Which of the following is NOT a consequence of food borne illness?

Choosing "decrease in litigation" as the answer highlights an essential understanding of the consequences of food borne illness. When food borne illnesses occur, there is often an increase in lawsuits as affected individuals may seek compensation for their medical expenses, lost wages, and suffering. This legal response is a common outcome of outbreaks, as consumers hold establishments accountable for food safety breaches.

In contrast, the other options—such as increased unemployment, economic loss, and reduction in tourism—illustrate significant repercussions associated with food borne illness outbreaks. Increased unemployment can arise as businesses suffer losses or close due to damaged reputations. Economic loss can affect the broader community as a result of decreased sales or reduced consumer confidence in food safety. Similarly, a reduction in tourism can occur when potential visitors perceive dining options as unsafe, which can particularly impact regions heavily reliant on the hospitality industry.

All these elements point to the potential widespread ripple effects of food borne illness, while the idea of decreased litigation does not align with the reality of increased legal actions following such health crises.