IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

Contingent Valuation In Food Policy Analysis: A Case Study Of A Pesticide-Residue Risk Reduction


  • Buzby, Jean C.
  • Ready, Richard C.
  • Skees, Jerry R.


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 post harvest 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 post harvest losses and were estimated using a model of the market for Florida grapefruit. Results indicate that benefits of the ban outweigh costs.

Suggested Citation

  • Buzby, Jean C. & Ready, Richard C. & Skees, Jerry R., 1995. "Contingent Valuation In Food Policy Analysis: A Case Study Of A Pesticide-Residue Risk Reduction," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 27(02), December.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:joaaec:15278

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Buzby, Jean C. & Spreen, Thomas H., 1995. "The Impacts On The U.S. Grapefruit Industry From Banning The Pesticide Sodium Ortho-Phenylphenate," Journal of Food Distribution Research, Food Distribution Research Society, vol. 26(2), September.
    2. Buzby, Jean C. & Skees, Jerry R. & Ready, Richard C., 1995. "Chapter 12: USING CONTINGENT VALUATION TO VALUE FOOD SAFETY: A CASE STUDY OF GRAPEFRUIT AND PESTICIDE RESIDUES," Valuing Food Safety and Nutrition (1995), Regional Research Project NE-165 Private Strategies, Public Policies, and Food System Performance, number 25972.
    3. Hoehn, John P. & Randall, Alan, 1987. "A satisfactory benefit cost indicator from contingent valuation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 14(3), pages 226-247, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:joaaec:15278. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (AgEcon Search). General contact details of provider: .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.