IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/uersfr/281069.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Is Meat Inspection Worth the Cost?

Author

Listed:
  • Roberts, Tanya

Abstract

Federal meat inspection was established near the turn of the century to protect the health of American consumers and to retain U.S. export markets. Federal poultry inspection was added in 1957. Most meat contaminants are not visible and consumers may not associate illness with meat or poultry products. Yet, those afflicted incur medical costs and lost income. Safer meat products are more costly to produce because inspectors and laboratory tests are necessary to make certain the meat is free of contaminants. And meat found to be contaminated (by disease, bacteria, molds, viruses, cysts, or chemical contaminants) must be taken off the market with a resulting loss of revenue from sales. Thus, there are conflicting interests between producers and the consuming public. The objective of effective regulation is to reach an optimum level of product safety that minimizes both the cost of providing product safety and the cost resulting from contaminant-related illness.

Suggested Citation

  • Roberts, Tanya, 1980. "Is Meat Inspection Worth the Cost?," Food Review/ National Food Review, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, vol. 0(1), September.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:uersfr:281069
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.281069
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/281069/files/Roberts.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.281069?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Livestock Production/Industries;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    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:uersfr:281069. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ersgvus.html .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.