Score contribution per author:
α: calibrated so average coauthorship-adjusted count equals average raw count
The US Department of Agriculture applies a cost-of-illness approach to value reductions in morbidity, which may understate the projected benefits from proposed food-safety improvements by ignoring costs such as pain, suffering and worry. We use a national survey with a hypothetical food-choice experiment to estimate a more comprehensive measure of consumer willingness-to-pay for food-safety improvements. Our approach differs from previous evaluations of food-safety improvements because we: (1) provide the respondent with information about the promised change in the probability of pathogen contamination in retail food packages rather than changes in the probability of becoming ill, (2) elicit changes in respondents' subjective probability of becoming ill, and (3) elicit predicted changes in the quantity demanded for products that have enhanced food-safety properties. We estimate the consumer's choice between a safety-enhanced and an existing product, the change in subjective probability of contracting foodborne illness associated with the enhanced product and the change-in-demand for the enhanced product in a manner that recognizes the correlation among unobserved elements. The aggregated results suggest benefit estimates that are significantly larger than previous estimates for similar improvements.