Health information and substitution between fish: Lessons from laboratory and field experiments

Food Policy

Volumn 33, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 197-208

  Marette, Stéphan ^a   Roosen, Jutta ^b   Blanchemanche, Sandrine ^c  

^a INRA ALISS   (France)

^b UNIVERSITY OF KIEL   (Germany)

^c Inra   (France)

Author keywords

Experimental economics; Fish consumption; Health information; Nutrition

Indexed keywords

FISH; FOOD CONSUMPTION; FOOD PREFERENCE; HEALTH RISK; LABORATORY METHOD; NUTRITION;

EURASIA; EUROPE; FRANCE; WESTERN EUROPE;

CLUPEIDAE; SCOMBRIDAE;

EID: 42649134170     PISSN: 03069192     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2007.10.003     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. AFSSA (Agence Française de Sécurité Sanitaire des Aliments), 2002. Avis relatif à l'évaluation des risques sanitaires liés à l'exposition au mercure des femmes allaitantes et des jeunes enfants. Saisine n°2002-SA-0014, 22 Novembre 2002, Maison-Alfort, France.
2. AFSSA (Agence Française de Sécurité Sanitaire des Aliments), 2004. Avis relatif à la réévaluation des risques sanitaires du méthylmercure lies à la consommation des produits de la pêche au regard de la nouvelle dose hebdomadaire tolerable provisoire (DHTP). Saisine n°2003-SA-0380, 16 Mars 2004, Maison-Alfort, France.
3. AFSSA (Agence Française de Sécurité Sanitaire des Aliments), 2006. Communiqué de presse. Consommation de poissons et méthylmercure. Maisons-Alfort, France, le 25 juillet 2006. http://www.afssa.fr/ftp/afssa/36507-36508.pdf.
4. Binswanger H.P. Attitudes toward risk: Experimental measurement in rural India. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 62 (1980) 395-407
5. Budtz-Jorgensen E., Keiding N., Grandjean P., and Weihe P. Estimation of health effects of prenatal methylmercury exposure using structural equations model. Environ. Health 1 2 (2002) 145-168
6. Crépet A., Tressou J., Verger P., and Leblanc J.C. Management options to reduce exposure to methylmercury through the consumption of fish and fishery products by the french population. Regulatory Toxicol. Pharmacol. 42 (2005) 179-189
7. EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), 2004. Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain on a Request from the Commission Related to Mercury and Methylmercury in Food. EFSA Journal 34, 1-14. http://www.efsa.eu.int (accessed February 2006).
8. EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), 2005. Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain on a Request from the European Parliament Related to the Safety Assessment of Wild and Farmed Fish. EFSA Journal 236, 1-118. http://www.efsa.eu.int (accessed February 2006).
9. EPA (US Environmental Protection Agency), 2004. What You Need to Know About Mercury in Fish and Shellfish. Washington DC. http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/fishadvice/advice.html (accessed March 2006).
10. Fox J., Hayes D., and Shogren J. Consumer preferences for food irradiation: How favorable and unfavorable descriptions affect preferences for irradiated pork in experimental auctions. J. Risk Uncertainty 24 1 (2002) 75-95
11. FSA (UK Food Standards Agency), 2003. Mercury in fish: your questions answered, http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/faq/mercuryfish/?version=1 (accessed April 2006).
12. FSAI (Food Standards Authority of Ireland), 2004. FSAI Issues Guidelines on Consumption of Shark, Swordfish, Marlin and Tuna, http://www.fsai.ie/news/press/pr_04/pr20040318.asp (accessed April 2006).
13. FSANZ (Food Standards Australia New Zealand), 2004. "Mercury in Fish", http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/whatsinfood/mercuryinfish.cfm (accessed April 2006).
14. Health Canada, 2002. Advisory-Information on mercury levels in fish. http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/english/protection/warnings/2002/2002_41e.htm (accessed March 2006).
15. INSEE (Institut National de la Statistique et des Etudes Economiques), 1999. Mode de vie des personnes selon l'âge et le sexe, Paris. http://www.insee.fr/fr/ffc/chifcle_fiche.asp?ref_id=NATTEF02316&tab_id=34 (accessed February 2007).
16. JECFA, 2003. Safety Evaluation of Certain Food Additives and Contaminants. Prepared by the 61th meeting of the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives, Rome, World Health Organization, June 2003.
17. LCI, 2006. Femmes enceintes et nourissons evitez les poissons predateurs. http://tf1.lci.fr/infos/sciences/0,,3320138,00-femmes-enceintes-nourrissons-evitez-poissons-predateurs-.html (accessed September 2006).
18. Levitt, S.D., List, J.A., 2007. What Do Laboratory Experiments Tell Us About the Real World. Working paper of University of Chicago and forthcoming in Journal of Economic Perspective.
19. List, J.A., 2007. Field experiments: A bridge between lab and naturally occurring data. Advances in Economic Analysis & Policy 6(2), Article 8. http://www.bepress.com/bejeap/advances/vol6/iss2/art8 (accessed April 2007).
20. Lusk, J.L., Schroeder, T.C., 2006. Auction bids and shopping choices. Advances in economic analysis & policy 6(1), Article 4. http://www.bepress.com/bejeap/advances/vol6/iss2/art8 (accessed April 2007).
21. Lusk J.L., and Fox J.A. Value elicitation in retail and laboratory environments. Econ. Lett. 79 (2003) 27-34
22. Masters W.A., and Sanogo D. Welfare gains from quality certification of infant foods: Results from a market experiment in Mali. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 84 4 (2002) 974-989
23. National Academies, 2006. Seafood Choices: Balancing Benefits and Risks. The National Academy Press. Washington DC. http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11762.html - you (accessed February 2007).
24. OFIMER, 2003. Office National Interprofessionnel des Produits de la Mer et de L'Aquaculture. Le marché Français des produits de la pêche et de l'aquaculture, Année 2002. Chapter 3. La consommation, Paris.
25. OFIMER, 2005. Office National Interprofessionnel des Produits de la Mer et de L'Aquaculture. Bilan Annuel 2004. "Consommation des produits de la pêche et de l'aquaculture." Paris.
26. Polinsky A.M., and Rogerson W. Products liability and consumer misperceptions and market power. The Bell J. Econ. 14 (1983) 581-589
27. Rozan A., Stenger A., and Willinger M. Willingness-to-pay for food safety: An experimental investigation of quality certification on bidding behaviour. Euro. Rev. Agric. Econ. 31 4 (2004) 409-425
28. Sanogo D., and Masters W.A. A market-based approach to child nutrition: Mothers' demand for quality certification of infant foods in Bamako, Mali. Food Policy 27 (2002) 251-268
29. Shimshack J.P., Ward M.B., and Beatty T.K.M. Mercury advisories: Information, education, and fish consumption. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 53 (2007) 158-179
30. SECODIP (Société d'Etude de la Consommation, Distribution et Publicité), 2002. A French Survey of Food Consumption, Paris.
31. Shogren J.F., Fox J.A., Hayes D.J., and Roosen J. Observed choices for food safety in retail, survey, and auction markets. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 81 5 (1999) 1192-1199
32. Shogren J. Valuation in the Lab. Environ. Resource Econ. 34 (2006) 163-172
33. Sidhu K.S. Health benefits and potential risks related to consumption of fish or fish oil. Regulatory Toxicol. Pharmacol. 38 (2003) 336-344
34. Teisl M.F., Roe B., and Hicks R.L. Can Eco-Labels Tune a Market? Evidence from Dolphin-Safe Labeling. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 43 (2002) 339-359