IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this paper

Regulatory impact assessment of food safety policies: A preliminary study on alternative EU interventions on dioxins

Listed author(s):
  • Ragona, Maddalena
  • Mazzocchi, Mario
  • Rose, Martin

Regulatory impact assessment (RIA) for food safety policy interventions faces major obstacles, like scarce data availability and quality, especially when estimating their future effects on consumer health. In this paper, we run a preliminary RIA exercise on alternative EU policy initiatives to address the problem of dioxins in food, through a fuzzy multi-criteria analysis (FMCA) approach. 5 policy options are considered: the status quo situation (non-harmonised and non-efficient application of EU mandatory maximum levels in food and feed across Member States), a regulation imposing stricter (halved) limits, a stricter enforcement of the current regulation, and a co-regulatory version of the fourth option (with industry undertaking their own testing, and public authorities provide auditing and controls in a harmonized effort across all EU countries). A structured qualitative assessment of the considered options is performed regarding 14 categories of potential impacts, with consideration of uncertainty in the assessment. Different weights are assigned to each impact category to reflect the importance of some impacts compared to others. Finally, policy options are compared on a pairwise basis and ranked through a FMCA, considering uncertainties in qualitative assessment and explicit weights assigned to impact categories. Our preliminary results show that, among the 5 policy options considered, the ‘co-regulation’ approach appears to be the preferable option.

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:
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by Agricultural Economics Society in its series 86th Annual Conference, April 16-18, 2012, Warwick University, Coventry, UK with number 135093.

in new window

Date of creation: Apr 2012
Handle: RePEc:ags:aesc12:135093
Contact details of provider: Web page:

More information through EDIRC

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.:

in new window

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. Gamper, C.D. & Turcanu, C., 2007. "On the governmental use of multi-criteria analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(2), pages 298-307, April.
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:ags:aesc12:135093. 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)

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.