d51ca20d 105056
00075.jpg
J77 1e6fcc72e371ee78206fb63710c0c845 172159
00076.jpg
J78 3303424d0d29d3c3acfff55d6498cf77 178814
00077.jpg
J79 a38bd0f014860a6609a17d63f35e8f70 145128
00078.jpg
J80 c5886f4c7560ebf9458012cb3cad9788 117186
00079.jpg
J81 8a440889b168ffb528aa42f9ee16354d 101052
00080.jpg
J82 1c18e237ab7d8aac677e4e86a8a95139 168732
00081.jpg
J83 bb1b18a17782a15326d00089e1ae585d 175991
00082.jpg
J84 0985d6e9636c9b5cb9a308ba96b4d18b 145606
00083.jpg
J85 95eb1f44a3d68e5b6c3886235742a2f2 118868
00084.jpg
UR2 69cafeec95a259e6a14caa79a0b8ed67 19955
00001thm.jpg
UR1 6af4a170979c48b86f76527fc28381e9 24823
00000thm.jpg
AR1 aa8991cb88d9df0e02fe8c342e32f417 52129
00000.QC.jpg
AR2 694485e3a0671c4605bb695d4074cd4b 64315
00001.QC.jpg
AR3 75ff632880b4b90aeee2b7a393202d11 23686
00003.QC.jpg
AR4 520992e74418cb40b8970156142126d2 4573
00003thm.jpg
AR5 7f58be43d48a9711ee3fb396464ce802 47379
00005.QC.jpg
AR6 6cb2437c5b657ca9b9972bdfbe84f4e3 10673
00005thm.jpg
AR7 53038b7307222fbb2b5ee76b71ea6246 54490
00007.QC.jpg
AR8 acd9579cf915c0fe8f89868432803b05 10678
00007thm.jpg
AR9 728a97167e1460ae94d7179e9eaa00d3 50724
00009.QC.jpg
AR10 080da6aec08f1402aa775669f5e001fe 10897
00009thm.jpg
AR11 2d9cb5f2a2eb946930a8a5c5194332f3 52246
00011.QC.jpg
AR12 a0fca9f2563c16e4e87434568720a7a3 11514
00011thm.jpg
AR13 f4080184d787dd580640e80d4246793b 28527
00013.QC.jpg
AR14 9c6fa8c7fdb968b5932e9c36c460125c 5322
00013thm.jpg
AR15 2ac3e008c9a594c2e06083342aaf55f0 31809
00015.QC.jpg
AR16 5a9e441b02269feceea4a7c9306fcadf 5965
00015thm.jpg
AR17 9a9a84db4a86dbd55b621b0c739e8e32 63921
00017.QC.jpg
AR18 fd73fc50aa9701949779f4c7cc6dc4cb 14551
00017thm.jpg
AR19 83ef3767aff654bddb1dd98d2f7b629c 41224
00019.QC.jpg
AR20 d05656f54d95243ed22bcaa118d54a25 8930
00019thm.jpg
AR21 afdc9ce68d779d95f323708c69c85420 66536
00021.QC.jpg
AR22 2f1b3f56e8bb7661ab392d864e71ca53 12225
00021thm.jpg
AR23 9a23f7a86398016eeaec1a05ed9df9ec 49315
00022.QC.jpg
AR24 253a63d2733662b83bf2660d69c0621a 9654
00022thm.jpg
AR25 78f6c5719b3dff253195c455a6363d4a 69211
00023.QC.jpg
AR26 a07060db626170846ff126480a36af3a 12683
00023thm.jpg
AR27 30f0a6ab2c36ae0bb84a081d6ca6df03 44699
00024.QC.jpg
AR28 15f23e03fd403f7347d1bf0654a7185d 10033
00024thm.jpg
AR29 99086b5ddd8588eaac1a59ebf188bf09 72318
00025.QC.jpg
AR30 76ac201e37585651b311b025fdf91d93 13125
00025thm.jpg
AR31 5f2552f76504ead2ac64ca41b04e3948 61203
00026.QC.jpg
AR32 7022ca9b959c45265d9ba2d48f596fbf 11527
00026thm.jpg
AR33 af2b5fdbc5057d7776f1e3a7c84ea886 62984
00027.QC.jpg
AR34 83d5c793b454080b5d8a59d030349502 11803
00027thm.jpg
AR35 846878ec42b0a0b86643f4789284d12b 42682
00028.QC.jpg
AR36 da74da641967eefb379564a24724a67f 9058
00028thm.jpg
AR37 6051234804712f8588fc433715c41cea 68039
00029.QC.jpg
AR38 ab4ff7e1e6c2ae75a12fcc41cc2dbed5 12392
00029thm.jpg
AR39 0d3a374f1f550a7a612c4b1c29cc03db 44722
00030.QC.jpg
AR40 6b2f3c2b6a57e6d9ceeac2c615ab112d 10159
00030thm.jpg
AR41 5241537b2c2425cd6f902d672112c208 48424
00031.QC.jpg
AR42 9b2c5af3154ff169fc3af5f35e72a7b7 10717
00031thm.jpg
AR43 8887087c2597b5975f7e6f1ac4e1fb66 65013
00032.QC.jpg
AR44 dcb1611ee299b7abcd52ba03e0833315 12121
00032thm.jpg
AR45 e823dc03e263828b164cab9812e75d77 59083
00033.QC.jpg
AR46 afa4e240df38be81a7df377889b73cd9 11804
00033thm.jpg
AR47 07f82153c8fffc7895c193011e109374 67782
00034.QC.jpg
AR48 878aad49a53e3cfc5cd49471511beab0 13387
00034thm.jpg
AR49 f53ee7cf7efc06e08f550f93f8f01cdc 68080
00035.QC.jpg
AR50 f58e982d242349058816afe7f8589f42 12686
00035thm.jpg
AR51 0384e5e005bdee9721c49b4c71f8b9b1 61884
00036.QC.jpg
AR52 a4f9ee6dccd041da4abe38a6764a120f
00036thm.jpg
AR53 bdf5fcf9d3898dbceffc6c6fb09fba77 56936
00037.QC.jpg
AR54 53b4db7308b8653e552b518d6acb025b 10918
00037thm.jpg
AR55 351083c8496a0c32b869e5326f4d3a59 53485
00038.QC.jpg
AR56 11df1151a0c47f2ac6c8b310dde11dd9 11438
00038thm.jpg
AR57 a39c240e892e120d77dc057bde7d1cb6 61225
00039.QC.jpg
AR58 90985bcdf85781664bc9176b77dfedb6 13171
00039thm.jpg
AR59 e3071e9de8ee7c5285ed029c069aaa25 63712
00040.QC.jpg
AR60 f107e2eefc249847b22755b7d950d5b1 12630
00040thm.jpg
AR61 29061669bd317e01226e7596345eb800 49822
00041.QC.jpg
AR62 646f895ba7be49cfdcf5b595132bfe9e 10950
00041thm.jpg
AR63 a55dbf24c93c9597a27c88997240cfe0 54247
00042.QC.jpg
AR64 d9486809120a1a98e95b42e79fbaf50e 11173
00042thm.jpg
AR65 678e0a59f2eb197a3bad7f6e78ac0630 60057
00043.QC.jpg
AR66 7cb6830a7ad93e71bd72886d10302fe5 11695
00043thm.jpg
AR67 69207ff278e51e5229e36f41df540508 65836
00044.QC.jpg
AR68 5d3814377a9e7bbff4306470c50bfa99 11879
00044thm.jpg
AR69 6c7216d5c685f2ddc3eb1d29ff5efd91 48126
00045.QC.jpg
AR70 a95a2fd46e4096ce14bdaec31141d8db 10226
00045thm.jpg
AR71 9a1fe7de93d0fb0bd6e03a31239856db 60541
00046.QC.jpg
AR72 bf5108f8829a37f8ba833b5279ec3440 12168
00046thm.jpg
AR73 974ca1acfc599f88203353082b29f9a5 49403
00047.QC.jpg
AR74 121958c14a4af2dd563005252e56e6e5 10475
00047thm.jpg
AR75 b20d8ca896ed3c264c3d261c7b5d2bdc 57000
00048.QC.jpg
AR76 d9faedf042e45e911129c3e3d533148f 11169
00048thm.jpg
AR77 fbd82af6e139075a85e0347e173692c7 66142
00049.QC.jpg
AR78 8211991c89448c1e6a53609e2107f2ee 11945
00049thm.jpg
AR79 2bc3b0ac3c0907534adc572b189e2333 48439
00050.QC.jpg
AR80 9b37f87fb294bdf1390d5ee7aea67eab 10792
00050thm.jpg
AR81 78bf17a74118e492606cfe40b9e3099f 52417
00051.QC.jpg
AR82 245bd9d1b3255501e3309a408ddf36fc 11186
00051thm.jpg
AR83 278ec19d9f3ddcda9d2ec5168ccf3e57 48856
00052.QC.jpg
AR84 f35516ceaf11b6a2d9d876084d4f826c 10493
00052thm.jpg
AR85 1b7a429ee65ff108f3406065e3a7930a 67193
00053.QC.jpg
AR86 c44a10816d673f232b94789f147ec3c8 12519
00053thm.jpg
AR87 13907489035cb122ab710889c078a29f 70762
00054.QC.jpg
AR88 dc8daac80e924facd90d1e9fc0a3e5b0 12798
00054thm.jpg
AR89 fc7ac1bd25dffe7b7bf6d2eac6901fb6 64118
00055.QC.jpg
AR90 9e4af41d6b5745522977daa25bb9df65 12638
00055thm.jpg
AR91 84cd15c15b42edf135fb76ca1e986335 38411
00056.QC.jpg
AR92 e8e45b479106aa248e3290270d7c90d2 7063
00056thm.jpg
AR93 84c9c3c676bea8fd8ecc7d110a343ee0 52070
00057.QC.jpg
AR94 a313119460e387076e4517fbc453bbb6 11304
00057thm.jpg
AR95 c19de7ee1fa1845f484d2d22f0df356b 13621
00058.QC.jpg
AR96 e33ecde80af1c5220785dda020cebb6b 1428
00058thm.jpg
AR97 4a1d7725bc174a74ea757c35528d5199 18061
00059.QC.jpg
AR98 7984b1e39e09f2401f9c7a2daac7385c 2761
00059thm.jpg
AR99 31d105fbf4688db811e59d416f24c956 71560
00060.QC.jpg
AR100 44be790140a05cd072e83f988216cc21 13241
00060thm.jpg
AR101 ebade37f348e71819c9e031ea7d0705a 59523
00061.QC.jpg
AR102 ff62ff233bc6d20f9993bab2ae0cc2fd 12345
00061thm.jpg
AR103 89c7933ae878b1780c6079c157431fce 26092
00062.QC.jpg
AR104 c18b090e7bf374bb28895d9637632e17 4645
00062thm.jpg
AR105 8f67448bbf5bc1836548f7ecf33a5a26 14208
00063.QC.jpg
AR106 cb94c54401052ebdb71aeaffdb35cdc8 1693
00063thm.jpg
AR107 e0f86e7b881092adfb7b7a02ca8b290c 36409
00064.QC.jpg
AR108 6e49629cf0e86a519d477ae8475de39b 8541
00064thm.jpg
AR109 d23d4b98655e96cdd52d3eebd939bf10 45794
00065.QC.jpg
AR110 428084ef89f7072f4772d47479e1fdbe 9928
00065thm.jpg
AR111 f09c8b38d79738c2c1471cc4c0906e4f 41285
00066.QC.jpg
AR112 0990397778b0366029f9072fd9c1fc09 8489
00066thm.jpg
AR113 dc3f4ed47cd28dc9d74f9a8ca69f3610 42051
00067.QC.jpg
AR114 06e092bfed240309c6ed5cbf9c377e10 9125
00067thm.jpg
AR115 57f75978715a4b8dd56d4a568650730d 13569
00068.QC.jpg
AR116 7969c3ae4a1dd6ff27ab113c0af6a27d 1500
00068thm.jpg
AR117 7ddc5b7e271271c32e51f22acc2cb2df 14352
00069.QC.jpg
AR118 30ee38e77f98ef0423fd76cb1b2866b3 1729
00069thm.jpg
AR119 958f74b3eb1754b8d95a37d6056132e7 41952
00070.QC.jpg
AR120 26e3f367b3f79db0e2f08a0366b3af52 9428
00070thm.jpg
AR121 8d850da6cee806670c811278692666b5 65999
00071.QC.jpg
AR122 d96c28b1c506ea40fc056680f6323191 14834
00071thm.jpg
AR123 311f6ee8983180b516a008a524a60e88 62884
00072.QC.jpg
AR124 34b5bfa70ca252b2cc3ba520072066b1 15168
00072thm.jpg
AR125 fe5ddae9f01d4b0609ddb5f4345a2c24 57009
00073.QC.jpg
AR126 5e248b743bbde9d894c9a51621d2b8e0 12951
00073thm.jpg
AR127 dd300ba69f42a1e266efbaf0d73ca84f 50081
00074.QC.jpg
AR128 6bd7cdb58870482174f70f6fd8638872 10482
00074thm.jpg
AR129 21c94fc62ee95548c61aa0c202512be7 42719
00075.QC.jpg
AR130 496fee2551d7e6d12d2cd9ab38491315 9397
00075thm.jpg
AR131 3cb92b6b7c43e8061965395d63ceb3a2 64003
00076.QC.jpg
AR132 281d62e9f5e8ded35c86a0e5c8131b9e 14532
00076thm.jpg
AR133 24525a3026984c8f615f60dc770bb37a 63454
00077.QC.jpg
AR134 d1c6f406865e2e33352ee65ceb0832e8 15347
00077thm.jpg
AR135 c828527a69bd5516eac1bd432dc58084 54577
00078.QC.jpg
AR136 60f9ffd51cdeb76970e1b86500e4291c 12713
00078thm.jpg
AR137 6cb20f74f6686a566b8e9323562ddefb 48318
00079.QC.jpg
AR138 9f50c8ae6993f020c4ff001510c4a81b 10500
00079thm.jpg
AR139 4e3f305b1dc854cc7db76bea2f9eb548 42028
00080.QC.jpg
AR140 3554bb50480a6820a4daa667a4cef427 9228
00080thm.jpg
AR141 f8d65d3f96e8fdfaee75819f4f5ad42a 61955
00081.QC.jpg
AR142 ac4abc1dcf179c7001b9d1404adee3e4 14556
00081thm.jpg
AR143 6e198223499015b03f08c019f2067d1e 62630
00082.QC.jpg
AR144 0f720935ddbe75bdf1c5b6cf647bef1e 15533
00082thm.jpg
AR145 b0ac21bf081843efeba30c7612f46e8c 55080
00083.QC.jpg
AR146 221bac8328bd0c813d167edf333038dd 12702
00083thm.jpg
AR147 a8897b5c89983365dfc9592227ef9dd7 50760
00084.QC.jpg
AR148 7a483a2099d3fcf9c259b3369b68af5a 10561
00084thm.jpg
AR149 be12fb97b1b77fde1e8864cc2ca4ea1b 131068
UF00049214_00001.mets
METS:structMap STRUCT1 mixed
METS:div DMDID Consumer attitudes toward food safety and willingness to accept selected bacterial control measures for fresh chicken : a report ORDER 0 main
D1 Historic note 1 Chapter
P1 Page
METS:fptr FILEID
D2 2 Front Cover
P2 cover
D3 Title
P4 page
D4 4 Abstract
P6 i
D5 Center information 5
P8 ii
D6 6 Table of Contents
P10 iii
P12 iv
P14 v
D7 7 Acknowledgement
P16 vi
D8 Summary 8
P18 vii
P20 viii
D9 9 Main
P22
P23
P24
P25
P26
P27
P28
P29
P30
P31 10
P32 11
P33 12
P34 13
P35 14
P36 15
P37 16
P38 17
P39 18
P40 19
P41 20
P42 21
P43 22
P44 23
P45 24
P46 25
P47 26
P48 27
P49 28
P50 29
P51 30
P52 31
P53 32
P54 33
P55 34
P56 35
P57 36
D10 Reference
P58 37
P59 38
D11 Contingent valuation pay Appendix
P60 39
P61 40
P62 41
P63 42
D12 Tables
P64 43
P65 44
P66 45
P67 46
P68 47
P69 48
D13 Questionnaires
P70 49
P71 50
P72 51
P73 52
P74 53
P75 54
P76 55
P77 56
P78 57
P79 58
P80 59
P81 60
P82 61
P83 62
P84 63
P85 64


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID ELZ1OHNPH_T7J5PN INGEST_TIME 2011-07-01T09:31:49Z PACKAGE UF00049214_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES