Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T00:33:46.971Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Measuring Consumer Benefits of Food Safety Risk Reductions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2015

Jean C. Buzby ,
John A. Fox ,
Richard C. Ready  and
Stephen R. Crutchfleld
Jean C. Buzby
Affiliation:
Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture (ERS/USDA)
John A. Fox
Affiliation:
Kansas State University
Richard C. Ready
Affiliation:
Agricultural University of Norway
Stephen R. Crutchfleld
Affiliation:
ERS/USDA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Microbial pathogens and pesticide residues in food pose a financial burden to society which can be reduced by incurring costs to reduce these food safety risks. We explore three valuation techniques that place a monetary value on food safety risk reductions, and we present a case study for each: a contingent valuation survey on pesticide residues, an experimental auction market for a chicken sandwich with reduced risk of Salmonella, and a cost-of-illness analysis for seven foodborne pathogens. Estimates from these techniques can be used in cost/benefit analyses for policies that reduce food safety risks.

Keywords

contingent valuationcost of illnessexperimental auction marketfood safetyrisk reductionSalmonella
Type
Invited Paper Sessions
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 30 , Issue 1 , July 1998 , pp. 69 - 82
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Archer, D.L., and Kvenberg, J.E.. “Incidence and Cost of Foodborne Diarrheal Disease in the United States.” J. Food Protection 48(1985):887-94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Buzby, J.C., Ready, R.C., and Skees, J.R.. “Contingent Valuation in Food Policy Analysis: A Case Study of a Pesticide-Residue Risk Reduction.” J. Agr. and Appl. Econ. 27,2(December 1995):613-25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buzby, J., Roberts, T., Lin, C.-T.J., and MacDonald, J.. “Bacterial Foodborne Disease: Medical Costs and Productivity Losses.” Pub. No. AER 741, USDA/Economic Research Service, Washington DC, August 1996.Google Scholar
Carson, R.T., Wright, J., Alberini, A., Carson, N., and Flores, N.. A Bibliography of Contingent Valuation Studies and Papers. La Jolla CA: Natural Resource Damage Assessment, Inc., 1994.Google Scholar
Council for Agricultural Science and Technology(CAST). “Foodborne Pathogens: Risks and Consequences.” CAST Task Force Rep. No. 122, Washington DC, September 1994.Google Scholar
Crutchfield, S.R., Buzby, J., Roberts, T., Ollinger, M., and Lin, C.-T.J.. “An Economic Assessment of Food Safety Regulations.” Pub. No. AER 755, USDA/Economic Research Service, Washington DC, July 1997.Google Scholar
Crutchfield, S.R., Cooper, J., and Hellerstein, D.. “Benefits of Safer Drinking Water: The Value of Nitrate Reduction.” Pub. No. AER 752, USDA/Economic Research Service, Washington DC, June 1997.Google Scholar
Dillman, D.A.Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1978.Google Scholar
Fox, J.A. “Determinants of Consumer Acceptability of Bovine Somatotropin.” Rev. Agr. Econ. 17(1995):51–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, J.A., Shogren, J.E, Hayes, D.J., and Kliebenstein, J.B.. “CVM-X: Calibrating Contingent Values with Experimental Auction Markets.” Amer. J. Agr. Econ. (1998, forthcoming).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, J.A., Shogren, J.E, Hayes, D.J., and Kliebenstein, J.B.. “Experimental Auctions to Measure Willingness to Pay for Food Safety.” In Valuing Food Safety and Nutrition, ed., Caswell, J.A., Chap. 6. Boulder CO: Westview Press, 1995.Google Scholar
Halbrendt, C, Pesek, J., Parsons, A., and Lindner, R.. “Using Conjoint Analysis to Assess Consumer's Acceptance of pST-Supplemented Pork.” In Valuing Food Safety and Nutrition, ed., Caswell, J.A., Chap. 7. Boulder CO: Westview Press, 1995.Google Scholar
Hayes, D.J., Shogren, J.F., Shin, S.Y., and Kliebenstein, J.B.. “Valuing Food Safety in Experimental Auction Markets.” Amer. J. Agr. Econ. 77(1995):40–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henson, S. “Consumer Willingness to Pay for Reductions in the Risk of Food Poisoning in the UK.” J. Agr. Econ. 47,3(1996):403-20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krinsky, I., and Robb, A.L.. “On Approximating the Statistical Properties of Elasticities.” Rev. Econ. and Statis. 68(November 1986):715-19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuchler, F, Ralston, K., Unnevehr, L., and Chandran, R.. “Pesticide Residues: Reducing Dietary Risk.” Pub. No. AER 728, USDA/Economic Research Service, Washington DC, January 1996.Google Scholar
Landefeld, J.S., and Seskin, E.P.. “The Economic Value of Life: Linking Theory to Practice.” Amer. J. Pubic Health 6(1982):555-66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lin, J., and Milon, W.. “Consumer Valuation of Health Risk on Food Demand and the Implications for Regulation.” In Valuing Food Safety and Nutrition, ed., Caswell, J.A., Chap. 5. Boulder CO: Westview Press, 1995.Google Scholar
Loomis, J., and Duvair, P.. “Evaluating the Effect of Alternative Risk Communication Devices on Willingness to Pay: Results from a Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Experiment.” Land Econ. 69,3(1993):287-98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Melton, B.E., Huffman, W.E., Shogren, J.F., and Fox, J.A.. “Consumer Preferences for Fresh Food Items with Multiple Quality Attributes: Evidence from an Experimental Auction of Pork Chops.” Amer. J. Agr. Econ. 78(1996):916-23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Misra, S.K, Huang, C.L., and Ott, S.L.. “Consumer Willingness to Pay for Pesticide-Free Fresh Produce.” West. J. Agr. Econ. 16,2(1991):218-27.Google Scholar
Ott, S.L. “Supermarket Shoppers' Pesticide Concerns and Willingness to Purchase Certified Pesticide Residue-Free Fresh Produce.” Agribus.: An Internat. J. 6,6(1990):593–602.3.0.CO;2-Z>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
“Pathogen Reduction: Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) Systems, Final Rule.” Federal Register 61,144(25 July 1996):38805-989.Google Scholar
“Procedures for the Safe and Sanitary Processing and Importing of Fish and Fishery Products: Final Rule.” Federal Register 60,242(18 December 1995):65095-200.Google Scholar
Ready, R.C., Buzby, J.C., and Hu, D.. “Differences Between Continuous and Discrete Contingent Valuation Estimates.” Land Econ. 72,3(August 1996):397–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roosen, J., Hennessy, D.A., Fox, J.A., and Schreiber, A.. “Measuring Consumers' Willingness to Pay for a Partial Banning of Pesticides on Apples.” Work. Pap., Dept. of Econ., Iowa State University, 1997.Google Scholar
shin, S.Y., Kliebenstein, J.B., Hayes, D.J., and Shogren, J.F.. “Consumer Willingness to Pay for Safer Food Products.” J. Food Safety 13(1992):51–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shogren, J.E, Shin, S.Y., Hayes, D.J., and Kliebenstein, J.B.. “Resolving Differences in Willingness to Pay and Willingness to Accept.” Amer. Econ. Rev. 84(1994):255-70.Google Scholar
van Ravenswaay, E.O., and Hoehn, J.P.. “Consumer Willingness to Pay for Reducing Pesticide Residues in Food: Results of a Nationwide Survey.” Pub. No. 91-18, Dept. of Agr. Econ., Michigan State University, 1991.Google Scholar
Viscusi, W.K. “The Value of Risks to Life and Health.” J. Econ. Lit. 31(December 1993):1912–46.Google Scholar
Weaver, R.D., Evans, D.J., and Luloff, A.E.. “Pesticide Use in Tomato Production: Consumer Concerns and Willingness to Pay.” Agribus.: An Internal. J. 8,2(1992):131-42.3.0.CO;2-W>CrossRefGoogle Scholar