12.1 Consumers
12.2
Seafood Production and Processing
12.3 Trade
12.4 Government
Based on this overview document relating to the economic issues associated with seafood-borne disease and illness and enhanced seafood quality, it is clear only a limited amount of research has been completed, considering the worldwide importance of the seafood industry. Some excellent research has been completed on a few specific economic issues or seafood product forms ranging from consumer to processing plant to the estimated cost of HACCP at the country level. However, little of this work is transferable outside its geographic area of study or beyond the specific product form on which the research was focused. Economists in various reports and academic journals have outlined many of the theoretical issues and data problems which must be solved before some forms of economic analysis or certain studies can be attempted on food-borne illness, disease risk reduction and food quality enhancement, including seafood. Excellent training programmes relating to seafood safety and quality, particularly HACCP, are underway in both developed and developing countries. Both research and training programmes must rely on each other in order to maximize the efficiency and effectiveness of each. Priorities relating to the economic importance and value of reducing the risk level of contracting seafood-borne illness or disease, improving seafood quality and measuring the impact of seafood HACCP programmes are provided in the following section. This should assist in focusing economic studies on areas that complement microbiological and food technology research on-going in seafood-borne disease and illness reduction and quality enhancement. Priorities are organized into four areas: (1) consumers, (2) seafood production and processing, (3) trade, and (4) government.
The desires of consumers regarding what constitutes seafood safety and quality needs to be more precisely defined for principal fish and shellfish species or seafood product forms in major fish and shellfish consumption areas of the world (Japan, European Union, United States and Canada).
The willingness-to-pay by seafood consumers for reduced risk of contracting seafood-borne disease or illness and for enhanced seafood quality needs to be determined for principal species or seafood product forms in major fish and shellfish consumption areas of the world (Japan, European Union, United States, Canada).
The role and effectiveness of taxpayer-financed seafood education programmes in affecting the way consumers evaluate seafood safety and quality using information from scientific and government institutions and from the news media needs to be evaluated.
The cost of implementing seafood HACCP or similar programmes to achieve various levels of reduced risk of contracting a seafood-borne disease or illness or enhancing seafood quality in processing plants for major fish and shellfish species or product forms must be determined. Industry-wide costs can then be determined and compared to the benefits of reduced risk and enhanced quality for major species or product forms to determine the net economic returns. The cost of implementing HACCP and similar processes at the fishing vessel level should also be determined (although HACCP applies generally to the processing level at this time) since HACCP will likely be applied at the fishing vessel level in the future.
Industry-wide seafood HACCP net economic benefits for major production regions or countries must be compared at the fisher, input supplier, and fish processing level, particularly among production regions or countries that compete with similar fish or shellfish species or product forms. This is critical in determining if seafood safety and quality programmes create competitive advantages for some production regions or countries.
Marginal benefit-cost analysis (or similar analytical techniques) should be performed for each Critical Control Point where HACCP is used. This will allow the determination of the most economically effective way to achieve a specified standard of risk reduction, and will allow HACCP to be used as a business management tool at the processing plant level. All costs must be considered including training costs of employees.
HACCP implementation effects on the structure of the seafood industry in various production regions should be determined. Differing impacts on small versus large firms, or differing structural changes on industry among various production regions of the world which produce similar products must be determined. The public policy implications of mandated seafood safety and quality programmes that cause structural changes in the seafood industry must be predicted and evaluated.
The effect of implementing seafood HACCP and similar programmes within countries or trading blocs on international seafood trading patterns should be determined, particularly as shifts in trading patterns occur among developed and developing countries.
The use and/or potential use of HACCP or similar seafood safety risk reduction or quality enhancement processes as non-tariff trade barriers should be analyzed, particularly across various levels of regulatory rapprochement used by Japan, the European Union, the United States and Canada. The impacts of seafood safety and quality enhancement non-tariff barriers both within and outside trading blocs, and in developed versus developing countries should be predicted and analyzed.
The effect of the implementation of seafood HACCP and similar programmes on a worldwide basis on direct foreign investment in the seafood industry needs to be followed and analyzed. The impact that seafood HACCP causes in the investment patterns and locations of foreign seafood industry investment funds in developing versus developed countries, as a way to avoid non-tariff barriers or to take advantage of economically competitive positions in international seafood production and trade created by HACCP must be determined.
The cost of improving seafood safety and quality at various levels of health risk reduction achieved by using different processes within different regulatory rapprochement regimes (ranging from harmonization to coordination) needs to be determined and compared over the next decade. This will allow governments to modify programmes toward the most effective approach.
The benefits to society of reducing risk levels associated with seafood-borne disease or illness in major seafood consumption areas (Japan, European Union, United States and Canada) needs determination. Only then can governments effectively evaluate the net economic benefits of seafood safety and quality programmes.
The most cost-effective techniques (e.g. labeling, education, process control, etc.) to satisfy consumers must be determined in order for government and industry to agree on the appropriate mix of regulatory and voluntary methods to use in decreasing the risk of contracting seafood-borne disease or illness.
The appropriate mix of consumer (through higher seafood costs) support and government (via taxation) support for programmes that reduce the risk of contracting seafood-borne disease or illness and enhance seafood quality must be determined. The mix or ratio will differ between developed and developing countries. Economic policy goals must be identified prior to determining the appropriate mix.
In lieu of acceptable willingness-to-pay techniques, the value of reducing seafood-borne disease or illness using the cost-of-illness method should be determined at the society level for Japan, the European Union, and Canada, and available food-borne disease or illness value estimates for the United States refined for seafood.
Over the next decade, comparable data on the number of outbreaks and cases of seafood-borne disease or illness for Japan, the European Union, the United States and Canada must be collected and analyzed. Only then can the economic value and effectiveness of seafood HACCP and other programmes designed to reduce the risk of contracting seafood-borne disease or illness be properly evaluated.
