An Examination of the Removal of Federal Meat and Poultry Inspection (original) (raw)
Related papers
Economic Assessment of Food Safety Regulations: The New Approach to Meat and Poultry Inspection
1997
An economic analysis of new meat and poultry inspection rules evaluates the benefits and costs of reducing microbial pathogens and preventing foodborne illness. The new rules require federally-inspected processors and slaughterhouses to adopt Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) systems to identify potential sources of pathogen contamination and establish procedures to prevent contamination. The benefits of reducing pathogens, which include lower medical costs of illness, lower productivity losses, and fewer premature deaths, range from 1.9billionto1.9 billion to 1.9billionto171.8 billion over 20 years, depending upon the level of pathogen control. These benefits will likely exceed the costs of HACCP, which are estimated at between 1.1and1.1 and 1.1and1.3 billion over 20 years. Small meat and poultry processing firms may bear higher costs under the new regulations than do large firms. Nonregulatory alternatives to improving food safety, such as education, labeling, market-based incentives for pathogen reduction, and irradiation, may contribute to the goal of making foods safer, but are not a substitute for regulation. Additional research is necessary to address the fundamental uncertainties involved in estimating the economic consequences of meat and poultry regulatory policies.
The International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, 2002
This study presents a unique view on the USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service (USDA FSIS) implementation of the so-called``Mega-Reg'' authorizing establishment of regulatory hazard analysis and critical control point (HACCP) procedures. Surveys were sent to plant managers of the 11 ®rms participating in the HACCP Roundtable at the University of Arkansas. Results of the survey were used to create HACCP implementation cost estimates for poultry kill plants and perform welfare analysis by using equilibrium displacement model (EDM). Results show average welfare losses up to 35 million a year for the broiler industry as well as substantial losses to consumers resulting from the new regulation.
Regulations Implementing the Food Safety Modernization Act
SSRN Electronic Journal, 2018
The FDA has been charged by the 2010 Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) with improving food safety in the United States. The four large regulations analyzed in this paper do not appear able to accomplish that mission. Part of the reason for this failure is that Congress has narrowly prescribed some of the reforms that must be in these regulations. In addition to those requirements, however, the FDA is proposing even more expansionist regulations. There are two problems with these regulations and the expansions proposed in the FSMA: either they do not address an actual food safety risk in the areas they cover, or, where there is a significant risk, analysis shows that they will not effectively reduce that risk. Either way, the costs of these rules exceed the benefits, in some cases by a great deal.
General Overview of the Food Safety Modernization Act
2014
Background Despite the United States (US) having one of the safest food supplies in the world, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that each year nearly 48 million people (roughly 1 in 6 Americans) are sickened, 128,000 are hospitalized, and 3,000 people die from preventable foodborne illnesses. In recent years, high profile and deadly outbreaks of foodborne illness have fueled the interest of policy makers and their constituents in improving food safety.
Welfare Losses from Food Safety Regulation in the Poultry Industry
Results of surveys sent to plant managers of eleven firms representing 25 percent of the U.S. broiler volume were used to estimate HACCP implementation costs for poultry kill plants and to perform welfare analysis. First-year welfare losses were $70 million for the broiler industry. There were also substantial consumer losses.