Until better information can be provided, these answers are expected to be of con- 
siderable value as preliminary estimates of costs that might be paid to radiation- 
pasteurize the commodities involved. They can give persons charged with research and 
development planning the benefit of the opinions and judgments of produce industry per- 
sonnel who handle the selected commodities. 
The following comments reflect some of the assumptions made by the respondents in 
estimating the costs summarized in table 2. 
1. 'Need more information on costs of process and on potential benefits throughout 
market channel. Give us better estimates on the economies and on the quality improve- 
ments, then we can determine what we can pay." 
2. ''What the market system could pay depends on how much spoilage is saved and 
the price received for the commodity. "' 
3. "If retail price dropped as a result of longer supply of a more durable product, 
market would not absorb any increase in processing costs. Would then result in shipper 
and grower accepting a reduced margin. "' 
4, ''The housewife will not be willing to pay any more if she can continue to buy good 
produce at lower prices. Overall market would not absorb any price increase,"' 
5. ''Could replace cost now paid for spoilage inhibitors. "' 
6. "Any increase in cost would likely be offset by reduction in losses through spoil- 
age so that consumer prices would not have to be increased. If it cost the consumer more 
money it would not be acceptable. "' 
7. ''Market is too variable to say what it will absorb; weather factors have a great 
influence. Market would likely absorb some increase in price, but could not say how 
much, 
8. ''The industry is always interested in putting a better product on the market and 
is willing to pay to get it if proven to be beneficial at a feasible cost level.'"' 
9. "If it provides a better product, the market automatically will pay for its added 
cost and maybe up to three times that amount." 
10. ''So far, experience in the shipping of produce indicates that the cost of new 
practices cannot be passed on to our buyers, but retailers and others at that end of the 
market can get a higher price for the improved produce. "' 
Question 7. --If radiation pasteurization is proved to be commercially feasible and is 
adopted by the produce industry, how might it affect the production and marketing of fresh 
strawberries, peaches, tomatoes, grapes, oranges, and grapefruit? 
No substantial difference in responses was noted among commodities. Survey re- 
sponses for all commodities combined are as follows (appendix A, table 13): 
Percent of respondents 
linehiealsielv.ollumiec mueiseers crereietene ecre. sien 47 
ID ere \iellibheets on Somos 6 cen moo oe 8 
Nor onan vest Ollie mi. miecsiee ce ene i 
Do not know or no ansSwer....>..ee. 31 
By marketing function performed, percentages of respondents estimating increased 
production and marketing volume are: growers and shippers 57, wholesalers 28, and 
chainstore produce managers 79 percent. Wholesalers represent the lowest percentage, 
but this could be attributed mainly to the fact that about 50 percent of them did not answer 
the question. For comparison, about 25 percent of the growers and shippers and 5 per- 
cent of the chainstore produce managers did not answer. 
Numerous comments were received concerning the possible effect of radiation pas- 
teurization on production and market volume, and on production and marketing practices 
for the selected commodities. These comments were typical: 
1. ''The grower would not be interested because the process would create surplus by 
increasing consumable supply. It would reduce the volume handled by commission merchants 
7 
