RTI uses cookies to offer you the best experience online. By clicking “accept” on this website, you opt in and you agree to the use of cookies. If you would like to know more about how RTI uses cookies and how to manage them please view our Privacy Policy here. You can “opt out” or change your mind by visiting: http://optout.aboutads.info/. Click “accept” to agree.
How should the health benefits of food safety programs be measured?
Smith, V. K., Mansfield, C., & Strong, A. (2014). How should the health benefits of food safety programs be measured? In GC. Blomquist, & K. Bolin (Eds.), Preference Measurement in Health (Advances in Health Economics and Health Services Research Series, Vol. 24) (pp. 161-202). Emerald Group Publishing Ltd.. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0731-2199_2014_0000024005
Purpose This chapter reports estimates of consumers’ preferences for plans to improve food safety.
Design/methodology/approach The plans are distinguished based on whether they address the ex ante risk of food borne illness or the ex post effects of the illness. They are also distinguished based on whether they focus on a public good – reducing risk of illness for all consumers or allowing individual households to reduce their private risks of contracting a food borne pathogen.
Findings Based on a National Survey conducted in 2007 using the Knowledge Network internet panel, our findings indicate consumers favor ex ante risk reductions and are willing to pay approximately $250 annually to reduce the risk of food borne illness. Moreover, they prefer private to public approaches and would not support efforts to reduce the severity of cases of illness over risk reductions.
Originality/value This study is the first research that allows a comparison of survey respondents’ choices between public and private mechanisms for ex ante risk reductions.
