Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T05:39:35.105Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Contingent Valuation in Food Policy Analysis: A Case Study of a Pesticide-Residue Risk Reduction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2015

Jean C. Buzby ,
Richard C. Ready  and
Jerry R. Skees
Jean C. Buzby
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Kentucky
Richard C. Ready
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Kentucky
Jerry R. Skees
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Kentucky
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study demonstrates how contingent valuation techniques can be used in a cost-benefit analysis of a food safety policy issue. The analysis focuses on banning a specific postharvest pesticide used in fresh grapefruit packinghouses. Benefits of the ban are measured using consumers' aggregated willingness to pay (WTP) for safer grapefruit. A national contingent valuation survey used the payment card method to obtain WTP data. Costs of the ban stem predominantly from increased postharvest losses and were estimated using a model of the market for Florida grapefruit. Results indicate that benefits of the ban outweigh costs.

Keywords

contingent valuationcost-benefit analysisfood safetypesticideswillingness to pay
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 27 , Issue 2 , December 1995 , pp. 613 - 625
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 1995

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

Byrne, P.J., C.M., Gempesaw, and C, U.. Toensmeyer. “An Evaluation of Consumer Pesticide Residue Concerns and Risk Information Sources.” S. J. Agr. Econ. 23(1991): 167-74.Google Scholar
Buzby, Jean C. and Skees, Jerry R.. “Consumer Food Safety Concerns.” Food Review, U.S. Dept. of Agr., Econ. Res. Serv., 17,2(May-Aug. 1994): 19–22.Google Scholar
Buzby, Jean C. and Spreen, Thomas H.. “The Impacts on the U.S. Grapefruit Industry of Banning the Pesticide Sodium ortho-phenylphenate.” J. Food Dist. Res. Forthcoming 26,2(Sept. 1995).Google Scholar
Buzby, JeanC, JerrySkees, R., and Ready, Richard C.. “Using Contingent Valuation to Value Food Safety: A Case Study of Grapefruit and Pesticide Residues.” Chapter 12 in Julie Caswell's, Ed., Valuing Food Safety and Nutrition, Boulder: Westview Press, 1995.Google Scholar
Carson, R.T., Carson, N., Alberini, A., Flores, N. E., and Wright, J.. A Bibliography of Contingent Valuation Studies and Papers. La Jolla, CA: Natural Resource Damage Assessment Inc., April 1993.Google Scholar
Citrograph, “Imazalil: A New Weapon in the Fruit Decay Battle.” Vol. 74, 1980.Google Scholar
Cristenson, Ralph. Radiation Sciences Department, University of Kentucky. Personal communication, Summer 1992.Google Scholar
Cummings, Ronald, Brookshire, David S., and Schulze, William D., eds., Valuing Environmental Goods. Totawa, NJ: Rowmand and Allanheld, 1986.Google Scholar
Dillman, Don A.Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1978.Google Scholar
Dunlap, R.E., and Beus, C.E.. “Understanding Public Concerns about Pesticides: An Empirical Examination.” J. Consumer Aff. 26(1992):418-38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elnagheeb, A.H., and Jordan, J.L.. “Public Perceptions of Food Safety,” Paper #FS-90-20. Dept. of Agr. Econ., Georgia Experiment Station, Griffin, Georgia. 1990.Google Scholar
Eom, Young Sook. “Consumers' Stated Preferences for Food Safety: The Case of Pesticide Residues on Fresh Produce,” Unpub. paper, Raleigh, NC: Res. and Environ. Econ. Prog. (REEP), NC State Univ., Feb. 1992.Google Scholar
Environmental Protection Agency, Freedom of Information Office, personal communication, Summer 1992.Google Scholar
Fisher, A., Chestnut, L. G. and M, D.. Violette. “The Value of Reducing Risks of Death: A Note on New Evidence.” J. Policy Analysis and Manage. 8,1(1989):88–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Florida Agricultural Statistics Service, Florida Dept. of Ag. and Consumer Services, Citrus Summary 1990-91, Orlando, Florida, Jan. 1992.Google Scholar
GPO, US Government Printing Office, Economic Indicators, No. 0-81-812, July 1994, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
Hoehn, John P., and Randall, Alan. “A Satisfactory Benefit Cost Indicator from Contingent Valuation.” J. Environ. Econ. and Manage. 14(Sept. 1987):226-47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jussaume, R.A. and Judson, D.H.. “Public Perceptions about Food Safety in the United States and Japan.” Rur. Soc. 57(1992):235-49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kmenta, Jan. Elements of Econometrics. New York: Macmillan Pub. Co., Inc. New York, 1971.Google Scholar
Loomis, John, and Duvair, Pierre. “Evaluating the Effect of Alternative Risk Communication Devices on Willingness to Pay: Results From a Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Experiment,” Land Econ. 69,3(Aug. 1993):287-98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Love, John M., and Buzby, Jean C.. “Pesticide Use in Fresh Grapefruit Packinghouses.” Econ. Res. Serv., U.S. Dept. Agr., Statistical Bulletin No. 858, July 1993.Google Scholar
Mitchell, Robert Cameron, and Carson, Richard T.. Using Surveys to Value Public Goods. Washington, D.C: Resources for the Future, 1989.Google Scholar
National Research Council (NRC), Board of Agriculture, Committee on Scientific and Regulatory Issues Underlying Pesticide Use Patterns and Agricultural Innovations. Regulating Pesticides in Food: The Delaney Paradox. Washington, D.C,: National Academy Press, 1987.Google Scholar
Ott, Stephen L. “Supermarket Shoppers' Pesticide Concerns and Willingness to Purchase Certified Pesticide Residue-Free Fresh Produce.” Agribus. 6,6,(1990):593–602.3.0.CO;2-Z>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pana, Regina, “A Model of the World Market for Fresh and Processed Grapefruit.” Unpublished thesis, University of Florida. Dept. of Food and Res. Econ., 1991.Google Scholar
Spreen, T., Sickle, J. D. van, Mosely, A. E., Deepak, M. S. De, and Mathers, L.. “Assessment of Long Term Economic Impacts of the Loss of Methyl Bromide on Florida.” Report to NAPIAP, USDA, 1994.Google Scholar
Tsun, Tom. Personal communication, Aug. 14 and Dec. 18, 1992.Google Scholar
U.S. Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1992 (112th Edition.) USGPO, Washington, D.C: 1991.Google Scholar
van Ravenswaay, Eileen O.Public Perceptions of Agrichemicals. Council for Agricultural Science and Technology, Ames, Iowa: Jan. 1995.Google Scholar
van Ravenswaay, Eileen O., and Hoehn, John P.. “Consumer Willingness to Pay for Reducing Pesticide, Residues in Food: Results of a Nationwide Survey,” Dept. of Ag. Econ., Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, No. 91-18, 1991a.Google Scholar
van Ravenswaay, Eileen O., and Hoehn, John P.. “The Impact of Health Risk on Food Demand: A Case Study of Alar and Apples,” in Julie Caswell's (ed.) Economics of Food Safety, Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc., New York, 1991b.Google Scholar
Viscusi, W.K. “The Value of Risks to Life and Health.” J. Econ. Lit. 31(Dec. 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. 8,2(1992): 131-42.3.0.CO;2-W>CrossRefGoogle Scholar