Department of Economics, Tulane University, New Orleans, LA 70118, USA.
J Health Econ. 2010 Sep;29(5):674-85. doi: 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2010.05.001. Epub 2010 Jun 4.
The conventional economic wisdom is that improving consumer information will enhance welfare. Yet, some scientists speculate that the Food and Drug Administration's prominent mercury in fish advisory may have harmed public health. Lower mercury intakes reduce neurological toxicity risks. However, since seafood is the predominant dietary source of healthful omega-3 fatty acids, reduced fish consumption may have significant offsetting health impacts. We explore this risk trade-off using a rich panel of household-level seafood consumption data. To control for confounding factors, we use a non-parametric changes-in-changes approach. We find strong evidence that while the advisory reduced mercury loadings, it did so at the expense of substantial reductions in healthful omega-3s. We find this response pattern even for consumers with low fish consumption. Using advisory response patterns as inputs into a prominent risk assessment model, the central estimate is that net benefits from the advisory were negative.
传统的经济观点认为，提高消费者信息将提高福利。然而，一些科学家推测，食品和药物管理局(FDA)关于鱼类中汞含量的显著警示可能已经损害了公众健康。较低的汞摄入量会降低神经毒性的风险。然而，由于海鲜是健康的欧米伽-3 脂肪酸的主要饮食来源，减少鱼类消费可能会对健康产生重大的影响。我们使用丰富的家庭层面海鲜消费数据来探索这种风险权衡。为了控制混杂因素，我们使用了一种非参数的变化中的变化方法。我们有强有力的证据表明，尽管该警示降低了汞负荷，但这是以大量减少健康的欧米伽-3 为代价的。即使对于低鱼类消费的消费者，我们也发现了这种反应模式。将警示反应模式作为一个重要风险评估模型的输入，中心估计是，该警示的净收益为负。
