Structural Change in Meat Industries: Implications for Food Safety Regulation

MacDonald, James M.; Öllinger, Michael; Nelson, Kenneth E.; Handy, Charles R.

doi:10.2307/1243304

Cited by 25 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…, 1985; Allen and Liu, 1995; Baltagi et al. , 1995; MacDonald et al. , 1996; Antle, 2000; Ollinger and Mueller, 2003; Ollinger et al.…”

Section: The Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…CS P i ¼ @ ln PC @ ln P i ). We model cost as a function of output volume and a vector of product characteristics that include food safety (Caves et al, 1985;Allen and Liu, 1995;Baltagi et al, 1995;MacDonald et al, 1996;Antle, 2000;Ollinger and Mueller, 2003;Ollinger et al, 2005). A time dimension (T) captures technical change which we assume is input-, size-and scale-neutral (i.e.…”

Section: The Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Are Food Certification Costs Misestimated? Exporter-Perspective on the European Standard

Ragasa¹,

Thornsbury²,

Joshi

2011

Journal of Agricultural Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Food safety regulations aimed at controlling food contamination have sometimes been criticised as excessive burdens, disadvantaging smaller firms and exports from developing nations. Reported food safety expenditures appear relatively small (from <1 to 7% of the value of production) but can erode profit margins for many firms. This article responds to claims that reported firm‐level expenditures do not reflect true costs of compliance with food safety systems. We estimate incidental cost savings and uncounted costs associated with Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) certification among Philippine seafood producers by modelling the interactions between conventional production and food safety expenditures using translog cost functions. Results indicate a significant underestimation of reported HACCP costs by an average of US$1.10 for a dollar of reported expenditure.

show abstract

“…, 1985; Allen and Liu, 1995; Baltagi et al. , 1995; MacDonald et al. , 1996; Antle, 2000; Ollinger and Mueller, 2003; Ollinger et al.…”

Section: The Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Are Food Certification Costs Misestimated? Exporter-Perspective on the European Standard

Ragasa¹,

Thornsbury²,

Joshi

2011

Journal of Agricultural Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Antle (1995) notes that, because the monitoring and record‐keeping requirements associated with food safety controls are largely fixed costs, the average cost per unit of production is higher for smaller than for larger firms. MacDonald et al (1996) estimate the regulatory compliance costs of the U.S. pathogen reduction and HACCP rules in the meat processing sector. Costs for small plants (with sales less than US$2.5 million) are typically around 2% of the value of shipments while for large plants (with sales more than US$50 million) these can be as low as 0.02% of the value of shipments.…”

Section: Empirical Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Adoption of Food Safety and Quality Controls: Do Firm Characteristics Matter? Evidence from the Canadian Food Processing Sector

Herath¹,

Hassan²,

Henson³

2007

Canadian J Agri Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study explores the association between the adoption of food safety and quality assurance practices in the Canadian food processing sector and firm characteristics. A conceptual model is developed recognizing that the relative importance of a firm's incentives to adopt enhanced food safety and quality assurance practices is influenced by the firm's characteristics and activities. Binomial logit models are estimated to explore the association between adoption of various combinations of food safety and quality assurance practices including hazard analysis and critical control point (HACCP). The findings show that the adoption of food safety and quality practices varies widely between individual firms according to, among others, firm size, country of ownership and control, level of innovativeness

show abstract

“…We mention three cases that fit our results nicely and are difficult to explain by synergy effects. A nice (though slightly gory) example comes from the US meat‐packing industry, where a consolidation wave in the 1980s was accompanied by significant productions shifts to large plants without small plants being shut down; this is carefully documented in MacDonald et al (1999). Convex cost functions as in Farrell and Shapiro suggest that production becomes more even.…”

Section: Empirical Evidencementioning

confidence: 99%

Profitable Horizontal Mergers without Cost Advantages: The Role of Internal Organization, Information and Market Structure

2004

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Merged firms are typically rather complex organizations. Accordingly, me rger has a more profound effect on the structure of a market than simply reducing the number of competitors. We show that this may render horizontal mergers profitable and welfareimproving even if costs are linear. The driving force behind these results, which help to reconcile theory with various empirical findings, is the assumption that information about output decisions flows more freely within a merged firm.

show abstract

Structural Change in Meat Industries: Implications for Food Safety Regulation

Cited by 25 publications

References 2 publications

Are Food Certification Costs Misestimated? Exporter-Perspective on the European Standard

Are Food Certification Costs Misestimated? Exporter-Perspective on the European Standard

Adoption of Food Safety and Quality Controls: Do Firm Characteristics Matter? Evidence from the Canadian Food Processing Sector

Profitable Horizontal Mergers without Cost Advantages: The Role of Internal Organization, Information and Market Structure

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About