IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aieacp/124122.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Multi-criteria analysis for the impact assessment of food safety policies: The case of EU regulation on dietary arsenic

Author

Listed:
  • Ragona, Maddalena
  • Mazzocchi, Mario
  • Alldrick, A.J.

Abstract

Developments in knowledge concerning the toxicology and occurrence of dietary arsenic suggest that levels of exposure in some groups of the population within the EU are a cause for concern. This applies also in the case of individual Member States where local regulatory limits exist. The situation is such that some foods on the market are already the subject of consumer advice provided by government agencies. In the light of these considerations, some have suggested that Member States’ legislation concerning arsenic in foods should be modified and harmonised to reflect such developments. An evaluation of alternative policy initiatives is considered in this work. It employed a computer-based, fuzzy multi-criteria impact assessment tool for the identification of the preferable policy option. Such a tool, named ‘Scryer’, includes a rigorously structured qualitative assessment of each type of impact (e.g. public health, costs for businesses, costs for public authorities) for each policy option, a feasibility filter which considers the opportunity to undertake a quantitative estimation for any type of impact, and the comparison of policy options through a fuzzy multi-criteria approach. The transparency of the tool allows also for a weighting of the impacts. Three policy options concerning regulation of arsenic were evaluated: (1) the status quo option, reflecting the current situation, where levels of arsenic in drinking and mineral waters are governed by EU-wide legislation and that of foods is determined at a Member State level; (2) statutory controls, resulting in the introduction of maximum residue limits for arsenic in foods; and (3) voluntary standards, where the adoption of a policy of self-regulation is expected to reduce levels of inorganic arsenic in the food supply. Application of the Scryer tool suggests that the preferable policy option would be to replace the status quo with legally enforceable (lower) limits at the EU-wide level, and that voluntary limits would be the least risky choice.

Suggested Citation

  • Ragona, Maddalena & Mazzocchi, Mario & Alldrick, A.J., 2012. "Multi-criteria analysis for the impact assessment of food safety policies: The case of EU regulation on dietary arsenic," 2012 First Congress, June 4-5, 2012, Trento, Italy 124122, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA).
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:aieacp:124122
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.124122
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/124122/files/Ragona%20et%20al_Multi-criteria%20analysis%20for%20the%20impact%20assessment%20of%20food%20safety%20policies.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.124122?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. José A. Gómez‐Limón & Laura Riesgo & Manuel Arriaza, 2004. "Multi‐Criteria Analysis of Input Use in Agriculture," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 55(3), pages 541-564, November.
    2. 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.
    3. JosÉ Figueira & Salvatore Greco & Matthias Ehrogott, 2005. "Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys," International Series in Operations Research and Management Science, Springer, number 978-0-387-23081-8, September.
    4. Patrick Meyer & Marc Roubens, 2005. "Choice, Ranking and Sorting in Fuzzy Multiple Criteria Decision Aid," International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, in: Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys, chapter 0, pages 471-503, Springer.
    5. 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.
    6. Tiwari, D. N. & Loof, R. & Paudyal, G. N., 1999. "Environmental-economic decision-making in lowland irrigated agriculture using multi-criteria analysis techniques," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 99-112, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. 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.
    2. Mazzocchi, Mario & Ragona, Maddalena & Zanoli, Agostina, 2013. "A fuzzy multi-criteria approach for the ex-ante impact assessment of food safety policies," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 177-189.
    3. Maurizio Canavari & Nicola Cantore & Sergio Albertazzi & Chiara Marco Della & Giuliano Vitali & Claudio Signorotti & Guido Baldoni & Concetta Cardillo & Antonella Trisorio & Guido Maria Bazzani & Robe, 2013. "Sustainability in organic and conventional farm ing: toward s a multicriteria model based on simulated farm indicators," ECONOMICS AND POLICY OF ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2013(1), pages 175-200.
    4. Grabisch, Michel & Kojadinovic, Ivan & Meyer, Patrick, 2008. "A review of methods for capacity identification in Choquet integral based multi-attribute utility theory: Applications of the Kappalab R package," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 186(2), pages 766-785, April.
    5. Bottero, M. & Ferretti, V. & Figueira, J.R. & Greco, S. & Roy, B., 2018. "On the Choquet multiple criteria preference aggregation model: Theoretical and practical insights from a real-world application," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 271(1), pages 120-140.
    6. Bouyssou, Denis & Marchant, Thierry, 2007. "An axiomatic approach to noncompensatory sorting methods in MCDM, I: The case of two categories," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 178(1), pages 217-245, April.
    7. Giuseppe Munda, 2012. "Intensity of preference and related uncertainty in non-compensatory aggregation rules," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 73(4), pages 649-669, October.
    8. Etxano, Iker & Villalba-Eguiluz, Unai, 2021. "Twenty-five years of social multi-criteria evaluation (SMCE) in the search for sustainability: Analysis of case studies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    9. Fernandez, Eduardo & Navarro, Jorge & Bernal, Sergio, 2009. "Multicriteria sorting using a valued indifference relation under a preference disaggregation paradigm," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 198(2), pages 602-609, October.
    10. Munda, G. & Nijkamp, P. & Rietveld, P., 1992. "Fuzzy multigroup conflict resolution for environmental management," Serie Research Memoranda 0067, VU University Amsterdam, Faculty of Economics, Business Administration and Econometrics.
    11. Jun-Jie Dong & Jian-Zhang Wu & Endre Pap & Aniko Szakal, 2017. "A Choquet Capacity and Integral Based Method to Identify the Overall Importance of Engineering Characteristics in Quality Function Deployment," ECONOMIC COMPUTATION AND ECONOMIC CYBERNETICS STUDIES AND RESEARCH, Faculty of Economic Cybernetics, Statistics and Informatics, vol. 51(4), pages 297-314.
    12. Siskos, Eleftherios & Burgherr, Peter, 2022. "Multicriteria decision support for the evaluation of electricity supply resilience: Exploration of interacting criteria," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 298(2), pages 611-626.
    13. Iker Etxano & Itziar Barinaga-Rementeria & Oihana Garcia, 2018. "Conflicting Values in Rural Planning: A Multifunctionality Approach through Social Multi-Criteria Evaluation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-29, May.
    14. Itziar Barinaga-Rementeria & Artitzar Erauskin-Tolosa & Pedro José Lozano & Itxaro Latasa, 2019. "Individual and Social Preferences in Participatory Multi-Criteria Evaluation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(20), pages 1-18, October.
    15. Garmendia, Eneko & Gamboa, Gonzalo, 2012. "Weighting social preferences in participatory multi-criteria evaluations: A case study on sustainable natural resource management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 110-120.
    16. Jian-Zhang Wu & Yi-Ping Zhou & Li Huang & Jun-Jie Dong, 2019. "Multicriteria Correlation Preference Information (MCCPI)-Based Ordinary Capacity Identification Method," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 7(3), pages 1-13, March.
    17. Shmelev, Stanislav E. & Rodríguez-Labajos, Beatriz, 2009. "Dynamic multidimensional assessment of sustainability at the macro level: The case of Austria," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(10), pages 2560-2573, August.
    18. Luca Farnia, 2019. "On the Use of Spectral Value Decomposition for the Construction of Composite Indices," Working Papers 2019.08, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    19. Jian-Zhang Wu & Feng-Feng Chen & Yan-Qing Li & Li Huang, 2020. "Capacity Random Forest for Correlative Multiple Criteria Decision Pattern Learning," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(8), pages 1-15, August.
    20. Eneko Garmendia & Gonzalo Gamboa, 2012. "Weighting social preferences in participatory multi-criteria evaluations: a case study on sustainable natural resource management," Working Papers 2012-06, BC3.

    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:aieacp:124122. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic 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.

    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/aieaaea.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.