David Plunkett, Jd,Jm Center For Science In The Public Interest


Published on

Presentation regarding Produce Traceability as presented to FDA & FSIS on December 9 & 10, 2009 in Washington, D.C.

Published in: Technology, Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

David Plunkett, Jd,Jm Center For Science In The Public Interest

  1. 1. Consumer Expectation: Traceability David W. Plunkett, JD, JM Center for Science in the Public Interest FDA-FSIS Public Meeting on Traceability December 9, 2009
  2. 2. Center for Science C t f S i in the Public Interest Bi-national consumer advocacy organization founded in 1971 by Michael Jacobson – Focuses on nutrition and health, food safety, alcohol policy, and eating green – Publishes award winning Nutrition Action award-winning Healthletter – Represents 950,000 subscriber/members in the p , United States and Canada
  3. 3. Consumer Expectations: Traceability Support for Traceability – Polling on Trace – Polling on Costs – Random A i R d Assignment C t t Costs – Feasibility Factors in Trace System Effectiveness – Consumer Awareness and Biases Meeting Consumer Expectations
  4. 4. Consumers Value Traceability Polling – Support for trace system that enables FDA to trace food back to its source – 94% Hart Research/Public Opinion Strategies, June-July 2009 p g y – Support for government being able to trace food from production to sale if problems arise – 97% National Research Center Consumers Union Nov 2008 Center, Union, Nov. – Support for labels disclosing region, state, or farm of origin to ID source of contaminated food – 79% CSPI members’ poll 2008
  5. 5. Source Information is Important Country of Origin Labeling – Support for COOL – 93% CSPI Members’ Poll 2008 – Support for more information on source – 76% “[T]here’s still a significant gap between consumer expectations and what retailers/ manufacturers are providing.” f t idi ” IBM Survey, June 24, 2009 – Read COOL info often or sometimes – 52% Harvard Food Safety Survey, May 12-June 1, 2008
  6. 6. Willingness to Bear Costs Polling – Would pay 3% to 5% more for additional safety – 72% Hart Research/Public Opinion Strategies, June-July 2009 p g y Studies – Experimental auction lends support to poll results “The empirical analysis shows that consumers were willing to pay non- trivial amounts for a traceability assurance… For consumers, traceability has the most value when bundled with additional quality assurances. assurances ” J.E. Hobbs, Liability and Traceability in Agri-food Supply Chains
  7. 7. Random Assignment of Costs Decline of Food $ as % of family budget – 1958: Food purchases represent18.4% of disposable income – 2008: Food purchases represent 9 2% of 9.2% disposable income Annual spending on food = $ , p g $1,165 B Economic Research Service Estimates of the annual cost of food-borne illness range f ill from $6 9 B t $357 B $6.9 to Crutchfield & Roberts, ERS, 2000 (5 pathogens only); Roberts, 2007 (WTP)
  8. 8. Random Assignment of Costs Per capita expenditures/costs – Food: $3 832 F d $3,832 – Food-borne illness: $1,174 Random assignment of illness costs g – $26 (no doctor visit) to $30,998 (hospitalized HUS) per case – $1.8 million (age ≥ 85) to $9.3 million (infant) per life Frenzen, Frenzen ERS Cost Calculator 2007 (STEC 0157 only and 2003 $) Calculator, Random assignment of industry losses – Spinach: Loss of $350 million – Tomatoes: Loss of $425 million ($300 M CA; $25 M GA) Press Reports, UGA
  9. 9. Cost of Implementing Traceability Traceability in H.R. 2749 – CBO stated cost depends on future regulatory decisions and so could not be estimated Factors – Costs: Infrastructure, standardization, replacement of legacy systems, labor, records p g y y , , – Benefits: Lower recall costs, improve consumer confidence and supply chain management Institute f F d T h l i t I tit t of Food Technologists
  10. 10. Feasibility of Tracing – Produce Lessons – Salmonella saintpaul 2008
  11. 11. Traceability for Marketing Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act – Trace to ensure fair dealing and resolve di T t f i d li d l disputes t Price Look-up Codes – Trace-like system for inventory control; pricing y y ;p g – Labels adapted for COOL information Customer loyalty programs – Tracing T i customer preferences (who buys what) t f ( h b h t) Consumer question – Economic traceability is common; why can’t we have better y ; y safety traceability?
  12. 12. Attitudes Toward Notices Inattention to notices – Of those with internet access – th ith i t t Ones who ever visit government website for recall information – 20% Ones who read little or nothing about recalls – 25% Optimistic Bias – “Recalls are relevant to others, not me.” Own food purchases are unlikely to be recalled – 38% – Of persons suffering illnesses 5% said source was recalled food, but 11% said knew others made sick by recalled food Food Policy Institute, April 14, 2009
  13. 13. Consumer Expectations Traits of an effective trace system – Provides easily understood information about food’s source (not just codes or electronic tags) – Uses standardized product identifiers so that recall information is easy to communicate – Relies on pro-active communication (such as customer loyalty systems to alert consumers) – Supported by relevance information (retail consignee; posting alerts in store)
  14. 14. Contact Information David W. Plunkett, JD, JM Senior Staff Attorney y Center for Science in the Public Interest 1875 Connecticut Ave, NW Suite 300 Washington, DC 20009 phone (202) 777-8319 fax f (202) 265 4954 265-4954 e-mail dplunkett@cspinet.org On the internet: www.cspinet.org www cspinet org