Farmer and farm worker illnesses and deaths from COVID-19 and impacts on agricultural output.

Farmers and farm workers are critical to the secure supply of food, yet this population is potentially at high risk to acquire COVID-19. This study estimates the prevalence of COVID-19 among farmers and farmworkers in the United States by coupling county-level data on the number of farm workers relative to the general population with data on confirmed COVID-19 cases and deaths. In the 13 month period since the start of the pandemic (from March 1, 2020 to March 31, 2021), the estimated cumulative number of COVID-19 cases (deaths) was 329,031 (6,166) among agricultural producers, 170,137 (2,969) among hired agricultural workers, 202,902 (3,812) among unpaid agricultural workers, and 27,223 (459) among migrant agricultural workers. The cases amount to 9.55%, 9.31%, 9.39%, and 9.01% of all U.S. agricultural producers, hired workers, unpaid workers, and migrant workers, respectively. The COVID-19 incidence rate is significantly higher in counties with more agricultural workers; a 1% increase in the number of hired agricultural workers in a county is associated with a 0.04% increase in the number of COVID-19 cases per person and 0.07% increase in deaths per person. Although estimated new cases among farm workers exhibit similar trends to that of the general population, the correlation between the two is sometimes negative, highlighting the need to monitor this particular population that tends to live in more rural areas. Reduction in labor availability from COVID-19 is estimated to reduce U.S. agricultural output by about $309 million.

Beef and Pork Marketing Margins and Price Spreads during COVID-19.

COVID-19-related disruptions led to a historic rise in the spread between livestock and wholesale meat prices. Concerns about concentration and allegations of anticompetitive behavior have led to several inquiries and civil suits by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Department of Justice, with increases in price differentials serving as a focal point. This article notes the difference between price spreads and marketing margins, outlines corresponding economic theory, and describes the empirical evidence on wholesale meat and livestock price dynamics in the wake of COVID-19 disruptions. At one point during the pandemic, beef and pork packers were both operating at about 60% of the previous year's processing volume. We explore how such a massive supply shock would be expected to affect marketing margins even in the absence of anticompetitive behavior. Moreover, we document how margin measurements are critically sensitive to the selection of data and information utilized. Finally, we conclude with some discussion around policy proposals that would pit industry concentration against industry coordination and economies of scale.

Consumer preferences for and beliefs about slow growth chicken.

Improvements in genetics, feed, and housing have dramatically reduced the time required for broilers to reach market weight. However, some advocacy organizations have argued that the improvements in productivity have been accompanied by reductions in animal welfare and meat quality, prompting retailers to consider policies that either set a minimum number of days of production or require slower-growing heritage breeds. The overriding purpose of this project is to determine the market potential and consumer willingness-to-pay for chicken breast with different labels, with primary focus on slow growth labels. A national survey of over 2,000 US chicken consumers was conducted. A choice experiment, which simulates retail purchases, was included to compare slow growth chicken breast demand for consumers exposed to different types of information and who made choices in the presence or absence of brands. Willingness-to-pay for slow growth chicken, and importance of the attribute in consumer choice, is sensitive to the information provided and is generally lower in importance than other labels, except when consumers are provided pro slow growth information. There are multiple market segments consisting of consumers with distinct preferences for chicken breast attributes. Depending on the treatment in question, 30 to 40% of consumers are insensitive to price changes. If presented with a pairwise choice between slow growth chicken priced at a $0.72/lb premium, an estimated extra cost of slow growth, and an unlabeled chicken breast, slow growth is projected to be chosen by 37, 48, and 35% of respondents in the no added information, pro slow growth, and anti slow growth information conditions, respectively.

Economic Assessment of FMDv Releases from the National Bio and Agro Defense Facility.

This study evaluates the economic consequences of hypothetical foot-and-mouth disease releases from the future National Bio and Agro Defense Facility in Manhattan, Kansas. Using an economic framework that estimates the impacts to agricultural firms and consumers, quantifies costs to non-agricultural activities in the epidemiologically impacted region, and assesses costs of response to the government, we find the distribution of economic impacts to be very significant. Furthermore, agricultural firms and consumers bear most of the impacts followed by the government and the regional non-agricultural firms.

Neurofunctional correlates of ethical, food-related decision-making.

For consumers today, the perceived ethicality of a food's production method can be as important a purchasing consideration as its price. Still, few studies have examined how, neurofunctionally, consumers are making ethical, food-related decisions. We examined how consumers' ethical concern about a food's production method may relate to how, neurofunctionally, they make decisions whether to purchase that food. Forty-six participants completed a measure of the extent to which they took ethical concern into consideration when making food-related decisions. They then underwent a series of functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) scans while performing a food-related decision-making (FRDM) task. During this task, they made 56 decisions whether to purchase a food based on either its price (i.e., high or low, the "price condition") or production method (i.e., with or without the use of cages, the "production method condition"), but not both. For 23 randomly selected participants, we performed an exploratory, whole-brain correlation between ethical concern and differential neurofunctional activity in the price and production method conditions. Ethical concern correlated negatively and significantly with differential neurofunctional activity in the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (dlPFC). For the remaining 23 participants, we performed a confirmatory, region-of-interest (ROI) correlation between the same variables, using an 8-mm3 volume situated in the left dlPFC. Again, the variables correlated negatively and significantly. This suggests, when making ethical, food-related decisions, the more consumers take ethical concern into consideration, the less they may rely on neurofunctional activity in the left dlPFC, possibly because making these decisions is more routine for them, and therefore a more perfunctory process requiring fewer cognitive resources.

Looking at the label and beyond: the effects of calorie labels, health consciousness, and demographics on caloric intake in restaurants.

BACKGROUND: Recent legislation has required calorie labels on restaurant menus as a means of improving Americans' health. Despite the growing research in this area, no consensus has been reached on the effectiveness of menu labels. This suggests the possibility of heterogeneity in responses to caloric labels across people with different attitudes and demographics. The purpose of this study was to explore the potential relationships between caloric intake and diners' socio-economic characteristics and attitudes in a restaurant field experiment that systematically varied the caloric information printed on the menus. METHODS: We conducted a field experiment in a full service restaurant where patrons were randomly assigned to one of three menu treatments which varied the amount of caloric information printed on the menus (none, numeric, or symbolic calorie label). At the conclusion of their meals, diners were asked to complete a brief survey regarding their socio-economic characteristics, attitudes, and meal selections. Using regression analysis, we estimated the number of entrée and extra calories ordered by diners as a function of demographic and attitudinal variables. Additionally, irrespective of the menu treatment to which a subject was assigned, our study identified which types of people are likely to be low-, medium-, and high-calorie diners. RESULTS: Results showed that calorie labels have the greatest impact on those who are least health conscious. Additionally, using a symbolic calorie label can further reduce the caloric intake of even the most health conscious patrons. Finally, calorie labels were more likely to influence the selection of the main entrée as opposed to supplemental items such as drinks and desserts. CONCLUSIONS: If numeric calorie labels are implemented (as currently proposed), they are most likely to influence consumers who are less health conscious - probably one of the key targets of this legislation. Unfortunately, numeric labels did little for those consumers who were already more knowledgeable about health and nutrition. To reach a broader group of diners, a symbolic calorie label may be preferred as it reduced caloric intake across all levels of health consciousness.

When do fat taxes increase consumer welfare?

Previous analyses of fat taxes have generally worked within an empirical framework in which it is difficult to determine whether consumers benefit from the policy. This note outlines on simple means to determine whether consumers benefit from a fat tax by comparing the ratio of expenditures on the taxed good to the weight effect of the tax against the individual's willingness to pay for a one-pound weight reduction. Our empirical calculations suggest that an individual would have to be willing to pay about $1500 to reduce weight by one pound for a tax on sugary beverages to be welfare enhancing. The results suggest either that a soda tax is very unlikely to increase individual consumer welfare or that the policy must be justified on some other grounds that abandon standard rationality assumptions.