Predicting food safety losses in turkey processing and the economic incentives of hazard analysis and critical control point (HACCP) intervention

William Nganje, Mounir Siaplay, Simeon Kaitibie and Emmanuel T. Acquah
Additional contact information
Mounir Siaplay: Department of Agricultural Economics, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK 74078, Postal: Department of Agricultural Economics, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK 74078
Simeon Kaitibie: Department of Agribusiness and Applied Economics, North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND 58105, Postal: Department of Agribusiness and Applied Economics, North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND 58105
Emmanuel T. Acquah: Office of the Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs and Director of International Programs, University of Maryland Eastern Shore, Princess Anne, MD 28153, Postal: Office of the Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs and Director of International Programs, University of Maryland Eastern Shore, Princess Anne, MD 28153

Agribusiness, 2006, vol. 22, issue 4, 475-489

Abstract: Turkey is an important food commodity whose total value of U.S. production amounted to $2.72 billion in 2003. Empirical evidence suggests that among broilers, eggs, turkeys, and chickens, Salmonella contamination of ground turkey is highest at 49.9% prior to hazard analysis and critical control point (HACCP) implementation and 26.6% after HACCP implementation. Salmonella and other microbial outbreaks have greatly contributed to the large number of food recalls in the meat and poultry industry; therefore, processed turkey constitutes a prime commodity for HACCP intervention analysis. Value-at-risk provides a framework for assisting firm management to assess food safety risks in monetary terms, and to evaluate the economic incentives of control measures like HACCP. Results show that food safety losses as measured by downside risk significantly declined following HACCP implementation. Medium- and large-scale turkey processors are more likely to derive more benefit from implementing an augmented HACCP plan than a generic HACCP plan. [EconLit citations: C150, Q180] © 2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Agribusiness 22: 475-489, 2006.

Date: 2006
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (2)

Downloads: (external link)
http://hdl.handle.net/10.1002/agr.20098 Link to full text; subscription required (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:wly:agribz:v:22:y:2006:i:4:p:475-489

DOI: 10.1002/agr.20098

Access Statistics for this article

Agribusiness is currently edited by Ronald W. Cotterill

More articles in Agribusiness from John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Wiley Content Delivery ().