Elsevier

Food Policy

Volume 79, August 2018, Pages 166-178
Food Policy

The causal impact of HACCP on seafood imports in the U.S.: An application of difference-in-differences within the gravity model

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2018.07.003Get rights and content

Highlights

  • The chance of seafood imports from developing countries increased after U.S. HACCP.

  • The volume of seafood imports from developed countries declined after U.S. HACCP.

  • HAACP implementation had no causal net effect on the flow of U.S. seafood imports.

Abstract

We offer a difference-in-differences (DID) approach to assess the causal effect of Hazard Analysis by Critical Control Points (HACCP), a food safety regulation, on U.S. seafood imports with a gravity model and event-specific changes. With a panel database of U.S. seafood imports from 217 partner countries from 1991 to 2006, we employ a causal framework of analysis with a “treatment group” of U.S. seafood imports and two alternative control groups (U.S. food imports outside of HACCP rules and the European Union's 15 seafood imports). Further, we assess the effects of HACCP on the intensive and extensive margins of U.S. seafood imports. Contrary to previous work, we find that HAACP implementation has no effect on the flow of U.S. seafood imports, while the estimates of the other key variables are consistent across the models seen in previous work. Thus, we find evidence that non-tariff measures like HACCP had net null effect on imports, though the distribution of imports shifted.

Introduction

On December 18, 1997, the U.S. implemented the Hazard Analysis by Critical Control Points (HACCP) system for domestic and imported seafood products (FDA 1995). Since the 1960s, HACCP has become increasingly popular globally (Caswell and Hooker, 1996, Li et al., 2013; and Ropkins and Beck, 2000). Therefore, a proper evaluation of the impact of HACCP on trade is useful for evaluating similar policy changes beyond the U.S. context. Despite the importance of the seafood industry1 and the implementation of HACCP two decades ago, trade research assessing this policy has been limited, yielding contradictory evidence on the impacts of HACCP. More importantly, an assessment of HACCP is a window into the effects of non-tariff measures, specifically food safety policies, on international trade. Further, the case of HACCP reflects the challenge of assessing a complex policy with multiple components which may have conflicting effects on the trade flows. On the one hand, HACCP could increase the compliance cost for the producers and decrease trade flows. On the other hand, HACCP could aid food safety inspections and increase consumer confidence in the food safety, thus enhancing trade flows (FAO/WHO, 1995).

Empirical evidence, thus far, shows mixed effects on U.S. seafood trade flows (Anders and Caswell, 2009, Li et al., 2012). Beyond the differential response to the policy changes, methodologically, researchers, in previous trade papers, use a single dummy variable of HACCP implementation in the gravity model, which does not address the causal effect of HACCP. In this paper, we identify the causal effect of HACCP with a difference-in-differences (DID) strategy. We find that, contrary to previous literature, the impact of HACCP had a null net effect on U.S. seafood imports.

Unlike other food safety policies that focus on a product, HACCP is a preventive approach to control each stage of the food chain, from the primary production, processing, and storage, to marketing and consumption. HACCP has been considered an effective alternative to the conventional end-point-testing (FAO/WHO, 1984, Bryan, 1992, Ropkins and Beck, 2000, Khatri and Collins, 2007) and recommended for commercial use (Roberts et al., 1996). HACCP is an important regulation that aims to improve food safety while facilitating trade flows (Caswell and Hooker, 1996, Unnevehr and Jensen, 1996, Unnevehr and Jensen, 1999, USGAO, 2017). Like other food safety regulations, the goal of HACCP is to avoid food safety dangers and scares coming from unsafe production practices. Seafood has a history of food safety concerns including unsafe drugs residues, such as malachite green in shrimp imports from China. Other safety concerns are related to the unsafe concentrations of dioxins, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB), polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), toxaphene, pesticides (Foran et al., 2005, Leiss and Nicol, 2006) and methyl mercury (Roosen et al., 2009). While many countries ban the use of substances such as enrofloxacin, furazolidone, and malachite green in aquaculture, other countries still use these substances because they are effective and low cost (Zhang et al., 2012).

After the implementation of HACCP in the United States in 1997 for seafood products, the EU required HACCP for foods with EC 852/2004, the European Food Hygiene Regulations in 2006 (European Commission, 2004). We use this fact to develop our causal framework for analysis. However, the EU established an earlier food hygiene policy with the Council Directive 91/493/EEC on July 22, 1991 (EU, 1991), which outlined the rules for the application in Commission Decision 94/356/EC on May 20, 1994 (EU, 1994). EU member states enacted their own interpretation of food hygiene laws complying with the Council Directive 91/493/EEC (EU, 1991, Ropkins and Beck, 2000). The implementation of these “HACCP and HACCP-like” policies from the Directives was heterogenous across member states. The Council Directives 91/493/EEC or 94/356/EC do not mention HACCP. Council Directive 93/43/EEC (EU, 1993) mentions HACCP once. The EU Commission required HACCP with EC 852/2004, which references HACCP sixteen times (EC 2004). Thus, the food hygiene policies predate U.S. HACCP implementation for seafood products and evolved separately in each member state to become the 2006 HACCP policy.

While EU member states developed their policies separately under the Directive, Higuera-Ciapara and Noriega-Orozco (2000) and Lupin (1999) argue that the food hygiene policies in the EU and U.S. differ in terms of the critical limits, evaluation and content plans, etc. These differences in criteria result in different consequences on enforcement (Higuera-Ciapara and Noriega-Orozco, 2000). Thus, we argue that the heterogenouspolicies of EU member states, which predate U.S. seafood implementation, and differences in those policies relative to U.S HACCP are sufficient that we use the EU as one of our two control groups before the enforcement of the EC 852/2004.

The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Part 2 summarizes the relevant literature and part 3 describes the data. Part 4 is the model specification. Part 5 discusses the findings, and part 6 offers a discussion and conclusion.

Section snippets

Non-tariff measures

An older trade literature suggests that technical measures for food quality and safety are trade-impeding (Henson and Loader, 2001, Disdier and Marette, 2010, Otsuki et al., 2001a, Otsuki et al., 2001b, Disdier et al., 2008, Wilson and Otsuki, 2004, Winchester et al., 2012). Wilson and Otsuki (2004b) study the impact of food regulation stringency and find a negative effect of pesticide chlorpyrifos notified by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries on banana

The data

We build a panel database of seafood imports affected by HACCP as well as data for food imports unaffected by HACCP between the U.S., EU-15, and 217 partner countries from 1991 to 2006. We use data on U.S. seafood imports (03), other non-HACCP U.S. edible imports (6 and 9–18), and EU-15 (3, 6,and 9–18) imports from all 217 countries

Empirical framework

Previous work evaluating the impact of HACCP (and similar programs) uses the gravity framework and a single dummy variable of HACCP implementation to establish if the policy affected trade (Anders and Caswell, 2009, Li et al., 2012, Li et al., 2013). That approach has been criticized since it does not estimate a causal impact, and the results may be attributable to other factors that have changed in time such as shocks, and economic cycles (Silva and Hassani, 2015) rather than the policy itself.

Results

A simple assessment of U.S. seafood imports prior to and after HACCP shows that in 1997, the U.S. imported seafood from 127 countries of which 95 (75%) were developing countries and 32 (25%) were developed countries. By the end of the study period, after HACCP implementation, the U.S. imported seafood from 110 trading partners of which 85 (77%) were developing countries and 25 (22%) were developed countries, representing declines in importers of 10.5% and 21.9%. Despite the decline in the

Discussion

Based on a program evaluation approach, we find evidence of a null effect of HACCP on U.S. seafood imports. This finding is important for at least two policy reasons: (1) Non-tariff measures are not necessarily indicative of protectionism, in part, because NTMs may redistribute export sources which may be neutral to development status. (2) NTMs on food safety may have little effect on trade because consumers may have minimal responsiveness to the policy shift.

A long-standing debate in the

Conclusion

The previous literature used a simple dummy variable for HACCP implementation to study its effect on trade and found mixed results. This paper is the first to disentangle the causal effect of HACCP implementation in the U.S. by controlling the unobserved factors affecting U.S. seafood imports using DID. Specifically, we chose imports of U.S. non-HACCP commodities and EU-15 seafood as the control groups separately to estimate the casual effect of HACCP implementation. To check the robustness of

Acknowledgement

The authors thank the editors and reviewers for useful comments that strengthened the paper. We also appreciate discussions with multiple colleagues on EU policy. Nevertheless, the authors take responsibility for any errors.

References (62)

  • E.S. Silva et al.

    On the use of singular spectrum analysis for forecasting US trade before, during and after the 2008 recession

    Int. Econ.

    (2015)
  • L.J. Unnevehr et al.

    The economic implications of using HACCP as a food safety regulatory standard

    Food Policy

    (1999)
  • J.S. Wilson et al.

    To spray or not to spray: pesticides, banana exports, and food safety

    Food Policy

    (2004)
  • Y. Zhang et al.

    Analyses of enrofloxacin, furazolidone and malachite green in fish products with surface-enhanced Raman spectroscopy

    Food Chem.

    (2012)
  • S.M. Anders et al.

    Standards as barriers versus standards as catalysts: assessing the impact of HACCP implementation on US seafood imports

    Am. J. Agric. Econ.

    (2009)
  • J.E. Anderson et al.

    Gravity with gravitas: a solution to the border puzzle

    Am. Econ. Rev.

    (2003)
  • F. Asche

    Testing the effect of an anti-dumping duty: The U.S. salmon market

    Empirical Econ.

    (2001)
  • J. Beghin et al.

    Welfare costs and benefits of non-tariff measures in trade: a conceptual framework and application

    World Trade Rev.

    (2012)
  • J.C. Beghin et al.

    The economics and potential protectionism of food safety standards and inspections: an application to the U.S. shrimp market

  • F.L. Bryan

    Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point Evaluations: A Guide to Identifying Hazards and Assessing Risks Associated with Food Preparation and Storage

    (1992)
  • R. Blundell et al.

    Alternative approaches to evaluation in empirical microeconomics

    J. Hum. Resour.

    (2009)
  • D. Card et al.

    Minimum wages and employment: a case study of the fast-food industry in New Jersey and Pennsylvania

    Am. Econ. Rev.

    (1994)
  • J.A. Caswell et al.

    HACCP as an international trade standard

    Am. J. Agric. Econ.

    (1996)
  • L. Colen et al.

    Private standards, trade and poverty: globalgap and horticultural employment in senegal

    World Econ.

    (2012)
  • A.-C. Disdier et al.

    The impact of regulations on agricultural trade: evidence from the SPS and TBT agreements

    Am. J. Agric. Econ.

    (2008)
  • A.-C. Disdier et al.

    The combination of gravity and welfare approaches for evaluating nontariff measures

    Am. J. Agric. Econ.

    (2010)
  • EC, European Commission, 2004. Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Hygiene of Foodstuffs....
  • European Union (EU), 1991. Council Directive 91/493/EEC of 22 July 1991 laying down the health conditions for the...
  • European Union (EU), 1993. Council Directive 93/43/EEC of 14 June 1993 on the hygiene of foodstuffs. Official J. Eur....
  • European Union (EU), 1994. Commission Decision 94/356/EC of 20 May 1994 laying down detailed rules for the application...
  • FAO/WHO (Food and Agriculture Organisation/World Health Organisation). 1984. The role of food safety in health and...
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text