Cost of Foodborne Illness: Scharff (2012) Estimates
$77 Billion: The Economic Cost of Foodborne Illness
The study: Scharff RL. (2012). Economic burden from health losses due to foodborne illness in the United States. Journal of Food Protection, 75(1), 123–131.
Illnesses and deaths are the human burden; Scharff quantified the economic one: an estimated $77.7 billion annually in the US — medical costs, productivity losses, and the monetized value of pain, suffering, and premature death. The number makes food safety a compelling economic investment, not just a moral one.
How the costs were built
Enhanced cost-of-illness methodology: medical expenses, lost productivity, plus quality-adjusted life year (QALY) losses monetized — capturing the full welfare loss, not just the medical bills. Pathogen-specific estimates showing which organisms cost the most (Salmonella, Toxoplasma, Listeria leading, reflecting their severity).
Why the economics matter
Cost-benefit analysis is the language of regulation: rules get justified when their benefits (illnesses prevented, monetized) exceed their costs. Scharff’s estimates (and the ERS predecessors) underpin the economic analyses behind major food safety regulations. The $77 billion also reframes industry investment: food safety spending isn’t overhead, it’s loss prevention with enormous ROI.
The caveats
Monetizing suffering is inherently value-laden — the QALY valuations drive the total, and different valuations give different totals. The estimates are uncertain, and the author was transparent about it. But the order of magnitude is robust: foodborne illness costs tens of billions yearly, whatever the exact figure. For making the business case for food safety investment, that’s precise enough. The cheapest outbreak is the one that never happens — and Scharff quantified exactly how expensive the ones that do happen are.
Using the $77 billion without misusing it
Scharff’s estimate is enormously useful and easily abused, so the usage guidelines matter. The number is an order-of-magnitude statement: foodborne illness costs America tens of billions yearly, dominated by a few severe pathogens and their sequelae. It’s a planning figure for policy, a justification for investment, a sense of scale. It is not a precise accounting — the credible interval is wide, the monetization assumptions drive the total, and citing it to three significant figures would be statistical theater.
The pathogen-specific breakdowns are where the practical value lives. Knowing that Salmonella, Toxoplasma, and Listeria dominate costs tells a policymaker or an industry group where prevention spending buys the most. The sequelae costs — the HUS dialysis, the Guillain-Barré rehabilitation — explain why pathogens with modest case counts carry enormous price tags. Anyone making a food safety investment case should lead with the cost structure, not just the total: it’s the severity economics that persuade.
One caution about cost-benefit framing: monetizing suffering is a tool, not a truth. The QALY valuations embed ethical judgments (how much is a year of healthy life worth? whose values count?), and different reasonable answers change the totals substantially. The honest use of Scharff’s work acknowledges this — the estimates support the conclusion that foodborne illness is enormously costly and prevention is a good investment under any reasonable valuation, without pretending the exact figure is carved in stone. Tens of billions, whatever the decimal points, is enough to act on.
Source: Scharff RL. (2012). Economic burden from health losses due to foodborne illness in the United States. Journal of Food Protection, 75(1), 123–131.