|
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.
|
