Search

Abstract: Beef trim, the primary component of ground beef, is tested by both the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) and meat packers for Escherichia coli O157:H7 under a zero tolerance standard. We compare and contrast the process control and filtering roles of this testing on costs and food safety outcomes. Both of these roles of testing have been alternatively emphasized in recent legislative proposals and policy statements on beef trim testing. In the process control role, test design – including the decisions to increase sample sizes, re-test lots, and change tolerance thresholds – only affects the cost of implementing a targeted food safety standard, but does not directly affect health outcomes. In contrast, in the filtering role, test design influences the likelihood of errors and directly affects health outcomes. Neither role eliminates all risk from this pathogen. More broadly, we discuss the incentives food producers face to increase their frequency of testing and improve food safety processes in response to positive test findings as the process control role emphasizes. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: There are few peer-reviewed or major published studies that estimate the total amount of food loss in developed countries and even fewer attempt to estimate the monetary value. We compiled estimates of the amount and value of food loss for more than 200 individual foods in the United States using the US Department of Agriculture’s Economic Research Service’s Loss-Adjusted Food Availability data and then aggregated these values to estimate the total value of food loss and the value by food group. The results indicate that in 2008, the estimated total value of food loss at the retail and consumer levels in the United States as purchased at retail prices was $165.6billion. The top three food groups in terms of the value of food loss at these levels are: meat, poultry, and fish (41%); vegetables (17%); and dairy products (14%). Looking more closely at the estimates for the consumer level, this level of loss translates into almost 124kg (273lb) of food lost from human consumption, per capita, in 2008 at an estimated retail price of $390/capita/year. Food loss represents a significant share of household food expenditures: our estimates suggest that the annual value of food loss is almost 10% of the average amount spent on food per consumer in 2008 and over 1% of the average disposable income. This consumer level loss translates into over .3kg (0.7lb) of food per capita per day valued at $1.07/day. Our estimates of the total value of food loss in the United States and loss estimates by food group are useful in that they can generate awareness of the issue among the food industry members, governments, and consumers. Potential large-scale approaches and economic incentives to mitigate food loss in developed countries are also discussed. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

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. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

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 SO.40 to SO.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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]