Search results

Presents the results of a postal questionnaire to UK food and drink manufacturers on the costs of compliance with food regulation. In particular, the questionnaire focused on the usefulness of compliance cost assessments ‐ introduced by the Government in 1985 across all government departments as an analytical tool for assessing the regulatory costs to business ‐ as they relate to food businesses. Explains that the questionnaire sought to establish to what extent food companies actually costed the impact of food regulation on their business operations and explored other aspects of food regulation, such as the benefits and constraints. Reports the results which gave some unexpected insights on the costs of compliance with food regulation. For example, the majority of respondents were not aware that the Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food carried out compliance cost assessments on food regulation; around two‐thirds of the sample found it “difficult” or “very difficult” to identify where compliance costs would affect their company and an even greater proportion (more than three‐quarters) said they would have problems quantifying compliance costs. Concludes that the compliance cost assessment, as a tool for helping to analyse the cost of food regulation on businesses, is an inappropriate method for the food sector and the development of new methods should be considered.

Food allergy has potential to affect direct, indirect and intangible economic costs experienced by food allergic individuals and their families, resulting in negative impacts on welfare and well‐being. The purpose of this paper is to develop an instrument to assess these economic costs of food allergy at household level and to conduct an exploratory analysis of potential economic impact.

A case‐controlled postal pilot survey was conducted using a self‐completion instrument. Cases had either clinically or self‐diagnosed food allergy. Controls were obtained from households in which none of the members had food allergies.

The instrument appeared sensitive to the economic cost differences between households with and without food allergic members. Direct costs of health care were significantly higher for cases than for controls. Similar differences were identified for indirect cost of lost earnings, and costs due to inability to perform domestic tasks because of ill health. Intangible costs (self‐reported health status and well‐being), indicated significantly lower subjective well‐being for cases.

Larger sample sizes will be needed to reliably assess the size of impact, cross‐cultural variation in costs, and whether costs vary according to severity of food allergy or between diagnosed versus self‐reported food allergy. The costs effectiveness of diagnostic methods or interventions may also be assessed using this instrument. If economic costs of food allergy are significant in the population further consideration from a public health policy perspective will be required.

To date, economic impact of food allergy on individuals and households has not been quantified. The paper addresses this.

The purpose of this chapter is to examine the impact of the global food crisis of 2007–2008 on Tanzania’s real retail-food prices and on the cost of the typical food basket. The methodological approach is to compare real retail-food prices and food-basket costs in 20 regions of Tanzania with global food prices. The findings are that the global food crisis of 2007–2008 did not significantly cause food prices in Tanzania to increase and that domestic factors were more important drivers of food prices and food-basket costs. The social implication is that the impacts of the global food crisis on food prices and food-basket costs in developing countries may have been overestimated in previous research and the policy responses of the global community may have been inappropriate.

Food safety is an important means for controlling food‐borne diseases. While there are various procedures for food safety, HACCP‐based procedure has been considered as an efficient method for food‐safety. In Australia the introduction of HACCP‐based food‐safety measures has been recommended in particular for meat and meat products to replace the traditional organoleptic meat inspection procedure. Aims to estimate the costs and benefits.

Employing tools of social cost benefit analysis, this paper estimates the worth of the HACCP‐based food‐safety program. The analysis was carried out assuming five alternative scenarios with 3, 5, and 7 per cent interest rates.

The results of this study show that the HACCP‐based food‐safety programs are expected to generate net benefit to the society if the effectiveness ranged between 20 and 90 per cent. However, at the 10 per cent level of effectiveness, net benefit turns into net social loss.

Provides details of the costs and benefits of the HACCP‐based food‐safety programs in Australia.

The purpose of this paper is to examine how a new tool, material flow cost accounting (MFCA), can effectively support and be used to improve food waste management in the restaurant industry, thereby improving the financial viability and environmental performance of restaurants.

The paper brings together two previously unrelated research streams – MFCA and restaurant waste management – with specific focus on food waste.

The advantages of using MFCA for assessing food waste in the restaurant industry are derived from the joint literatures. These include simplicity and low cost of application of the tool, as well as the potential for experimentation on a case-by-case basis to demonstrate the advantages for assessing and managing food waste in the industry.

This pragmatic research introduces the MFCA tool to the restaurant industry. It highlights the need for restaurants to implement MFCA for themselves for it to be effective. It also encourages small restaurants to work together to obtain the resource and financial advantages MFCA can deliver.

This is the first paper to integrate the internationally recognised International Organization for Standardization 14051 MFCA literature with the problem of food waste management in restaurants.

The purpose of this paper is to conduct economic evaluation of a school meal programme based on principles of a New Nordic Diet (NND) by assessing the costs of the NND lunch, compared with packed lunch from home, and investigating potential effects of adjusting the NND principles underlying the school meals on the costs and on the rate of food waste.

The analysis combines recipes, dietary records and food waste data from a school meal intervention with collected price data within an economic optimization framework.

A New Nordic School meal programme consisting of a morning snack and a hot lunch based on fixed seasonal menu plans and with 75 per cent organic content is 37 per cent more expensive in terms of ingredient costs than corresponding packed school meals. This cost differential can be almost halved by introducing more flexible scheduling of week plans and reducing the level of organic ambition to 60 per cent. Reducing portion sizes could reduce the cost differential by an extra 5 per cent, which would also reduce food waste by about 15 per cent.

Higher costs and food waste in a restrictive ingredient sourcing school meal programme can be reduced by increased flexibility in meal scheduling, reduction in organic content and reduced average portion size.

Organic food has additional quality attributes compared to those found in conventional food, such as environmental responsibility and health benefits. Information about these attributes is scarce and complex, the assortment of organic foods is deficient and there are fewer places that sell this kind of food. These factors increase the uncertainty and the transaction costs (TCs) for potential organic fresh fruit and vegetable (FFV) consumers. This paper aims to show the influence of these costs on the intensity of organic FFV consumption, particularly among high-income consumers.

The empirical strategy was based on a survey, and data were collected by administering a structured online questionnaire among residents of the Brazilian Federal District. Organic food consumption was decomposed into three different intensity categories. Data analysis was based on two logistic models, a multinomial regression and an ordered regression, where perceived economic value and different dimensions of TCs were the main independent variables, and the intensity of organic food consumption was the dependent variable.

The results show that organic food consumers are not a homogeneous group, and that perceived economic value and the TCs associated with searching for marketplaces, inadequate product assortment and distrust in health benefits and in organic authenticity are important inhibitors of organic FFV consumption and help explain the intensity of consumption.

This study innovates, as it takes a post-purchase approach, examines different groups based on the intensity of their consumption of organic FFV and focuses on perceived economic value and TCs as important explanations of the intensity of organic FFV consumption.

The Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA), designed to establish and enforce food-safety standards for foods from domestic and foreign origins, focuses federal regulation on the prevention of food contamination. Many concerns have been expressed about how FSMA-compliance costs will affect the economic viability of very small and small farms, which have higher average compliance costs than do larger farms, thus marginalizing their ability to compete in the marketplace. The purpose of this study is to estimate how FSMA will affect differently sized US and international tomato producers in the fresh-tomato industry. A simulation approach is applied for changes of quantities demanded, revenues, and profits for differently sized farms based on elasticities estimated using a differential approach. Our findings indicate that both domestic and foreign tomato producers with both very small and small farms are expected to see significant losses in profit after the adoption of FSMA. The practical implications of these findings are that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) should be aware of, be concerned about, and take into consideration the adverse consequences of their regulatory decisions on food prices, food-industry costs, the structure of the food industry, and product diversity. In essence, the FDA needs to strike a balance between food safety (the primary objective of FSMA) and market performance.

Contaminated food is a major source of illnesses around the world. This research seeks to learn how people assign responsibility for two food contamination risks and how they allocate costs to reduce these risks to four members of the food supply chain. The aims are to identify differences between countries and test options to control for cultural differences.

A random sample of online panellists from six countries (N = 6,090) was surveyed on how they assigned responsibility for controlling natural and accidental food contamination (traditional food safety) and for controlling intentional contamination (food defense) to farmers, transporters/distributors, retailer grocery stores/restaurants and consumers. They were also asked how they would allocate food safety and defense costs to the four groups. Differences between countries were tested with dummy variables and cultural measures.

In nearly every country, respondents assigned the least responsibility and allocated the smallest cost shares to consumers. In multivariate models, responsibility and cost-share results differed, suggesting that preferences varied by country and that respondents did not allocate costs the same way they assessed responsibility. The food safety and defense models also differed, implying that the respondents believed the two sources of contamination represented different risks.

This is the first study to examine how adults allocate the responsibility and costs for food safety and defense to farmers, transporters/distributors, retailer grocery stores/restaurants and consumers. Other research did not differentiate between these two food risks. This study also compared Hofstede's cultural measures with the recently developed Minkov's cultural measures.

The milk supply of our country, in one form or another, has been the subject of discussion year after year at Congress meetings. Its importance is an admitted fact, but, notwithstanding, I again venture to call attention to the matter. On this occasion, however, I do not propose to touch much of the ground already covered by former papers, but to consider the results of experiments and observations made while dealing with milk supply under the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts. For many years dairy regulations have been in force throughout the country which deal with the construction of floors and walls, and with lighting and ventilation. The owners of dairy farms in many parts of Scotland have spent large sums of money in improving their farms. Indeed, some enthusiasts have gone the length of introducing a system of heating and mechanical means of ventilation. It is only reasonable to pause and consider the practical results of these improvements, and to discover who are reaping the benefits from a milk supply standpoint. Do the owners of dairy farms receive anything like a fair return for their capital outlay? No. It is a well‐known fact that rents are on the down grade. Is the farmer of to‐day in a better financial position than formerly? No. He will tell you that the working of a “modern dairy” is more expensive than in the old steading, and that there is less flow of milk from the cows in the large airy byre than in the small old “biggin.” The price of milk is considerably less than it was fifteen or twenty years ago. At that time it ranged from 10d. to 1s. per gallon, and it is well known to you that hundreds of gallons of milk are now sent into our large cities for at least a distance of 100 miles, carriage paid, at 7½d. per gallon. In some cases the price is 9d. per gallon during the winter and 7½d. in summer. A farmer I know has a contract with a dairyman to supply him with 20 gallons of sweet milk, 16 gallons of skim milk, and 4 gallons of cream every day at an average rate of 7½d. per gallon all the year round. I have proved, by having test samples taken of the sweet milk, that it contains an average fat of 4.89 per cent. in 16 gallons. Neither the owner nor occupier of the farm can be any better off so long as such small prices prevail. Does the profit then come to the consumer? It does not.