differentiation in food safety
DESCRIPTION
Differentiation in Food Safety. Ginger Z. Jin University of Maryland (based on joint work with Phillip Leslie at Stanford). What Do I Mean by Food Safety?. Food Safety = the impact of food intake on health risk Short run – throw-up, food poisoning hygiene - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Differentiation in Food Safety](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051623/56815c8c550346895dca9ce7/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Differentiation inFood Safety
Ginger Z. JinUniversity of Maryland
(based on joint work withPhillip Leslie at Stanford)
![Page 2: Differentiation in Food Safety](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051623/56815c8c550346895dca9ce7/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Food Safety = the impact of food intake on health risk
Short run – throw-up, food poisoning hygiene
Long run – obesity, heart attack, diabetes nutrition contents production methods
What Do I Mean by Food Safety?
![Page 3: Differentiation in Food Safety](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051623/56815c8c550346895dca9ce7/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Two Meanings of Differentiation
Actual differenceinfood safety
![Page 4: Differentiation in Food Safety](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051623/56815c8c550346895dca9ce7/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
A Case Study of Los Angeles Restaurants
Nov. 16-18, 1997 CBS 2 News “Behind the Kitchen Door” January 16, 1998, LA county inspectors start issuing
hygiene grade cards A grade if score of 90 to 100 B grade if score of 80 to 89 C grade if score of 70 to 79 score below 70 actual score shown
Grade cards are prominently displayed in restaurant windows
Score not shown on grade cards
![Page 5: Differentiation in Food Safety](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051623/56815c8c550346895dca9ce7/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
![Page 6: Differentiation in Food Safety](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051623/56815c8c550346895dca9ce7/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Actual Differentiation
![Page 7: Differentiation in Food Safety](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051623/56815c8c550346895dca9ce7/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
First Cut Major impacts after grade cards (GC)
dramatic increase in hygiene quality decrease in the dispersion of hygiene
quality revenue more responsive to hygiene
grade food-borne illnesses drop 20%
More information less differentiation
![Page 8: Differentiation in Food Safety](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051623/56815c8c550346895dca9ce7/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Why Differentiate After GC? Information is equal
Different cost to maintain good hygiene Burger, Chinese cuisine, Sushi Bar
Different benefit from good hygiene consumer willingness to pay for good hygiene local competition
![Page 9: Differentiation in Food Safety](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051623/56815c8c550346895dca9ce7/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Why Differentiate Before GC? Consumers know nothing
no restaurant bothers to maintain good hygiene
pure noise Consumers know everything
restaurants choose to “be dirty” or “be clean” no response to GC
Consumers have lousy information equally lousy everywhere dispersion in the amount of information noise
![Page 10: Differentiation in Food Safety](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051623/56815c8c550346895dca9ce7/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Depends on the extent of consumer learning chain affiliation
=> possible free-riding for franchisees degree of repeat customers in local region
=> regional clustering in hygiene quality
How Could Information Differ Before GC?
![Page 11: Differentiation in Food Safety](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051623/56815c8c550346895dca9ce7/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Basic evidence - chain affiliation Before
GC After GC
All restaurants 76.77 89.62 In Zagat 77.43 88.97 Chains 82.5 92.76 Company-owned chains
82.94 92.70
Franchised chains 81.84 92.87
![Page 12: Differentiation in Food Safety](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051623/56815c8c550346895dca9ce7/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Variation Across Chains Before
GC After GC
com-owned 86.98 94.04
franchised 82.09 94.14
com-owned
81.49 90.83
franchised 78.12 92.04
com-owned
81.09 91.50
franchised 81.78 92.69
![Page 13: Differentiation in Food Safety](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051623/56815c8c550346895dca9ce7/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Statistically ... chains have better hygiene than independent
restaurants
company-owned chain units have better hygiene than franchised units
better hygiene if a chain has a greater number of units in LA county
better hygiene if a chain has a greater % of units in LA county
![Page 14: Differentiation in Food Safety](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051623/56815c8c550346895dca9ce7/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Repeat Customers-- Santa Monica before GCUpper 1/3 Lower 1/3
![Page 15: Differentiation in Food Safety](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051623/56815c8c550346895dca9ce7/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Statistically ... better hygiene in heavy retail districts better hygiene in hotel districts worse hygiene in recreational districts no difference in white-collar employment
districts no difference as to whether competes
with at least one chain in the same census tract
![Page 16: Differentiation in Food Safety](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051623/56815c8c550346895dca9ce7/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Region clustering before GC
![Page 17: Differentiation in Food Safety](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051623/56815c8c550346895dca9ce7/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Regional clustering after GC
![Page 18: Differentiation in Food Safety](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051623/56815c8c550346895dca9ce7/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Statistically ... Significant regional clustering in
information structure
Different information structures lead to different reputation incentives, thus different hygiene quality
![Page 19: Differentiation in Food Safety](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051623/56815c8c550346895dca9ce7/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Summary - Information Matters! Large impact of GC suggests low degree of consumer
learning for most restaurants before GC No voluntary revelation before GC, although the
inspection records are public Zagat restaurants only slightly better in hygiene Chain affiliation is an effective source of information A small degree of franchisee free-riding Regional differences in the degree of consumer
learning impact hygiene quality for independent restaurants
Bottom line: only 25% “A” restaurants before GC, now is over 80%
![Page 20: Differentiation in Food Safety](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051623/56815c8c550346895dca9ce7/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
1. Why is National Restaurant Association against GC?
2. Why don’t other counties adopt the same GC policy?
Two Remaining Questions
![Page 21: Differentiation in Food Safety](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051623/56815c8c550346895dca9ce7/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Lessons From Other Markets Voluntary disclosure of HMO quality is
incomplete and provides extra tools for HMOs to differentiate (Jin RAND)
Grade card regulation may lead to patient selection (Dranove et al. JPE) or inspector bias (Jin and Leslie in progress)
Private certifiers have strong incentives to differentiate in grading precision and grading criteria (Jin, Kato and List 2004)