Search

The economically optimal sample size in a food safety test balances the marginal costs and marginal benefits of increasing the sample size. We provide a method for selecting the sample size when testing beef trim for Escherichia coli O157:H7 that equates the averted costs of recalls and health damages from contaminated meats sold to consumers with the increased costs of testing while allowing for uncertainty about the underlying prevalence rates of contamination. Using simulations, we show that, in most cases, the optimal sample size is larger than the current sample size of 60 and, in some cases, it exceeds 120. Moreover, lots with a lower prevalence rate have a higher expected damage because contamination is more difficult to detect. Our simulations indicate that these lots have a higher optimal sampling rate., (Published 2012. This article is a U.S. government work and is in the public domain for the USA.)

Objective: To estimate the costs of satisfying MyPyramid fruit and vegetable guidelines, with a focus on whether low-income households can bear these costs., Design: Descriptive analysis of the 2008 National Consumer Panel with information on the food purchases of 64,440 households across the contiguous United States was used to analyze the cost of fruits and vegetables. Costs per MyPyramid cup-equivalents were calculated by accounting for cooking yields and the portion of a food item's retail weight that is inedible., Variables Measured: Costs per cup-equivalent for less expensive fruits and vegetables by MyPyramid subgroup including whole and cut fruit, fruit juice, dark green vegetables, orange vegetables, starchy vegetables, other vegetables, and legumes., Results: In 2008, a variety of fruits and vegetables was available for an average cost of $0.40 to $0.50 per cup-equivalent. MyPyramid fruit and vegetable recommendations could be satisfied at this cost level., Conclusions and Implications: Low-income Americans facing national average food prices can satisfy MyPyramid fruit and vegetable guidelines with a budget equal to the Thrifty Food Plan allocation to fruits and vegetables. However, many low-income households spend too much money on food that is low in fruit and vegetable content. Some money should be reallocated to fruits and vegetables., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

The World Health Organization estimates that in 2005, 1.5 million people died, worldwide, from diarrheal diseases. A separate study estimated that 70% of diarrheal diseases are foodborne. The widely cited US estimate is that there are 76 million foodborne illnesses annually, resulting in 325,000 hospitalizations and 5200 deaths. However, there are epidemiologic and methodologic challenges to accurately estimate the economic burden of foodborne disease on society, either in terms of monetary costs or non-monetary units of measurement. Studies on the economic burden of foodborne disease vary considerably: some analyze the effects of a single pathogen or a single outbreak, whereas others attempt to estimate all foodborne disease in a country. Differences in surveillance systems, methodology, and other factors preclude meaningful comparisons across existing studies. However, if it were possible to completely estimate the societal costs for all acute foodborne diseases and their chronic sequelae worldwide, on the basis of currently available data, worldwide costs from these illnesses would be substantial. Moreover, foodborne infections are largely manifested as intestinal illnesses and are largely preventable. Total costs of foodborne disease would be much smaller in the United States and the world if economic incentives for industry to produce safer food were improved. However, costs of implementing new food safety prevention and control rules must be weighed against the estimated benefits of reducing foodborne disease to determine net benefits so that governments have information to efficiently allocate funds among competing programs.