IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aesc12/135093.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

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

Author

Listed:
  • Ragona, Maddalena
  • Mazzocchi, Mario
  • Rose, Martin

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Ragona, Maddalena & Mazzocchi, Mario & Rose, Martin, 2012. "Regulatory impact assessment of food safety policies: A preliminary study on alternative EU interventions on dioxins," 86th Annual Conference, April 16-18, 2012, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 135093, Agricultural Economics Society.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:aesc12:135093
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://purl.umn.edu/135093
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    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)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Food safety regulations; Regulatory impact assessment; Multi-criteria analysis; Fuzzy logic; Dioxins; Food Consumption/Nutrition/Food Safety; D81; Q18;

    JEL classification:

    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty
    • Q18 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Agricultural Policy; Food Policy

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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: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). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/aesukea.html .

    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.