Abstract: The health risk and the nutritional benefit of a food are usually assessed separately. Toxicologists recommend limiting the consumption of certain fish because of methylmercury; while nutritionists recommend eating more oily fish because of omega 3. A common evaluation is imperative to provide coherent recommendations. In order to evaluate the risks along with the benefits related to fish consumption, a common metric based on the quality-adjusted life year (QALY) method has been used. The impact of a theoretical change from a medium n-3 PUFAs intake to a high intake is studied, in terms of the cardiovascular system (CHD mortality, stroke mortality and morbidity) and on fetal neuronal development (IQ loss or gain). This application can be considered as a sensitive analysis of the model used and looks at the impact of changing the dose-response relationships between cardiovascular diseases and n-3 PUFAs intakes. Results show that increasing fish consumption may have a beneficial impact on health. However, the confidence interval of the overall estimation has a negative lower bound, which means that this increase in fish consumption may have a negative impact due to MeHg contamination. Some limits of the QALY approach are identified. The first concerns determination of the dose-response relationships. The second concerns the economic origins of the approach and of individual preferences. Finally, since only one beneficial aspect and one risk element were studied, consideration should be given to how other beneficial and risk components may be integrated in the model.
by Marie-Renée Gueve l and 2, Véronique Sirot 1, Jean-Luc Volatier and Jean-Charles Leblanc 1
1. French Food Safety Agency, 27-31 avenue du Géneral Leclerc, F-94701 Maisons Alfort Cedex, France; v.sirot@afssa.fr
2. Laboratoire de Mathématiques Appliquées, Agrocampus Renaes, France.
Risk Analysis via Blackwell Publishing www.Blackwell-Synergy.com
Volume 28, Issue 1; February, 2008; Pages 37-48
doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01001.x
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01001.x
http://envirovaluation.org/htsrv/trackback.php/5541
No Comments/Trackbacks/Pingbacks for this post yet...
Environmental Valuation & Cost Benefit News covers legal, academic, and regulatory developments pertaining to the valuation of environmental amenities and disamenities, such as clean air, trees, parks, congestion, and noise. We apprise the reader about ways in which costs and benefits are measured, and the results of empirical studies. We hope that this information will allow public and private organizations to comprehend the risks and benefits of various actions, help disputants to resolve conflicts equitably and efficiently, and improve the quality of public policies. We will only discuss issues related to the empirical quantification of private and social costs and benefits and damages, and summarize information from daily newspapers, academic journals, legal publications, court decisions, professional newsletters commissioned studies, and on-line services. This newsletter is dedicated to the principal that all policies place values upon life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We believe that more information, explicit specification of assumptions, and rigorous analysis can help our society to better meet these ends. This site will increasingly serve, in conjunction with others, as a valuation database. We will include a wide range of studies, including non-environmental reports, because omission of a factor effectively values it at zero, and biases decisions. Heavy traffic has caused several site crashes. We are attempting to correct these problems. Apologies for any inconvenience.
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| << < | > >> | |||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | ||||
| 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
| 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 |
| 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 |
| 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 |