A Conversation with Dorothy Gilford

In 1946, Public Law 588 of the 79th Congress established the Office of Naval Research (ONR). Its mission was to plan, foster and encourage scientific research in support of Naval problems. The establishment of ONR predates the National Science Foundation and initiated the refocusing of scientific infrastructure in the United States following World War II. At the time, ONR was the only source for federal support of basic research in the United States. Dorothy Gilford was one of the first Heads of the Probability and Statistics program at the Office of Naval Research (1955 to 1962), and she went on to serve as Director of the Mathematical Sciences Division (1962 to 1968). During her time at ONR, Dorothy influenced many areas of statistics and mathematics and was ahead of her time in promoting interdisciplinary projects. Dorothy continued her career at the National Center for Education Statistics (1969 to 1974). She was active in starting international comparisons of education outcomes in different countries, which has influenced educational policy in the United States. Dorothy went on to serve in many capacities at the National Academy of Sciences, including Director of Human Resources Studies (1975 to 1978), Senior Statistician on the Committee on National Statistics (1978 to 1988) and Director of the Board on International Comparative Studies in Education (1988 to 1994). The following is a conversation we had with Dorothy Gilford in March of 2004. We found her to be an interesting person and a remarkable statistician. We hope you agree.Comment: Published in at http://dx.doi.org/10.1214/088342307000000023 the Statistical Science (http://www.imstat.org/sts/) by the Institute of Mathematical Statistics (http://www.imstat.org

Estimating Consumer Willingness to Pay for Country-of-Origin Labeling

Consumer willingness to pay for a mandatory country-of-origin labeling program is assessed. A consumer survey was conducted during 2002 in several grocery stores in Boulder, Denver, and Fort Collins, Colorado. Econometric results indicate that surveyed consumers are willing to pay an average of $184 per household annually for a mandatory country-of-origin labeling program. Respondents were also willing to pay an average of$1.53 and $0.70 per pound more for steak and hamburger labeled as "U.S. Certified Steak" and "U.S. Certified Hamburger," which is equivalent to an increase of 38% and 58%, respectively, over the initial given price.beef, consumer preferences, country-of-origin labeling, dichotomous choice, willingness to pay, Consumer/Household Economics,

ESTIMATING CONSUMER WILLINGNESS-TO-PAY FOR COUNTRY OF-ORIGIN-LABELS FOR BEEF PRODUCTS

Country-of-origin labeling is now being considered as an alternative by the U.S. Senate. Research is still needed to determine what attributes consumers value in domestic versus imported beef, and to quantify the value that consumers place on country-of-origin labels. Preliminary results suggest that U.S. consumers perceived domestic beef as being safer than imported beef, and overall they are willing to pay a premium to obtain U.S. certified beef.Consumer/Household Economics, Food Consumption/Nutrition/Food Safety,

A CHOICE EXPERIMENT MODEL FOR BEEF ATTRIBUTES: WHAT CONSUMER PREFERENCES TELL US

This paper reports the main findings obtained from a U.S. consumer choice experiment regarding perceptions of food safety and meat attributes, and to the extent to which these attitudes translate into willingness-to-pay (WTP) for labeled ribeye steaks. The results indicate that USDA food safety inspection labels, labels indicating that the steak is tender, or the ability to trace back the animal to the farm are more important to consumers than country of origin labeling.Consumer/Household Economics, Food Consumption/Nutrition/Food Safety,

Time to address the double inequality of differences in dietary intake between Scotland and England

Geographical disparities in health outcomes have been evident across the UK for decades. There is limited recent analysis on the dietary differences between Scotland and England that might go some way to explain these health differences. This study aimed to assess whether, and to what degree, aspects of diet and nutrition differ between Scottish and English populations, specifically between those with similar household incomes. Twelve years of UK food purchase data (2001-2012) were pooled and used to estimate household level consumption data for Scotland and England. Population mean food consumption and nutrient intakes were estimated, adjusting for known confounders (year, age of household reference person, age they left full-time education and income). Comparison was also made within equivalised income quintiles. Analysis showed that the foods and nutrients that should be increased in the diet (highlighted in the Scottish Dietary Goals) were lower in Scotland than England (e.g. fruit and vegetables 267g/day (99%CI 259-274g/day) vs. 298g/day (99%CI 296-301g/day), P<0.001). Likewise, foods and drinks linked with poor health outcomes were higher in Scotland. These regional inequalities in diet were even more pronounced in the lower income groups (e.g. red and processed meat consumption in the lowest income quintile was 65g/day (99% CI 61-69g/day) in Scotland vs. 58g/day (99% CI 57-60g/day) in England, P<0.001, but similar in the highest income quintile (58g/day (99%CI 54-61 g/day) vs. 59g/day (99% CI 58-60 g/day) respectively). A poorer diet in Scotland compared to England, particularly among disadvantaged groups, may contribute to differences in excess mortality between countries