IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

A fuzzy multi-criteria approach for the ex-ante impact assessment of food safety policies

Listed author(s):
  • Mazzocchi, Mario
  • Ragona, Maddalena
  • Zanoli, Agostina

There are many obstacles hindering regulatory impact assessment (RIA) for food safety policies, mainly difficulties in the monetisation of impacts and major uncertainties in assessing some of the policy outcomes. This paper reviews these obstacles and explores how a procedure based on fuzzy methods could address them. The resulting tool (named ‘Scryer’) consists in the combination of an explicit scoring system with indicators of uncertainty in assessments, and the application of fuzzy logic to multi-criteria analysis. Among the desirable properties of Scryer there are the ability of aggregating a variety of different impacts without necessarily monetise them, and the flexibility to adjust to qualitative and model-based impact assessment. An illustrative application on regulating mycotoxin contents in cereals and cereal products is provided.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030691921200125X
Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Food Policy.

Volume (Year): 38 (2013)
Issue (Month): C ()
Pages: 177-189

as
in new window

Handle: RePEc:eee:jfpoli:v:38:y:2013:i:c:p:177-189
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2012.11.011
Contact details of provider: Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/foodpol

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

as
in new window


  1. Antle, John M., 1999. "Benefits and costs of food safety regulation," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(6), pages 605-623, December.
  2. Dubois, Didier & Prade, Henri, 1989. "Fuzzy sets, probability and measurement," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 40(2), pages 135-154, May.
  3. Tanya Roberts & Jean C. Buzby & Michael Ollinger, 1996. "Using Benefit and Cost Information to Evaluate a Food Safety Regulation: HACCP for Meat and Poultry," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 78(5), pages 1297-1301.
  4. Jensen, Helen H. & Unnevehr, Laurian J. & Gómez, Miguel I., 1998. "Costs of Improving Food Safety in the Meat Sector," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 30(01), pages 83-94, July.
  5. Crutchfield, Stephen R. & Buzby, Jean C. & Roberts, Tanya & Ollinger, Michael & Lin, Chung-Tung Jordan, 1997. "Economic Assessment of Food Safety Regulations: The New Approach to Meat and Poultry Inspection," Agricultural Economics Reports 34009, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
  6. Laurian J. Unnevehr, 1996. "The Benefits and Costs of Food Safety Policies: Discussion," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 78(5), pages 1302-1304.
  7. Jensen, Helen H. & Unnevehr, Laurian J. & Gomez, Miguel I., 1998. "Costs of Improving Food Safety in the Meat Sector (The)," Staff General Research Papers Archive 1156, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
  8. Gamper, C.D. & Turcanu, C., 2007. "On the governmental use of multi-criteria analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(2), pages 298-307, April.
  9. Munda, G. & Nijkamp, P. & Rietveld, P., 1995. "Qualitative multicriteria methods for fuzzy evaluation problems: An illustration of economic-ecological evaluation," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 82(1), pages 79-97, April.
  10. Caswell, Julie A., 1998. "Valuing the benefits and costs of improved food safety and nutrition," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 42(4), December.
  11. Henson, Spencer & Caswell, Julie, 1999. "Food safety regulation: an overview of contemporary issues," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(6), pages 589-603, December.
  12. Bernauer, Thomas & Caduff, Ladina, 2004. "In Whose Interest? Pressure Group Politics, Economic Competition and Environmental Regulation," Journal of Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 24(01), pages 99-126, May.
  13. Munda, G. & Nijkamp, P. & Rietveld, P., 1992. "Comparison of fuzzy sets : a new semantic distance," Serie Research Memoranda 0055, VU University Amsterdam, Faculty of Economics, Business Administration and Econometrics.
  14. Munda, Giuseppe, 2004. "Social multi-criteria evaluation: Methodological foundations and operational consequences," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 158(3), pages 662-677, November.
  15. Sven Anders & Claudia Schmidt, 2011. "The international quest for an integrated approach to microbial food-borne risk prioritization: where do we stand?," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(2), pages 215-239, February.
  16. John M. Antle, 2000. "No Such Thing as a Free Safe Lunch: The Cost of Food Safety Regulation in the Meat Industry," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 82(2), pages 310-322.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jfpoli:v:38:y:2013:i:c:p:177-189. 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: (Dana Niculescu)

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.