Differentiation in Food Safety

1
Differentiation inFood Safety

• Ginger Z. Jin
• University of Maryland
• (based on joint work with
• Phillip Leslie at Stanford)

2
What Do I Mean by Food Safety?

• 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

3
Two Meanings of Differentiation
Actual difference in food safety
4
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

5
(No Transcript)
6
Actual Differentiation
7
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

8
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

9
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

10
How Could Information Differ Before GC?

• Depends on the extent of consumer learning
• chain affiliation
• gt possible free-riding for franchisees
• degree of repeat customers in local region
• gt regional clustering in hygiene quality

11
Basic evidence - chain affiliation
12
Variation Across Chains
13
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

14
Repeat Customers-- Santa Monica before GC
Upper 1/3
Lower 1/3
15
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

16
Region clustering before GC
17
Regional clustering after GC
18
Statistically ...

• Significant regional clustering in information
  structure
• Different information structures lead to
  different reputation incentives, thus different
  hygiene quality

19
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

20
1. Why is National Restaurant Association against
GC?2. Why dont other counties adopt the same
GC policy?
Two Remaining Questions
21
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)