Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T15:54:48.439Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Estimating the economic benefits of avoiding food-borne risk: is ‘willingness to pay’ feasible?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

C. Donaldson ,
T. Mapp ,
M. Ryan  and
K. Curtin
C. Donaldson
Affiliation:
Health Economics Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, University Medical Buildings, Foresterhill, Aberdeen AB9 2ZD, Scotland
T. Mapp
Affiliation:
Department of Public Health, University of Aberdeen
M. Ryan
Affiliation:
Health Economics Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, University Medical Buildings, Foresterhill, Aberdeen AB9 2ZD, Scotland
K. Curtin
Affiliation:
Department of Public Health, University of Aberdeen
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

In this paper, the results of a pilot study of willingness to pay (WTP) to avoid poultry-borne illness are reported. Through this, the problems of devising an economic measure of the ‘intangible’ benefits of prevention of food-borne risk are explored. The study is the first to allow those against a prevention policy (irradiation of poultry-meat) to register their WTP not to have the policy implemented. The study demonstrates that it is feasible to obtain answers to WTP questions from a self-selected sample. Future studies should ensure greater representativeness of respondents, that better information about benefits is provided to respondents and that an appropriate method of aggregation of benefits is used.

Type
Special Article
Information
Epidemiology & Infection , Volume 116 , Issue 3 , June 1996 , pp. 285 - 294
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1996

References

REFERENCES

1.Swinbank, A. The economics of food safety. Food Policy, 04 1993: 83–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.Henson, S, Traill, B. The demand for food safety. Food Policy 04 1993: 152–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3.Carr, G. Valuing reductions in morbidity: The case of food-borne illnesses. MSc Dissertation, University of York 1992.Google Scholar
4.Erlichman, J. Food poisoning cases reach all time high. Guardian, 9 01 1993: 3.Google Scholar
5.Yule, BFMacLeod, AF, Sharp, JCM, Forbes, GI. Costing of a hospital based outbreak of poultry-borne salmonellosis. Epidemiol Infect 1988; 100: 35–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6.Roberts, JA, Sockett, PN, Gill, ON. Economic impact of a nationwide outbreak of salmonellosis: cost benefit of early intervention. BMJ 1989; 298: 127–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7.Reilly, WJ, Forbes, GI, Sharp, JCM, Oboegulem, SI, Collier, PW, Paterson, GM. Poultry-borne salmonellosis in Scotland. Epidemiol Infect 1988; 101: 115–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8. Scottish Health Statistics, Information and Statistics Division, The National Health Service in Scotland, Edinburgh, 1992.Google Scholar
9.Baird-Parker, AC. Food borne illness. Lancet 1990; 336: 1231–5.Google Scholar
10.Lacey, R. Safe shopping, safe cooking, safe eating – simple rules that can protect you and your family. London: Penguin, 1989.Google Scholar
11.Advisory Committee on Irradiated and Novel Foods. Report on the safety and wholesomeness of irradiated foods. London: HMSO, 1986.Google Scholar
12.World Health Organisation. Food Irradiation: a technique for preserving and improving the safety of food. Geneva: WHO; 1988.Google Scholar
13.Yule, BF, Forbes, GI, MacLeod, AF, Sharp, JCM. The costs and benefits of preventing poultry-borne salmonellosis in Scotland by irradiation. Discussion Paper 05/86, Health Economics Research Unit: University of Aberdeen, 1986.Google Scholar
14.Reilly, WJ, Yule, BF, Forbes, GI, Sharp, JCM. Prevention of poultry-borne salmonellosis by irradiation: costs and benefits in Scotland. In: cost-benefit aspects of food irradiation processing. Vienna: International Atomic Energy Agency, 1993.Google Scholar
15.Coghlan, A. Irradiated food: too hot to handle? New Scientist, 17 02. 1990: 28–9.Google Scholar
16.Lally, V. Bacteria beware! Killing enzymes and bacteria with radiation is now a legal way of stopping food from going bad. Guardian, 3 03 1992.Google Scholar
17.Hall, C. Food irradiation ‘would be a confidence trick’. Independent, 26 04 1989: 6.Google Scholar
18.Hall, C. A deceitful strawberry, given the temporary gift of youth, Independent, 2 05 1989: 18.Google Scholar
19.Hunt, L. Irradiation opposed by most food retailers. Independent, 14 01 1989; 5.Google Scholar
20.Shin, S, Kliebenstein, J, Hayes, DJ, Shogren, JF. Consumer willingness to pay for safer food products. J Food Safety 1992; 13: 51–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21.Zellner, JA, Degner, RL. Consumer willingness to pay for safer food. Conference paper (1989) cited in: Smallwood DM, Blaylock JR, Consumer demand models for food and safety: models and applications, In Caswell, J, ed. Economics of food and safety. Elsevier, 1991; 19–23.Google Scholar
22.Mitchell, RC, Carson, RT. Using surveys to value public goods: The contingent valuation method. Washington: Resources for the Future, 1989.Google Scholar
23.Tobin, J. Estimation of relationships for limited dependent variables. Econometrica 1958; 26: 24–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24.McDonald, JF, Moffitt, RA. The uses of Tobit analysis. Rev Economics Statistics 1980; 62: 318–21.Google Scholar
25.Wetherill, GB. Intermediate statistical methods. London: Chapman and Hall, 1981.Google Scholar
26.Aldrich, JH, Nelson, FD. Linear probability, logit, and probit models. Sage University Paper No 45, Series on quantitative applications in the social sciences. Beverley Hills: Sage, 1984.Google Scholar
27.Yule, BF. The irradiation of poultry-meat to prevent salmonellosis in England and Wales: costs and benefits. Report to English Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Health Economics Research Unit: University of Aberdeen, 1991.Google Scholar
28. Meat demand trends. Meat and livestock commission, 1994.Google Scholar
29.Johannesson, M, Jonsson, B, Borgquist, L. Willingness to pay for antihypertensive therapy. J Health Econ 1991; 10: 461–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
30.Bateman, I, Willis, K, Garrod, G. Consistency between contingent valuation estimates: a comparison of two studies of UK national parks. Reg Studies 1994; 28: 457–74.Google Scholar
31.Arrow, K, Solow, R, Portney, PR, Learner, EE, Radner, R, Schuman, H. Report of the NOAA panel of contingent valuation. Washington DC: Federal Register 1993; 58: 4601–14.Google Scholar
32.Hanemann, WM. Valuing the environment through contingent valuation. J Econom Perspect 1994; 8: 19–43.Google Scholar