Podcasts about Economic Research Service

In this episode of the Leading Voices in Food podcast, host Norbert Wilson is joined by food and nutrition policy economists Will Masters and Parke Wilde from Tufts University's Friedman School of Nutrition, Science and Policy. The discussion centers around the concept of the least cost diet, a tool used to determine the minimum cost required to maintain a nutritionally adequate diet. The conversation delves into the global computational methods and policies related to least cost diets, the challenges of making these diets culturally relevant, and the implications for food policy in both the US and internationally. You will also hear about the lived experiences of people affected by these diets and the need for more comprehensive research to better reflect reality. Interview Summary I know you both have been working in this space around least cost diets for a while. So, let's really start off by just asking a question about what brought you into this work as researchers. Why study least cost diets? Will, let's start with you. I'm a very curious person and this was a puzzle. So, you know, people want health. They want healthy food. Of course, we spend a lot on healthcare and health services, but do seek health in our food. As a child growing up, you know, companies were marketing food as a source of health. And people who had more money would spend more for premium items that were seen as healthy. And in the 2010s for the first time, we had these quantified definitions of what a healthy diet was as we went from 'nutrients' to 'food groups,' from the original dietary guidelines pyramid to the MyPlate. And then internationally, the very first quantified definitions of healthful diets that would work anywhere in the world. And I was like, oh, wow. Is it actually expensive to eat a healthy diet? And how much does it cost? How does it differ by place location? How does it differ over time, seasons, and years? And I just thought it was a fascinating question. Great, thank you for that. Parke? There's a lot of policy importance on this, but part of the fun also of this particular topic is more than almost any that we work on, it's connected to things that we have to think about in our daily lives. So, as you're preparing and purchasing food for your family and you want it to be a healthy. And you want it to still be, you know, tasty enough to satisfy the kids. And it can't take too long because it has to fit into a busy life. So, this one does feel like it's got a personal connection. Thank you both for that. One of the things I heard is there was an availability of data. There was an opportunity that seems like it didn't exist before. Can you speak a little bit about that? Especially Will because you mentioned that point. Will: Yes. So, we have had food composition data identifying for typical items. A can of beans, or even a pizza. You know, what is the expected, on average quantity of each nutrient. But only recently have we had those on a very large scale for global items. Hundreds and hundreds of thousands of distinct items. And we had nutrient requirements, but only nutrient by nutrient, and the definition of a food group where you would want not only the nutrients, but also the phytochemicals, the attributes of food from its food matrix that make a vegetable different from just in a vitamin pill. And those came about in, as I mentioned, in the 2010s. And then there's the computational tools and the price observations that get captured. They've been written down on pads of paper, literally, and brought to a headquarters to compute inflation since the 1930s. But access to those in digitized form, only really in the 2000s and only really in the 2010s were we able to have program routines that would download millions and millions of price observations, match them to food composition data, match that food composition information to a healthy diet criterion, and then compute these least cost diets. Now we've computed millions and millions of these thanks to modern computing and all of that data. Great, Will. And you've already started on this, so let's continue on this point. You were talking about some of the computational methods and data that were available globally. Can you give us a good sense of what does a lease cost diet look like from this global perspective because we're going to talk to Parke about whether it is in the US. But let's talk about it in the broad sense globally. In my case the funding opportunity to pay for the graduate students and collaborators internationally came from the Gates Foundation and the UK International Development Agency, initially for a pilot study in Ghana and Tanzania. And then we were able to get more money to scale that up to Africa and South Asia, and then globally through a project called Food Prices for Nutrition. And what we found, first of all, is that to get agreement on what a healthy diet means, we needed to go to something like the least common denominator. The most basic, basic definition from the commonalities among national governments' dietary guidelines. So, in the US, that's MyPlate, or in the UK it's the Eat Well Guide. And each country's dietary guidelines look a little different, but they have these commonalities. So, we distilled that down to six food groups. There's fruits and vegetables, separately. And then there's animal source foods altogether. And in some countries they would separate out milk, like the United States does. And then all starchy staples together. And in some countries, you would separate out whole grains like the US does. And then all edible oils. And those six food groups, in the quantities needed to provide all the nutrients you would need, plus these attributes of food groups beyond just what's in a vitamin pill, turns out to cost about $4 a day. And if you adjust for inflation and differences in the cost of living, the price of housing and so forth around the world, it's very similar. And if you think about seasonal variation in a very remote area, it might rise by 50% in a really bad situation. And if you think about a very remote location where it's difficult to get food to, it might go up to $5.50, but it stays in that range between roughly speaking $2.50 and $5.00. Meanwhile, incomes are varying from around $1.00 a day, and people who cannot possibly afford those more expensive food groups, to $200 a day in which these least expensive items are trivially small in cost compared to the issues that Parke mentioned. We can also talk about what we actually find as the items, and those vary a lot from place to place for some food groups and are very similar to each other in other food groups. So, for example, the least expensive item in an animal source food category is very often dairy in a rich country. But in a really dry, poor country it's dried fish because refrigeration and transport are very expensive. And then to see where there's commonalities in the vegetable category, boy. Onions, tomatoes, carrots are so inexpensive around the world. We've just gotten those supply chains to make the basic ingredients for a vegetable stew really low cost. But then there's all these other different vegetables that are usually more expensive. So, it's very interesting to look at which are the items that would deliver the healthfulness you need and how much they cost. It's surprisingly little from a rich country perspective, and yet still out of reach for so many in low-income countries. Will, thank you for that. And I want to turn now to looking in the US case because I think there's some important commonalities. Parke, can you describe the least cost diet, how it's used here in the US, and its implications for policy? Absolutely. And full disclosure to your audience, this is work on which we've benefited from Norbert's input and wisdom in a way that's been very valuable as a co-author and as an advisor for the quantitative part of what we were doing. For an article in the journal Food Policy, we use the same type of mathematical model that USDA uses when it sets the Thrifty Food Plan, the TFP. A hypothetical diet that's used as the benchmark for the maximum benefit in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which is the nation's most important anti-hunger program. And what USDA does with this model diet is it tries to find a hypothetical bundle of foods and beverages that's not too different from what people ordinarily consume. The idea is it should be a familiar diet, it should be one that's reasonably tasty, that people clearly already accept enough. But it can't be exactly that diet. It has to be different enough at least to meet a cost target and to meet a whole long list of nutrition criteria. Including getting enough of the particular nutrients, things like enough calcium or enough protein, and also, matching food group goals reasonably well. Things like having enough fruits, enough vegetables, enough dairy. When, USDA does that, it finds that it's fairly difficult. It's fairly difficult to meet all those goals at once, at a cost and a cost goal all at the same time. And so, it ends up choosing this hypothetical diet that's almost maybe more different than would feel most comfortable from people's typical average consumption. Thank you, Parke. I'm interested to understand the policy implications of this least cost diet. You suggested something about the Thrifty Food Plan and the maximum benefit levels. Can you tell us a little bit more about the policies that are relevant? Yes, so the Thrifty Food Plan update that USDA does every five years has a much bigger policy importance now than it did a few years ago. I used to tell my students that you shouldn't overstate how much policy importance this update has. It might matter a little bit less than you would think. And the reason was because every time they update the Thrifty Food Plan, they use the cost target that is the inflation adjusted or the real cost of the previous edition. It's a little bit as if nobody wanted to open up the whole can of worms about what should the SNAP benefit be in the first place. But everything changed with the update in 2021. In 2021, researchers at the US Department of Agriculture found that it was not possible at the old cost target to find a diet that met all of the nutrition criteria - at all. Even if you were willing to have a diet that was quite different from people's typical consumption. And so, they ended up increasing the cost of the Thrifty Food Plan in small increments until they found a solution to this mathematical model using data on real world prices and on the nutrition characteristics of these foods. And this led to a 21% increase in the permanent value of the maximum SNAP benefit. Many people didn't notice that increase all that much because the increase came into effect at just about the same time that a temporary boost during the COVID era to SNAP benefits was being taken away. So there had been a temporary boost to how much benefits people got as that was taken away at the end of the start of the COVID pandemic then this permanent increase came in and it kind of softened the blow from that change in benefits at that time. But it now ends up meaning that the SNAP benefit is substantially higher than it would've been without this 2021 increase. And there's a lot of policy attention on this in the current Congress and in the current administration. There's perhaps a skeptical eye on whether this increase was good policy. And so, there are proposals to essentially take away the ability to update the Thrifty Food Plan change the maximum SNAP benefit automatically, as it used to. As you know, Norbert, this is part of all sorts of things going on currently. Like we heard in the news, just last week, about plans to end collecting household food security measurement using a major national survey. And so there will be sort of possibly less information about how these programs are doing and whether a certain SNAP benefit is needed in order to protect people from food insecurity and hunger. Parke, this is really important and I'm grateful that we're able to talk about this today in that SNAP benefit levels are still determined by this mathematical program that's supposed to represent a nutritionally adequate diet that also reflects food preferences. And I don't know how many people really understand or appreciate that. I can say I didn't understand or appreciate it until working more in this project. I think it's critical for our listeners to understand just how important this particular mathematical model is, and what it says about what a nutritionally adequate diet looks like in this country. I know the US is one of the countries that uses a model diet like this to help set policy. Will, I'd like to turn to you to see what ways other nations are using this sort of model diet. How have you seen policy receive information from these model diets? It's been a remarkable thing where those initial computational papers that we were able to publish in first in 2018, '19, '20, and governments asking how could we use this in practice. Parke has laid out how it's used in the US with regard to the benefit level of SNAP. The US Thrifty Food Plan has many constraints in addition to the basic ones for the Healthy Diet Basket that I described. Because clearly that Healthy Diet Basket minimum is not something anyone in America would think is acceptable. Just to have milk and frozen vegetables and low-cost bread, that jar peanut butter and that's it. Like that would be clearly not okay. So, internationally what's happened is that first starting in 2020, and then using the current formula in 2022, the United Nations agencies together with the World Bank have done global monitoring of food and nutrition security using this method. So, the least cost items to meet the Healthy Diet Basket in each country provide this global estimate that about a third of the global population have income available for food after taking account of their non-food needs. That is insufficient to buy this healthy diet. What they're actually eating is just starchy staples, oil, some calories from low-cost sugar and that's it. And very small quantities of the fruits and vegetables. And animal source foods are the expensive ones. So, countries have the opportunity to begin calculating this themselves alongside their normal monitoring of inflation with a consumer price index. The first country to do that was Nigeria. And Nigeria began publishing this in January 2024. And it so happened that the country's national minimum wage for civil servants was up for debate at that time. And this was a newly published statistic that turned out to be enormously important for the civil society advocates and the labor unions who were trying to explain why a higher civil service minimum wage was needed. This is for the people who are serving tea or the drivers and the low wage people in these government service agencies. And able to measure how many household members could you feed a healthy diet with a day's worth of the monthly wage. So social protection in the sense of minimum wage and then used in other countries regarding something like our US SNAP program or something like our US WIC program. And trying to define how big should those benefit levels be. That's been the first use. A second use that's emerging is targeting the supply chains for the low-cost vegetables and animal source foods and asking what from experience elsewhere could be an inexpensive animal source food. What could be the most inexpensive fruits. What could be the most inexpensive vegetables? And that is the type of work that we're doing now with governments with continued funding from the Gates Foundation and the UK International Development Agency. Will, it's fascinating to hear this example from Nigeria where all of the work that you all have been doing sort of shows up in this kind of debate. And it really speaks to the power of the research that we all are trying to do as we try to inform policy. Now, as we discussed the least cost diet, there was something that I heard from both of you. Are these diets that people really want? I'm interested to understand a little bit more about that because this is a really critical space.Will, what do we know about the lived experiences of those affected by least cost diet policy implementation. How are real people affected? It's such an important and interesting question, just out of curiosity, but also for just our human understanding of what life is like for people. And then of course the policy actions that could improve. So, to be clear, we've only had these millions of least cost diets, these benchmark 'access to' at a market near you. These are open markets that might be happening twice a week or sometimes all seven days of the week in a small town, in an African country or a urban bodega type market or a supermarket across Asia, Africa. We've only begun to have these benchmarks against which to compare actual food choice, as I mentioned, since 2022. And then really only since 2024 have been able to investigate this question. We're only beginning to match up these benchmark diets to what people actually choose. But the pattern we're seeing is that in low and lower middle-income countries, people definitely spend their money to go towards that healthy diet basket goal. They don't spend all of their additional money on that. But if you improve affordability throughout the range of country incomes - from the lowest income countries in Africa, Mali, Senegal, Burkina Faso, to middle income countries in Africa, like Ghana, Indonesia, an upper middle-income country - people do spend their money to get more animal source foods, more fruits and vegetables, and to reduce the amount of the low cost starchy staples. They do increase the amount of discretionary, sugary meals. And a lot of what they're eating exits the healthy diet basket because there's too much added sodium, too much added sugar. And so, things that would've been healthy become unhealthy because of processing or in a restaurant setting. So, people do spend their money on that. But they are moving towards a healthy diet. That breaks down somewhere in the upper income and high-income countries where additional spending becomes very little correlated with the Healthy Diet Basket. What happens is people way overshoot the Healthy Diet Basket targets for animal source foods and for edible oils because I don't know if you've ever tried it, but one really delicious thing is fried meat. People love it. And even low middle income people overshoot on that. And that displaces the other elements of a healthy diet. And then there's a lot of upgrading, if you will, within the food group. So, people are spending additional money on nicer vegetables. Nicer fruits. Nicer animal source foods without increasing the total amount of them in addition to having overshot the healthy diet levels of many of those food groups. Which of course takes away from the food you would need from the fruits, the vegetables, and the pulses, nuts and seeds, that almost no one gets as much as is considered healthy, of that pulses, nuts and seeds category. Thank you. And I want to shift this to the US example. So, Parke, can you tell us a bit more about the lived experience of those affected by least cost diet policy? How are real people affected? One of the things I've enjoyed about this project that you and I got to work on, Norbert, in cooperation with other colleagues, is that it had both a quantitative and a qualitative part to it. Now, our colleague Sarah Folta led some of the qualitative interviews, sort of real interviews with people in food pantries in four states around the country. And this was published recently in the Journal of Health Education and Behavior. And we asked people about their goals and about what are the different difficulties or constraints that keep them from achieving those goals. And what came out of that was that people often talk about whether their budget constraints and whether their financial difficulties take away their autonomy to sort of be in charge of their own food choices. And this was something that Sarah emphasized as she sort of helped lead us through a process of digesting what was the key findings from these interviews with people. One of the things I liked about doing this study is that because the quantitative and the qualitative part, each had this characteristic of being about what do people want to achieve. This showed up mathematically in the constrained optimization model, but it also showed up in the conversations with people in the food pantry. And what are the constraints that keep people from achieving it. You know, the mathematical model, these are things like all the nutrition constraints and the cost constraints. And then in the real conversations, it's something that people raise in very plain language about what are all the difficulties they have. Either in satisfying their own nutrition aspirations or satisfying some of the requirements for one person or another in the family. Like if people have special diets that are needed or if they have to be gluten free or any number of things. Having the diets be culturally appropriate. And so, I feel like this is one of those classic things where different disciplines have wisdom to bring to bear on what's really very much a shared topic. What I hear from both of you is that these diets, while they are computationally interesting and they reveal some critical realities of how people eat, they can't cover everything. People want to eat certain types of foods. Certain types of foods are more culturally relevant. And that's really clear talking to you, Will, about just sort of the range of foods that end up showing up in these least cost diets and how you were having to make some adjustments there. Parke, as you talked about the work with Sarah Folta thinking through autonomy and sort of a sense of self. This kind of leads us to a question that I want to open up to both of you. What's missing when we talk about these least cost diet modeling exercises and what are the policy implications of that? What are the gaps in our understanding of these model diets and what needs to happen to make them reflect reality better? Parke? Well, you know, there's many things that people in our research community are working on. And it goes quite, quite far afield. But I'm just thinking of two related to our quantitative research using the Thrifty Food Plan type models. We've been working with Yiwen Zhao and Linlin Fan at Penn State University on how these models would work if you relaxed some of the constraints. If people's back in a financial sense weren't back up against the wall, but instead they had just a little more space. We were considering what if they had incentives that gave them a discount on fruits and vegetables, for example, through the SNAP program? Or what if they had a healthy bundle of foods provided through the emergency food system, through food banks or food pantries. What is the effect directly in terms of those foods? But also, what is the effect in terms of just relaxing their budget constraints. They get to have a little more of the foods that they find more preferred or that they had been going without. But then also, in terms of sort of your question about the more personal. You know, what is people's personal relationships with food? How does this play out on the ground? We're working with the graduate student Angelica Valdez Valderrama here at the Friedman School, thinking about what some of the cultural assumptions and of the food group constraints in some of these models are. If you sort of came from a different immigrant tradition or if you came from another community, what things would be different in, for example, decisions about what's called the Mediterranean diet or what's called the healthy US style dietary pattern. How much difference do this sort of breadth, cultural breadth of dietary patterns you could consider, how much difference does that make in terms of what's the outcome of this type of hypothetical diet? Will: And I think, you know, from the global perspective, one really interesting thing is when we do combine data sets and look across these very different cultural settings, dry land, Sahelian Africa versus countries that are coastal versus sort of forest inland countries versus all across Asia, south Asia to East Asia, all across Latin America. We do see the role of these cultural factors. And we see them playing out in very systematic ways that people come to their cultural norms for very good reasons. And then pivot and switch away to new cultural norms. You know, American fast food, for example, switching from beef primarily to chicken primarily. That sort of thing becomes very visible in a matter of years. So, in terms of things that are frontiers for us, remember this is early days. Getting many more nutritionists, people in other fields, looking at first of all, it's just what is really needed for health. Getting those health requirements improved and understood better is a key priority. Our Healthy Diet Basket comes from the work of a nutritionist named Anna Herforth, who has gone around the world studying these dietary guidelines internationally. We're about to get the Eat Lancet dietary recommendations announced, and it'll be very interesting to see how those evolve. Second thing is much better data on prices and computing these diets for more different settings at different times, different locations. Settings that are inner city United States versus very rural. And then this question of comparing to actual diets. And just trying to understand what people are seeking when they choose foods that are clearly not these benchmark least cost items. The purpose is to ask how far away and why and how are they far away? And particularly to understand to what degree are these attributes of the foods themselves: the convenience of the packaging, the preparation of the item, the taste, the flavor, the cultural significance of it. To what degree are we looking at the result of aspirations that are really shaped by marketing. Are really shaped by the fire hose of persuasion that companies are investing in every day. And very strategically and constantly iterating to the best possible spokesperson, the best possible ad campaign. Combining billboards and radio and television such that you're surrounded by this. And when you drive down the street and when you walk into the supermarket, there is no greater effort on the planet than the effort to sell us a particular brand of food. Food companies are basically marketing companies attached to a manufacturing facility, and they are spending much more than the entire combined budget of the NIH and CDC, et cetera, to persuade us to eat what we ultimately choose. And we really don't know to what degree it's the actual factors in the food itself versus the marketing campaigns and the way they've evolved. You know, if you had a choice between taking the food system and regulating it the way we regulate, say housing or vehicles. If we were to say your supermarket should be like an auto dealership, right? So, anything in the auto dealership is very heavily regulated. Everything from the paint to where the gear shift is to how the windows work. Everything is heavily regulated because the auto industry has worked with National Transportation Safety Board and every single crash investigation, et cetera, has led to the standards that we have now. We didn't get taxes on cars without airbags to make us choose cars with airbags. They're just required. And same is true for housing, right? You can't just build, you know, an extension deck behind your house any way you want. A city inspector will force you to tear it out if you haven't built it to code. So, you know, we could regulate the grocery store like we do that. It's not going to happen politically but compare that option to treating groceries the way we used to treat the legal services or pharmaceuticals. Which is you couldn't advertise them. You could sell them, and people would choose based on the actual merit of the lawyer or the pharmaceutical, right? Which would have the bigger impact. Right? If there was zero food advertising, you just walked into the grocery store and chose what you liked. Or you regulate the grocery store the same way we regulate automotive or building trades. Obviously, they both matter. There's, you know, this problem that you can't see, taste or smell the healthiness of food. You're always acting on belief and not a fact when you choose something that you're seeking health. We don't know to what extent choice is distorted away from a low-cost healthy diet by things people genuinely want and need. Such as taste, convenience, culture, and so forth. Versus things that they've been persuaded to want. And there's obviously some of both. All of these things matter. But I'm hopeful that through these least cost diets, we can identify that low-cost options are there. And you could feed your family a very healthy diet at the Thrifty Food Plan level in the United States, or even lower. It would take time, it would take attention, it would be hard. You can take some shortcuts to make that within your time budget, right? And the planning budget. And we can identify what those look like thanks to these model diets. It's a very exciting area of work, but we still have a lot to do to define carefully what are the constraints. What are the real objectives here. And how to go about helping people, acquire these foods that we now know are there within a short commuting distance. You may need to take the bus, you may need carpool. But that's what people actually do to go grocery shopping. And when they get there, we can help people to choose items that would genuinely meet their needs at lower cost. Bios Will Masters is a Professor in the Friedman School of Nutrition, with a secondary appointment in Tufts University's Department of Economics. He is coauthor of the new textbook on Food Economics: Agriculture, Nutrition and Health (Palgrave Macmillan, 2024). Before coming to Tufts in 2010 he was a faculty member in Agricultural Economics at Purdue University (1991-2010), and also at the University of Zimbabwe (1989-90), Harvard's Kennedy School of Government (2000) and Columbia University (2003-04). He is former editor-in-chief of the journal Agricultural Economics (2006-2011), and an elected Fellow of the American Society for Nutrition (FASN) as well as a Fellow of the Agricultural and Applied Economics Association (AAEA). At Tufts his courses on economics of agriculture, food and nutrition were recognized with student-nominated, University-wide teaching awards in 2019 and 2022, and he leads over a million dollars annually in externally funded research including work on the Agriculture, Nutrition and Health Academy (https://www.anh-academy.org), as well as projects supporting government efforts to calculate the cost and affordability of healthy diets worldwide and work with private enterprises on data analytics for food markets in Africa. Parke Wilde (PhD, Cornell) is a food economist and professor at the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University. Previously, he worked for USDA's Economic Research Service. At Tufts, Parke teaches graduate-level courses in statistics, U.S. food policy, and climate change. His research addresses the economics of U.S. food and nutrition policy, including federal nutrition assistance programs. He was Director of Design for the SNAP Healthy Incentives Pilot (HIP) evaluation. He has been a member of the National Academy of Medicine's Food Forum and is on the scientific and technical advisory committee for Menus of Change, an initiative to advance the health and sustainability of the restaurant industry. He directs the USDA-funded Research Innovation and Development Grants in Economics (RIDGE) Partnership. He received the AAEA Distinguished Quality of Communication Award for his textbook, Food Policy in the United States: An Introduction (Routledge/Earthscan), whose third edition was released in April 2025. 

The National Peanut Board announced a new brand platform for the peanut industry, and the USDA's Economic Research Service says net cash farm income is forecast to increase 25% from 2024 to 2025.

The Washington State Department of Agriculture is now accepting proposals for the Specialty Crop Block Grant Program's 2026 funding year, and the USDA's Economic Research Service says net cash farm income is forecast to increase 25% from 2024 to 2025.

The latest Net Farm Income Forecast from USDA's Economic Research Service predicts farm income to increase in 2025.

The latest Net Farm Income Forecast from USDA’s Economic Research Service predicts farm income to increase in 2025. NAFB News ServiceSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this episode, Brownfield's Meghan Grebner and the University of Tennessee's Charley Martinez discuss the latest trends in livestock slaughter data, focusing on cattle and hog markets. They analyze the implications of current slaughter numbers, beef production, and the impact of feed prices on the cattle industry.

In this episode we talk with Jeremy Weber about applying statistical concepts and lessons into applying to the real world. Jeremy is a professor in the University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public and International Affairs. He has a PhD from the University of Wisconsin Madison and he is focused on the economics of environmental and energy issues. He has also worked as a research economist at a Federal statistical agency (the Economic Research Service) and as a chief economist at the White House. He is the author of the book “Statistics for Public Policy: A Practical Guide to Being Mostly Right (or at Least Respectably Wrong)”.You can get his book through bookshopBooks & PapersStatistics for Public Policy: A Practical Guide to Being Mostly Right, or at Least Respectively Wrong by Jeremy Weber Book page at UChicago PressNBER Paper: "Difference in Difference in the Marketplace" NBER Working Paper Economic Research Service (ERS), USDA ERS WebsiteCouncil of Economic Advisers (CEA), White House CEA WebsiteRecommendations of the week:Show: "Masters of the Air" and "The Bloody 100th" (see above). Masters of the Air (Apple TV+) ⁠Apple TV+ link⁠The Bloody 100th (Documentary, Apple TV+) ⁠Apple TV+ link⁠App: Readwise – App for saving, highlighting, and resurfacing reading material. readwise.ioSebastian Tello-Trillo is an Associate Professor of Public Policy and Economics at the Frank Batten School of Leadership and Public Policy at the University of Virginia.Alex Hollingsworth is an Associate Professor of Economics at the Ohio State University.Henry Morris is our main editor. He is a student at the University of Virginia studying computer science and mathematics.

The USDA’s Economic Research Service’s 2024 edition of America’s Farms and Ranches at a Glance says most U.S. farms (86 percent) are small family farms.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This week's new USDA Farm Income Forecast.

In marketing year 2024/25, USDA's National Agricultural Statistics Service reported that U.S. farmers planted record-low sunflower acreage, nearly half of what was planted in the previous year, according to USDA's Economic Research Service. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The farm sector profits are forecast to fall this year, but the outlook is not as bleak now as it was in February according to the latest data from USDA's Economic Research Service. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The USDA's Economic Research Service lowered its forecast for U.S. farm income this year. Higher input costs and lower crop commodity prices continue to challenge farmers. 

The Economic Research Service reports that the cost of soybean seeds per acre has risen more than 260 percent since 1997, while total soybean production costs have risen 157 percent.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Jeremy Weber teaches and researches the policy and economics of environmental and energy issues. His work applies rigorous statistical analysis and draws from extensive policy experience, having worked as a research economist at a Federal statistical agency (the Economic Research Service) and as a chief economist at the White House (the Council of Economic Advisers). 00:00 Introduction to Jeremy Weber and His Background 00:45 The Big Picture: Statistics for Public Policy 01:04 Understanding Data's Role in Policy Making 02:47 The Map Analogy: Navigating Data and Policy 07:37 Real-world Policy Implications and Challenges 11:51 Magnitude Matters: Interpreting Statistical Significance 24:24 Debating Climate Change Projections and Policy 43:42 Exploring Other Environmental and Policy Issues 47:28 The Role of Experts in Public Discourse 54:53 Closing Thoughts and the Importance of Questioning How to Avoid Lying With Statistics (with Jeremy Weber) 3/4/24: https://t.co/TVLVK8oC3E Making Statistics Understandable For Public Policy with Dr. Jeremy Weber (Chasing Leviathan): https://t.co/ugpAZCxQCl Statistics for Public Policy: A Practical Guide to Being Mostly Right (or at Least Respectably Wrong): https://www.amazon.com/dp/0226830756 ========= AI summaries of all of my podcasts: https://tomn.substack.com/p/podcast-summaries About Tom Nelson: https://linktr.ee/tomanelson1 YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL89cj_OtPeenLkWMmdwcT8Dt0DGMb8RGR Twitter: https://twitter.com/TomANelson Substack: https://tomn.substack.com/ About Tom: https://tomn.substack.com/about

The USDA's Economic Research Service reported that the number of U.S. wheat farms has dropped substantially over time. Ryan Hanrahan, Farmdoc social media manager and farm policy news editor at the University of Illinois took a look at the numbers in the March Wheat Outlook Report.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

A new analysis from USDA's Economic Research Service shows the USDA School Breakfast Program has served about 63 billion meals since it was established in 1975.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Data from USDA's Economic Research Service shows that nearly 20 percent of shoppers purchased groceries online in 2022, the latest dataset available.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Data from USDA's Economic Research Service suggests that net farm income will drop sharply from last year, the Colorado Wolf Restoration Final Plan outlines release locations and constraints, major tractor manufacturers anticipate bringing smaller utility electric tractors to the market, and suggestions for bringing home a pest-free live Christmas tree this year.

The 2018 spread of African swine fever to China had reverberations in the global pork market, according to new data from USDA's Economic Research Service. ASF caused an estimated loss of 27.9 million metric tons in China's pork output from late 2018 to early 2021 and led to a doubling of China's domestic pork prices.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

An Economic Research Service report shows the full impact of African Swine Fever in China, and the impact was likely more than Chinese officials reported.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

10-30-23 AJ DailyFull Circle Online AuctionAdapted from a release by the American Angus AuxiliaryDaily Livestock Report for 10/25/23:  More Cattle Now, Even Fewer Cattle LaterAdapted from a report by Len Steiner, Steiner Consulting GroupBeltway Beef Podcast: NCBA Update — What the New Speaker of the House Means for the Cattle IndustryAdapted from a release by the National Cattlemen's Beef AssociationAg Secretary on the Economic Research Service's 2022 Household Food Security in the U.S. ReportAdapted from a release by the USDA. Compiled by Paige Nelson, field editor, Angus Journal.  For more Angus news, visit angusjournal.net. 

With record-breaking food prices in 2022, it has become more expensive for families to buy the foods that they need. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, helps families purchase foods but families frequently spend their benefits before the next benefit cycle. USDA modifies SNAP benefits every year as a cost-of-living adjustment. But was the change in fiscal year 2023 enough to keep pace with food price inflation? Today, we talk with Elaine Waxman from the Urban Institute to find out. Interview Summary   You recently completed an analysis on the gap between SNAP benefits and the real cost of a meal. Can you tell us what you found?   Absolutely. I think it helps to start with the fact that for many households, SNAP is a supplement to their budget that they would spend on food. But for about four in 10 households, it is their food budget. In other words, they're deemed to have zero income available to purchase food. What we've done is look at how adequate is the benefit for those households, the ones that receive the maximum benefit. Given overall questions about SNAP adequacy, but because there's such wide variation in geographic food prices, something that I think we all know intuitively based on our everyday lives but don't realize that, in fact in the lower 48 states, SNAP is not adjusted for any of those differences in food prices. It doesn't matter if you live in rural Texas or rural Idaho or on the Coast, your benefit is the same if you're receiving that maximum benefit. What we find is that particularly, based on those experiences in 2022 that we all felt when we showed up at the cash register, 99% of counties in the US had cost for what we would call a moderately priced meal that exceeded the maximum SNAP benefit when we think about that on a per-meal basis. So that was very concerning obviously because people have been relying very heavily on SNAP throughout the pandemic. For a period, there were extra benefits, what is known as emergency allotments, but those have gone away now. As you mentioned at the start, we do get a yearly cost of living adjustment and it was pretty big last year compared to most years and it did help, but the maximum SNAP benefit did not cover the cost of a meal in 78% of count. So that's an improvement from 99% to 78%. But clearly, in the majority of the US, we're still not really able to fully tap the value of SNAP. And since SNAP is a big part of our strategy for reducing food insecurity, that's something we should all be concerned about.   I think this is really important for listeners to understand. There aren't regional adjustments in the SNAP benefits and there are huge price differences depending on where you are in the US. I know some work out of the Economic Research Service of USDA found that same finding in some earlier years. And so it's really important to see what happens, especially during an inflationary period. Thank you for sharing that. I want to talk about one way that we understand how SNAP benefits are set. And so, USDA updated the Thrifty Food Plan which is the basis of SNAP benefits or at least the maximum benefit level in 2021, and it was the first time since the mid two-2000s. What did that mean for the adequacy of SNAP benefits? And what do we know about how inflation has further affected SNAP benefits?   Yes, great question. It was a very important move on the part of USDA to implement that update to the Thrifty Food Plan, which basically is the market basket of assumptions about food purchasing that USDA relies on to set all SNAP benefits. So it's a critical piece of information. Even though it might sound like inside baseball, to some people, the Thrifty Food Plan really matters. As you noted, it had not been updated since I think 2006. And we all know that not only have prices changed a lot, but the ways in which we acquire food has changed a lot. We buy a lot more prepared foods even to eat at home. A lot more people are working and so the assumption that you can cook everything from scratch doesn't really hold for a lot of households anymore. a number of those assumptions were updated. And for a period, that made a big improvement in that SNAP maximum benefit that we just talked about. Unfortunately, that was eroded by the pretty unprecedented rise in food prices throughout 2022, which of course, partly relates to supply chain issues that emerged during the pandemic. The Ukraine war has certainly had a significant impact on food supply chains. The upshot was we had food price increases that we hadn't seen since the early 1970s. So that's where we were this time last year in terms of the maximum benefit, even with those improvements back to not covering the vast majority of counties in terms of cost adequacy. That cost-of-living adjustment helps somewhat, but I think the lesson we should take from this is that we have an underlying adequacy problem with the Thrifty Food Plan. It's really a bare bones assumption set, and a lot of folks have advocated that we move away from that to something that's called the low-cost food plan. It's a little bit more generous. It's a sort of bare bones basic shopping, but the Thrifty Food Plan may just not be the right template anymore. And if we want to tackle the persistent issue of food insecurity in this country, we've got to deal with this underlying SNAP adequacy issue.   I think this is really an important issue. I want to push a little bit further on the Thrifty Food Plan itself in terms of what it means. Please correct me if I get it wrong. It's this idea of a least-cost diet that is nutritionally adequate. It's looking at the dietary guidelines to help provide constraints to make sure people are eating a nutritious meal and it's also based off a minimum cost expenditure for what that diet would look like. It's based off a family of two adults and two children, and it doesn't incorporate lots of different family structures. Is that a fair assessment? And are there then some concerns about what the Thrifty Food Plan is?   I think what you're suggesting is basically correct and one of the issues about the Thrifty Food Plan is that when it was first developed, it really wasn't envisioned as a sustainable diet. It was really more of an emergency sort of meal plan. Like you're very strapped for resources, you can provide minimal nutrition for your household. But this is not what we want for people on an ongoing basis. One of the problems about the assumptions in the Thrifty Food Plan has also been that when we think about a household of two adults and two children, well, children eat really differently depending on their age, right? A five-year old doesn't eat anything like a 15-year-old. There are a lot of issues around household composition, but also just what do we mean when we say we want nutrition security for people, right? We want people to be able to eat healthfully in a sustaining way and I really think our ongoing look at SNAP adequacy suggests we're not there. We're not leveraging the tools we need to tackle not only food insecurity, but the fact that we have an epidemic of chronic diet-sensitive disease in this country.   Thank you for that. You know, this raises important questions about policy frame and the policy space around food access and food security. The Farm Bill is usually the legislative vehicle for making major changes to SNAP. But this past spring, the debt ceiling debate negotiations resulted in adjustments in the SNAP work requirements for some groups and new exemptions for others. What changes were made? And more broadly, what does research tell us about the impact of work requirements and time limits?   It's been an interesting year, to say the least, for the progress of the Farm Bill. Just to remind everybody, the Farm Bill is that place that we normally make major changes and reauthorize significant federal nutrition programs like SNAP roughly every five years. This year, the debt ceiling negotiations sort of preempted a lot of the ongoing discussion in preparing for the Farm Bill, because it took up this issue of time limits specifically focused on benefits for what we call individuals who are able-bodied adults without dependents. Sometimes, you'll hear the term ABAWD. I prefer not to use it because people are not the policy, but it's really focused on single adults who don't have custodial children. The idea is that if you are not able to meet a minimum work requirement of 80 hours a month or equivalent activities, you are limited to three months of benefits in a 36-month period. So that's extremely draconian, especially when we think about what we all know about the instability of low-wage work, right? And in periods where we have widespread unemployment, like we did for a bit in the pandemic, we have the ability to waive those requirements for everyone but they are now coming back. In addition to them coming back, they are now being increased in terms of the number of people it will cover based on the debt ceiling deal. It used to be folks 18 to 49. It will phase in now for people up to age 55, which is also an interesting thing. Because as people age, they sometimes have less ability to be flexible in the workplace and to move into new positions. There's a whole another conversation we could have about that. I guess a bright side of the debt ceiling bill was that it also created some new exemptions for those requirements, and they were focused on very specific groups including veterans, people who are unhoused, and young adults moving out of foster care. So those are all groups that we know are particularly vulnerable when it comes to just monthly finances and their ability to engage in the workplace. And that's a good thing but it doesn't mean that there aren't lots of other folks out there who have other significant challenges that ought to be recognized. And because it's a very sort of discretionary kind of process, we don't even have confidence that everyone in those groups we just talked about would actually receive a waiver. So why does all this matter? It matters because there's quite a body of research now that suggests that these time limits and work requirements don't do what they set out to do, which is to meaningfully increase either work effort or household income. They don't really accomplish the stated goal. They also cost money because you have to administer them and have a lot more interaction with the clients. And not only then do they not achieve those work goals, but they actually push a lot of people off of SNAP and/or trim them through, as we call people who move in and out because of administrative problems. What we have is a group who already has higher than typical food insecurity rates. We're making it more difficult for them to engage in SNAP. And SNAP is our number one tool for reducing food insecurity from the federal program portfolio. On balance, I think a lot of folks in the food security space would argue that time limits should just go away, right? That's not where we should be putting our investment if we want people to have more self-sufficiency and if we want them to eat better.   I really do appreciate the way you are humanizing the experiences of individuals who may depend on SNAP, but as the new policies are being implemented, may age out in a strange way. This is really a useful way for us to understand the implications of when we make decisions or changes to policy, it can have really negative consequences and may not achieve the goals that are at least stated. This is an important part of this conversation. But we're looking at a federal shutdown and if an agreement isn't reached, we could see some serious implications for families. Some lawmakers are calling for across the board cuts of most discretionary spending programs as part of any agreement. Would those cuts affect federal nutrition programs?   Good question, so the short answer is it's just going to be generally disruptive across the board, but the type of program does matter. So SNAP is what we call an entitlement which means that anybody who is eligible for it will receive those benefits on an ongoing basis. But another very important program that many people are familiar with is called WIC and that is a program focused on prenatal care and postpartum care for moms and infants and children up to the age of five. WIC reaches millions of children across the country, and it is not an entitlement program, which means that it's subject to an annual budget. We already have a problem with the WIC budget this year because we've had bigger increases in enrollment than were expected. I think that speaks to this issue about the continuing pressure of food prices, the loss of other pandemic supports at a time when families are still struggling to navigate basic needs. We've had more pressure on the WIC program and there was already concern that there would not be sufficient funds, let alone going into a shutdown situation. The administration has estimated that there will be a significant impact on families who will not be able to receive WIC if the shutdown were to persist. And then the bigger issue is that the time that we invest, so to speak, in shutdowns is time we're not working on the Farm Bill and having a thorough reassessment of program needs. It's likely to delay the Farm Bill agreements as well. While shutdowns, you know, are obviously very much about politics for people who have to put food on the table every week, some of which are paid for by federal salaries, right? Then this is a very real economic shock and it's unfortunately an economic shock that we could avoid.   Yes, it is important to think about how we can avoid this and reframing this as an issue about politics. But at the end of the day, there are families who are dependent on these policies, and we just had a conversation with Travis Smith at the University of Georgia about what happens when kids roll off WIC and that sort of in-between time before they enter school and that had this negative effect on the nutritional quality that these children consumed. And you can imagine that if there are disruptions in WIC while it's a smaller program than SNAP, it has important implications for the wellbeing of the families that use it. This is an important time and I'm hopeful that we will move past this impasse. Discussions about how to strengthen healthy eating for the US population are ever present. And this is particularly true for those individuals who participate in the SNAP program. What proposals are being considered for SNAP and how could we see any of those in the Farm Bill?   This is a really important topic because we actually have an evidence-based strategy for increasing the ability to purchase healthier foods like fresh fruits and vegetables and that is what they call nutrition incentives. Some people will know it as Double Up Bucks, but basically, they're programs that allow people to receive additional money for SNAP if it's put towards those kinds of purchases. That's something that's been evaluated over the last several years and seems to do exactly what we want, which is to increase those purchases. Unfortunately, it's a grant program. It's not an integral part of SNAP. It very much depends on where you live and what year it is as to whether you can access that kind of program. We're underutilizing a tool that's already there and the Farm Bill does currently reauthorize that grant program. Some people will maybe know it as what's referred to as GA/SNAP grants. But we did an analysis and showed that while they do a good job of targeting GA/SNAP grants to areas of high food insecurity, there's still lots of high food insecurity areas that don't have one available, and they're always time limited to a few years. We're not using the knowledge that we've already gained to accomplish this goal again that we're beginning to talk about, which is to really focus on nutrition security and not just basic adequacy of diet. The other thing that people often raise is, well, perhaps we should restrict purchases of certain kinds of benefits. And I think, in general, we find that Americans don't respond well to those kinds of limitations. And a concern, I think, that the food security space has about restrictions is that it's potentially very stigmatizing just to low-income people who are using a benefit when the truth is that most of America doesn't eat as well as we need to and that's a larger structural conversation. The upshot is some people would advocate for restrictions on things like soda and candy, maybe other snacks. I think we could all understand why we wouldn't want to prioritize that, but the fact of the matter is that restrictions don't make the other things more affordable, and that is exactly what the nutrition incentives are intended to do.   Bio   Elaine Waxman is a senior fellow in the Income and Benefits Policy Center at the Urban Institute.  Her expertise includes food insecurity, food access, federal nutrition programs, social determinants of health and broader issues affecting families with low income. Waxman previously served as the Vice President of Research and Nutrition at Feeding America. She has co-authored numerous publications, including an article on SNAP benefit adequacy in the Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, which was named the journal's Best Paper in 2019. She received her MPP and PhD from the University of Chicago, where she is a lecturer at the Crown School of Social Work, Policy and Practice.  

I read a study recently featuring a term I had not heard or seen before: "disproportionate beef eaters." The study was done by Dr. Amelia Willits-Smith, Diego Rose and colleagues at Tulane University. So, who are such beef eaters and how are their consumption patterns associated with environment and climate change? Today we're joined by one of the authors of that study, Dr. Diego Rose, who is a professor and nutrition program director in the School of Public Health at Tulane.  Interview Summary You, your colleagues, and your students do the most interesting work on really important issues, such as how diet lies at the intersection of health and environment. This sort of work is so important because there's a lot of talk about it. But not enough empirical work to really make policy decisions has been done, at least regarding some questions and you're helping fill like gap. I'm really delighted you could talk to us today. Let's start talking about this study. Give us some context if you would. Why did you set out to study the characteristics of disproportionate beef eaters? Kelly, I've been doing this work for about seven years - working on a connection between diet and climate change. In the early days when I would do presentations on this research, I would always start the presentation with a slide or two of some big government report or intergovernmental report. Sort of legitimizing the whole topic. Now I find that climate change is so connected to people's daily lives whether it's the floods and the heat waves, droughts, fires that that are happening that people know it's a problem. I don't need to preface what I'm saying by that. When people think about climate change, they tend to think about it being caused by the transportation sector, perhaps energy use or construction but they don't tend to think about food systems. But it turns out that human food systems account for a third of greenhouse gas emissions. Most people don't think about that. Within that category, livestock is the most important contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. What's more, within livestock it's beef. Beef, it turns out, accounts for eight to 10 times more impact than chicken and over 50 times the impact on greenhouse gas emissions than beans. Naturally, we were concerned about beef. If we were going to do an education campaign to let people know about this, we thought, well, who should we target it to? We should target it to the people that are eating the most of it. And how you would target that? Well, you would set a threshold for what's disproportionate beef consumption and then go about looking at some data to see who's contributing the most to beef consumption. That makes perfect sense. Let me ask you sort of a fundamental public health question in this context. Sometimes you get a big impact at a public health population level by making big changes in people who are the biggest users of something. Heavy smokers would be an example or heavy drinkers. That's the approach you're taking here. But I know in other cases some people have said that with some consumption patterns that are hard to change, like maybe what people are eating or smoking or drinking, that it makes sense to focus on a different part of the population where you get smaller changes but spread across a larger number of people who are more willing to change, and hence you get a bigger impact. So how do you define who were the disproportionate beef eaters and what were the findings of the study? To think about disproportionate beef eaters we used the dietary guidelines for Americans. We looked at the healthy US meal plan. The data we had was on daily intakes. That meant that for somebody with a 2200 calorie consumption level that a recommended amount would be four ounces for meat, poultry, and eggs. We thought, well, if you're exceeding the recommended amount with just one of those foods, say beef, where you could be meeting the recommendation with chicken or eggs or even vegetarian if you wanted to, we thought that was disproportionate. So, we used that as a benchmark, for a disproportionate diet. So, what did we find? Before you do that, let's give people some sense of this. When people talk about a recommended serving of meat, they say something that might be about the size of a deck of cards. Is that four ounces you're talking about? I'm imagining you're talking about people that eat multiples of that. You can think of four ounces as a quarter pounder, thinking about a burger, except that it's cooked weight. Usually when McDonald's puts out a quarter pounder, that's the raw weight. We're really thinking about one and a quarter or one and a third quarter-pound hamburgers. That's what the threshold is. So, if you're eating more than that, more than one and a quarter, quarter-pounders a day every day, that's what we're considering disproportionate. Okay, thanks. So, now tell us about what you found in your study. We found three kinds of things in the study. First, that 12% of people consumed this disproportionate amount of beef. They were more likely to be men, they were less likely to be young people under 30, or older people over 65. They're also less likely to be college graduates. So, those are the kinds of things we were looking at when we went into it. The other things that we saw were that those 12% of people - and this is what really surprised us because we weren't looking for this, but what ended up happening - the 12% of people that are disproportionate beef eaters are consuming 50% of the total beef on any given day. That was the surprise. That's the one that's got all the headlines. There's another piece in there that didn't get as much play, but I think it's interesting. When you think about beef, you tend to think about a steak on my plate or maybe there's a burger on my plate. But the truth is over 50% of the total beef that we saw consumed was in the form of mixed dishes. I'm talking about stews and soups and burritos and tacos and sandwiches and pasta dishes. That was the other finding - a lot of the beef that's been consumed, a majority of it, is consumed in these mixed dishes not just on a hunk of beef on the plate. Those are really striking findings that 12% of people eat 50% of the beef. And that it's clustered in certain demographic groups! Really pretty interesting. I also am surprised by the mixed dishes because the vision of my head as we were speaking is that people eating the hamburgers and steaks and things like that. But the mixed dishes are really an interesting part of the picture. So, what do you think some of the factors are that drive meat consumption in some of these groups?  It's interesting. I think young people are more concerned about the planet in general. They are more clued to these issues and that might be part of the reason they are eating less beef. I think older people might be eating less beef because they're concerned about health issues. We haven't talked about that. There are a number of studies, and it is pretty consistent evidence showing that the connection between red and processed meats and heart disease and mortality. I think older people might be more concerned about that and therefore eating less meat. College graduates may be just understanding these connections better, possibly. That is part of it. I think men over women because there are some studies that show that meat plays into masculinity. There is also the idea that men are more willing to sacrifice animals for their own good than women are. These are some studies in the psychology of eating. We don't do this kind of work, but I think it's interesting. From my own observations, and this is in the past more than I've seen it currently, but there was a time when the fast-food companies especially were reacting to messages that eating meat wasn't very healthy. The kinds of messages that they were putting out at the time were, don't let anybody tell you what to eat. Be a man, stand up, eat our massive burgers. I imagine that all these things are linked together, aren't they? The marketing practices, the masculinity, the imagery all of it's a pretty complicated set of topics. It is. I think they are connected as you pointed out. That makes it all the more challenging to try to do something about it. So, back to your study now. What do you mean by eating a disproportionate amount of beef? I think you defined it already, but is there more to say and how do you translate your research definition for the public who might be interested in their own consumption patterns? That's an interesting point because we do our research and then we have the challenge of trying to communicate it to the public afterwards. Part of that is there are different concepts. What we do in the research setting is not necessarily related to what you would do at home. So, let me describe how that is. For example, in this study, we're looking at 24-hour recall data. This is a tool that nutritionists use to get a snapshot of what someone ate on the previous day. And they're very comprehensive. There's a whole methodology around it to get what is in that day's food intake. And that's what we have in our study here. The National Health and Nutrition Examination survey which we use is a nationally representative survey. So, we have over 10,000 adults here that we're looking at a snapshot in the day. And so, when we're trying to set up a threshold for what's disproportionate, we take a look at the dietary guidelines for Americans and translate those into one day. That's where we got these four ounces of beef more than that would be disproportionate. Then the question becomes, well, what do you do if you're a consumer? Can I eat a burger and not reach the disproportionate level? Yes, on a given day. But the way that the guidelines are set up is across a whole week. So, really the way to think about it is disproportionate in your daily life would mean eating a burger and a third or more every day, not just on a given day.  That makes perfect sense, so I appreciate that specific advice. What are the connections between consumption patterns that you're describing and agricultural emissions and climate change? This idea of a dietary carbon footprint is what are the greenhouse gas emissions inherent in the foods you eat? It's not the eating that's the problem, it's the producing. That is where most of the emissions come from. How does eating affect emissions? If you eat less of something then the idea is that will send a signal back to producers to produce less of it. So, to the extent that emissions are coming from the production side and you are not participating in that, this would send a message to producers to produce less of it. Now if that link is broken, for example, and it can be broken, if American Beef Producers export which they do, then it doesn't help the planet. In other words, if they keep producing beef and shipping it to Indonesia or someplace else then it's not enough for us to eat less. It has to be a sort of a global effort. It does make good sense when you state it that way that a lot of people making these kinds of changes could add up to a big difference, given the role that beef consumption is playing in agricultural impact on the climate. I appreciate you focusing on that. What would you say is the broader importance of this topic?  Diego - I think really the broader importance is to point out that beef is a really extravagant source of protein. You can get the same nutritional equivalents, even better because it doesn't come with saturated fats, not associated with cardiovascular disease to the degree that beef is. If you were to eat chicken, it's like one-eighth or one-10th the amount of greenhouse gas emissions to produce chicken than it is beef. If you go vegetarian, even more so. I think the significance is that there are little changes that can be made that would add up. And they can come in from lots of people and they can come in lots of ways in anyone's diet. Bio Diego Rose is professor at Tulane University's School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine. His research explores the social and economic side of nutrition problems, with a focus on nutrition assistance programs, food security, and the food environment. He has studied disparities in access to healthy food in New Orleans and has developed a framework for how the neighborhood retail food environment influences dietary choices and obesity. His latest research projects examine grass-roots efforts to improve healthy food access in New Orleans and the environmental impacts of U.S. dietary choices.  Dr. Rose has served as a consultant to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization and the World Food Programme. He teaches nutrition assessment and monitoring and food and nutrition policy. Prior to joining the faculty at Tulane, he worked for USDA's Economic Research Service on domestic food assistance policy and in Mozambique and South Africa on food security and nutrition. He began his nutrition career as the director of a local agency WIC nutrition program in a farmworker clinic in rural California.  

Consumers in low-income countries spend a greater proportion of their budgets on food than those in higher-income countries, according to USDA's Economic Research Service.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Total cash labor expenses for the U.S. agriculture sector are forecast to be $43.35 billion for 2023, based on new data from USDA's Economic Research Service.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

USDA's Economic Research Service is out with some new figures on what farmers and ranchers will take home this year. Hear the latest on that and more in today's DriveTime.

New data from the Department of Agriculture shows consumer food spending habits are changing over time. Micheal Clements shares more. Thomas Capps: Hello and welcome to Tennessee Home and Farm Radio – I'm Thomas Capps. If you find yourself buying most of your food outside of a grocery store you're not alone. Michael Clements has more on a new study from the Department of Agriculture shows consumer food spending habits are changing. Clements: USDA's Economic Research Service's Food Expenditure Series shows consumer spending preferences are changing. Danny Munch, American Farm Bureau Federation Economist, says most notably, food away from home spending has exceeded food at home spending. Munch: Spending away from home surpassed food at home spending by over 300 million last year, the largest gap ever. The biggest categories there are full-service restaurants at about 34 percent of spending away from home and quick service restaurants at about 34 percent of food away from home. Food sold at merchandise stores and vending machines have gone up with the largest increase for food spending away from home. Clements: Munch says there are many ways consumers are changing how they purchase food. Munch: Traditionally, grocery stores consistently captured the largest market share of what people were purchasing to eat at home. That percentage has gone down significantly. So, for instance, in 1999, grocery stores accounted for 72 percent of all at home expenditures. Last year that had dropped down over the course of 25 years to 50 percent of at home spending. Much of that decline was because of the growth of warehouse clubs and super centers and home delivery. Clements: Munch says there are regional differences in the data as well. Munch: So, for instance, in rural Northeast states like New Hampshire and Maine, food costs on average are already higher than the rest of the country, but because they have such higher rural populations folks eat at home more often, so they spend more money on food at home. Versus places like Hawaii, Nevada, which has Las Vegas and Florida where there's much more tourism happening, and people spend a lot more money away from home. And it's important for farmers to be aware of these changes because it influences how their products are ultimately sold. Clements: Learn more on the Market Intel page at fb.org. Micheal Clements, Washington. Thomas Capps:  Whether you get your food at a grocery store, restaurant, or somewhere else i remember a farmer grew it. For Tennessee Home and farm radio – I'm Thomas Capps.

USDA's Economic Research Service's Food Expenditure Series shows consumer spending preferences are changing.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Prices farmers paid for crop seed increased significantly faster than the prices farmers received for crop commodities between 1990 and 2020. USDA's Economic Research Service reports that during that period, the average price farmers paid for all seed rose by 270 percent, while the crop commodity price index rose 56 percent.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

New Data from USDA's Economic Research Service shows foods labeled “natural” accounted for slightly more than 16 percent of consumer retail food purchases in 2018. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

A recent report from the USDA's Economic Research Service says farm sector debt tied to real estate will hit a record high of $375.9 billion in 2023. Randy Dickhut, farmland analyst for Agricultural Economic Insights, says the headline doesn't tell the whole story of what's going on.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

New data released this week by USDA's Economic Research Service shows the number of U.S. farms continues to decline. After peaking at 6.8 million farms in 1935, the number of U.S. farms and ranches fell sharply through the early 1970s.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The food-away-from-home retail landscape continues to evolve. USDA's Economic Research Service recently examined the changing food-away-from-home landscape in nonmetropolitan counties between 1990 and 2019, with a focus on the most rural counties.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Part 2 of a 2-part episode – Magdalena Mook - Magdalena brings experience in fundraising, coaching, consulting and association management. Currently, she offers her vision and strategic direction as the CEO and Executive Director of the International Coaching Federation(ICF), where she acts as a partner to the ICF's Global Board of Directors. Magdalena has also held positions with the Council of State Governments, where she was the Assistant Director of National Policy and Director of Development. The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Economic Research Service has also utilized Magdalena's international business acumen, bringing her in to coordinate technical assistance programs and implementing special projects in four European countries. Magda is a trained professional coach and systems facilitator. Magda is a frequent speaker on subjects of trends in coaching and leadership development as well as regulation and ethics. In 2019, she was a finalist of Thinkers50 Coaching and Mentoring Marshall Goldsmith Distinguished Award and received the Marshall Goldsmith #1 Coach Global Influencer Award. Ms. Mook received her M.S. in Economics and International Trade from the Warsaw School of Economics, Poland. She also graduated from the Copenhagen Business School's Advanced Program in International Management and Consulting. She is a member of the Women's Foreign Policy Group, Forbes.com Council on Non-profits, ATD and serves at the International Section Council of ASAE.   Don't forget to follow CB, comment, rate, review, and subscribe to the show on your preferred platform! Rating/reviews: Rating/reviews: https://lovethepodcast.com/courage Apple Podcast: https://apple.co/34Q2dcI iHeart Radio: https://ihr.fm/3sKaUgM Amazon: https://amzn.to/36j2DZz Spotify: https://spoti.fi/3I6jXzc WEBSITES: Courage Consulting: https://courage-consultant.com/ KeynoteSpeaking: https://courage-consulting.com/speaker/ Coaching Association: https://www.acec-association.org/ Master Corporate Executive Coach Certification: https://acec-association.org/master-corporate-executive-coach-certification/ SOCIAL MEDIA: LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/cbbowman/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/CbOttomanelli Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CB.BowmanMBA/ YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCjZU3KqucXRXDsrHLvj8UIw Newsletter: https://www.linkedin.com/newsletters/courage-c-suite-challenges-6874133122783469568 Email Newsletter: https://courage-consulting.com/newsletter/ Medium: https://medium.com/@cb_courage/ #CBBowmanLive #courage #courageleadership #cbbowman #courageous #courageconsultant #leadership

Part 1 of a 2-part episode – Magdalena Mook - Magdalena brings experience in fundraising, coaching, consulting and association management. Currently, she offers her vision and strategic direction as the CEO and Executive Director of the International Coaching Federation(ICF), where she acts as a partner to the ICF's Global Board of Directors. Magdalena has also held positions with the Council of State Governments, where she was the Assistant Director of National Policy and Director of Development. The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Economic Research Service has also utilized Magdalena's international business acumen, bringing her in to coordinate technical assistance programs and implementing special projects in four European countries. Magda is a trained professional coach and systems facilitator. Magda is a frequent speaker on subjects of trends in coaching and leadership development as well as regulation and ethics. In 2019, she was a finalist of Thinkers50 Coaching and Mentoring Marshall Goldsmith Distinguished Award and received the Marshall Goldsmith #1 Coach Global Influencer Award. Ms. Mook received her M.S. in Economics and International Trade from the Warsaw School of Economics, Poland. She also graduated from the Copenhagen Business School's Advanced Program in International Management and Consulting. She is a member of the Women's Foreign Policy Group, Forbes.com Council on Non-profits, ATD and serves at the International Section Council of ASAE.   Don't forget to follow CB, comment, rate, review, and subscribe to the show on your preferred platform! Rating/reviews: Rating/reviews: https://lovethepodcast.com/courage Apple Podcast: https://apple.co/34Q2dcI iHeart Radio: https://ihr.fm/3sKaUgM Amazon: https://amzn.to/36j2DZz Spotify: https://spoti.fi/3I6jXzc WEBSITES: Courage Consulting: https://courage-consultant.com/ KeynoteSpeaking: https://courage-consulting.com/speaker/ Coaching Association: https://www.acec-association.org/ Master Corporate Executive Coach Certification: https://acec-association.org/master-corporate-executive-coach-certification/ SOCIAL MEDIA: LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/cbbowman/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/CbOttomanelli Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CB.BowmanMBA/ YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCjZU3KqucXRXDsrHLvj8UIw Newsletter: https://www.linkedin.com/newsletters/courage-c-suite-challenges-6874133122783469568 Email Newsletter: https://courage-consulting.com/newsletter/ Medium: https://medium.com/@cb_courage/ #CBBowmanLive #courage #courageleadership #cbbowman #courageous #courageconsultant #leadership

New data from USDA's Economic Research Service shows that between fiscal years 2018 and 2022, Mexico accounted for nearly 14 percent of all U.S. agricultural exports. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Food prices took a significant jump in 2022. At the USDA's Ag Outlook Forum, Spiro Stefanu, administrator of the Economic Research Service, said the spike was the largest in several decades.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this episode we talk with Dr. Harold Keyser, former University of Hawaii CTAHR Maui County Administrator. Dr. Keyser shares some of his thoughts on the future of diversified agriculture, community-oriented ag parks, and experiences working with ag producers and dealing with pest and pesticide stressors on Maui.      Brought to you by University of Hawaii College of Tropical Ag. and Human Resources, and the Seeds of Well-being (SOW) Project. This podcast is supported by the Farm and Ranch Stress Assistance Network (FRSAN) grant from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Institute of Food and Agriculture and Hawaii Department of Agriculture.Associated Links:HDOA Pesticides Branch contact information for Education Specialists in each county.Hawaii Pesticide Policy and Law Review Project, Ashman and Keyser. November 2018.UH CTAHR Integrated Pest Management.Pesticide Educational Resources Collaborative (PERC).Paracelsus - the dose makes the poison.Chlorine is a restricted use pesticide injected into our drinking water to make it safe. How Toxic Is It? Natural and synthetic products can both be toxic (at high doses).Agricultural Health Study.Fernandez-Cornejo, J., R. Nehring, C. Osteen, S. Wechsler, A. Martin, and A. Vialou. 2014. "Pesticide Use in U.S. Agriculture: 21 Selected Crops, 1960-2008". U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, EIB-124.Agricultural Marketing Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Pesticide Data Program Databases and Annual Summaries.FDA Total Diet Study - Monitoring levels of nutrient elements, toxic elements, pesticide residues, and other chemicals in foods.State of Hawaii Department of Health, Safe Drinking Water Branch. Drinking Water Reports.Pesticide Education Resources Collaborative, with links to EPA's Worker Protection Standard on pesticide use and safety information and training.2013-14 STATE WIDE PESTICIDE SAMPLING PILOT PROJECTWATER QUALITY FINDINGS: A Joint Investigation by the Hawaii State Departments of Health and Agriculture. 2014.Johnson, A.G. and Kennedy, J.J., 2018, Summary of dissolved pesticide concentrations in discrete surface-water samples collected on the islands of Kauaʻi and Oʻahu,Find out more about us: Seeds Of Wellbeing website Seeds of Wellbeing Resource Hub All the SOW links

Spiro Stefanou, Administrator of USDA's Economic Research Service, listing some of the farm production expenses that are expected to rise this year. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In the United States, over one third of all available food goes uneaten through loss or waste. That is a hard number to ignore when more than 10% of the US population is food insecure. What's more, uneaten food is the single largest category of material sent to landfills. So what is the USDA doing to address food loss and waste? Our guest today is Dr. Jean Buzby, the Food Loss and Waste Liaison in the US Department of Agriculture's Office of the Chief Economist. Interview Summary Norbert: Welcome, Jean. It is great to have you. So what do you do in your position as the USDA Food Loss and Waste Liaison? As the USDA Food Loss and Waste Liaison, I'm using my platform to raise awareness of food loss and waste, its associated challenges that you mentioned, Norbert, as well as the opportunities for businesses and consumers to save or make money by reducing it. I've worked with multiple partners in the corporate, nonprofit, academic, and government arenas to prevent or reduce food loss and waste. I work with colleagues from the different USDA agencies to increase food loss and waste activities within those agencies as well as with other federal partners in particular. We host, throughout the year, webinars highlighting food loss and waste reduction success stories. In recent years, we have hosted interesting USDA Food Loss and Waste Innovation Fair. Norbert - That's wonderful. As I remember, you were one of the earlier folks out there really using USDA data to begin thinking about what food loss and waste looks like. We really thank you for the work that you've done to begin this work. Brenna - Jean, that actually leads us into one of my questions. The USDA is a big agency with really broad responsibilities. Can you tell us a little bit more about the scope of USDA's work on food loss and waste? Absolutely. The scope is quite broad. We do quite a lot of research, both in-house and extramural funding, for new food innovations and technologies that reduce food loss and waste. For example, our agricultural research service has over 2000 scientists and 90 research centers across the country. Some of those scientists work to develop new and heartier cultivars, such as the keepsake strawberry, which is flavorful and has a longer shelf life. They also have developed automated infield apple sorting systems that separate low quality from high quality apples at harvest with less bruising damage. And other innovations, such as in packaging. The USDA has the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, or NIFA, which does a lot of the extramural competitive funding that develops new technologies and innovations to reduce food loss and waste. For example, one novel technology is Jelly Ice, which doesn't melt like traditional ice and it can be reused several times. And then ultimately composted when finished. So, it's pretty exciting technology and just one of many. USDA produces education and tools. For example, we have a free FoodKeeper App which provides guidance on safe handling, preparation, and storage of more than 650 food and beverage items. And with this App, you can track storage times for different foods, learn cooking tips, and watch helpful videos, and get information on food recalls. We do a lot of funding through our different agencies. For example, Rural Development has funding, and grants, and loan programs that can provide cold storage infrastructure. Brenna - Thank you for that broad overview, Jean. I know Norbert and I spend a lot of time thinking about food loss and waste, but you kind of forget all the different things that USDA does to work on that issue. Can you tell us about any other federal agencies that you work with to meet the national goal to reduce food loss and waste in half by 2030? USDA has an ongoing inter-agency partnership with the US Environmental Protection Agency and the US Food and Drug Administration to improve coordination and communication efforts to educate Americans on the impacts and importance of reducing food loss and waste, and to help get some of these programs going. But these three agencies both have their individual activities as well as collective activities across the agencies that raise awareness and share resources for consumers, businesses, and others. One example of our inter-agency work is the USDA and the EPA have an initiative called the US Food Loss and Waste 2030 Champions program. This encourages the food corporations and businesses to make a public commitment to reducing food loss and waste in their own US operations by 50% by the year 2030, which, by the way, is a national and international goal to make that very ambitious reduction. Right now, we have about 50 2030 Champions, and these include companies across the food system, such as food service organization Aramark, hotel industry leader like Hilton, and grocery giant Kroger. You can learn more about the 2030 Champions by searching for USDA 2030 Champions. If you click on each icon, or the logo of each company, you can see what they're doing in their own in-house activities. It's very exciting and we are actively growing this program Brenna - I think the number of champions has grown quite a lot so that's great to hear. Norbert - I really am happy to hear about the various companies that have engaged in helping reduce food waste. Brenna and I have worked on different projects looking at different actors along the food supply chain and their relationship to food waste. And one of the things that we do know is that consumers really are an important part of that challenge for us to reduce food waste by 50%. I would love to hear some of your thoughts of what can consumers do to help reduce food waste? Absolutely, Norbert. You're right; everybody has a role to play in reducing food loss and waste. A great first step is to be mindful of the food that we discard. We may not be aware of the amount of food we waste over the course of the year because it's a little bit today, a little bit tomorrow, and over time. But an average family of four wastes about $1,500 of food that they purchase and then goes uneaten. That's a big hit to the wallet and small choices add up. But consumers can take mini steps to reduce food waste in their own homes. Such as they can plan ahead; before we go to the grocery store or order online. We can make a list so we don't buy more than we need. You can also love your leftovers. You can pack leftovers in small portions in shallow containers, and mark the contents and date, and then refrigerate it or freeze it immediately. You can even have a leftover night, like every Tuesday is for leftovers. You can also compost and not trash uneaten food. Food in landfills produces a harmful methane gas that's 25 times more potent than carbon dioxide as a climate change gas. It's really important to keep that food out of landfills. You can recycle your food scraps in a home compost bin or a local compost center. But there are many more steps and if you just search online, "USDA food loss and waste," you'll find we have a whole page just for consumers with lots of videos both in English and Spanish, as well as consumer outreach materials. I love the recommendation of "Love Your Leftovers." I'm going to love some later on today so thank you so much for this. Brenna - So the US has a national goal to cut food loss and waste in half by 2030. So I guess, bottom line, are you optimistic that we'll reach that goal? Well, it is a super ambitious goal and I really wish I had a crystal ball to know where we will be by 2030. I am encouraged by the momentum that I see by the public sector and the private sector. Both globally and domestically, there seems to be really increased awareness about food loss and waste. I certainly hope it takes off just as recycling did. But it's important to recognize that the food loss and waste challenge itself is going to continue well after 2030. This issue is here to stay with a growing world population, limited resources, like finite amount of arable land and fresh water. And also our growing awareness of the connections between food loss and waste, and the environment. We'll have to continue to address this issue beyond 2030 as well. Some of the key takeaways I'd love to share with you is that food loss and waste is really complex and it's going to take many different solutions from farm to table. There is no silver bullet. These solutions are going to be many, and will include, likely, public-private partnerships, as well as increased consumer education. As I mentioned before really everyone has a role to play in reducing food loss and waste. Norbert - All great points, Jean. Thank you so much for your perspectives on this issue. One of the things that I took away from this conversation is this is a systemic challenge and it's going to take a systemic approach to help us reduce food loss and waste throughout the supply chain. Thank you for giving us that perspective and also for your optimism. I'm excited about the potential and the work that several of us are doing are all moving towards that goal. Bio Jean C. Buzby, Ph.D., is the USDA Food Loss and Waste Liaison in the Office of the Chief Economist. Prior to this position, she worked for USDA's Economic Research Service for more than 20 years, most recently as the Chief of the Diet, Safety, and Health Economics Branch in ERS's Food Economics Division.  Before moving into management, her primary areas of work as an agricultural economist at ERS were food safety and food consumption research. Jean's food safety research included estimating the cost of foodborne illness, analyzing the legal incentives for firms to produce safer food, and exploring international trade and food safety issues. Her food consumption research was centered on information from the Food Availability Data System. She is domestically and internationally known for her research on the amount and value of food loss at the retail and consumer levels in the United States.

Food-at-home prices increased by 11.4 percent in 2022, more than three times the rate in 2021 of 3.5 percent, according to USDA's Economic Research Service. The increase was also much faster than the two percent historical annual average from 2002 to 2021.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

It took the Agriculture Department two years to recover from mass staff attrition in 2019, but the agency is still facing challenges from the decision to relocate two of its major research facilities. The larger problem now, beyond successfully restaffing the Economic Research Service and the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, is dealing with a loss of employee experience and staff diversity, according to a January 13 from the Government Accountability Office. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

It took the Agriculture Department two years to recover from mass staff attrition in 2019, but the agency is still facing challenges from the decision to relocate two of its major research facilities. The larger problem now, beyond successfully restaffing the Economic Research Service and the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, is dealing with a loss of employee experience and staff diversity, according to a January 13 from the Government Accountability Office. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoicesSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

What are the drivers that lead to higher student loan balances? Why a one-time student loan forgiveness program doesn't solve the problem of increasing student debt. What are some more viable longer-term solutions.Topics covered include:How big is the Biden Administration student debt forgiveness planHow big has the student debt burden grownWhy are borrowings for students increasingWhy Baby Boomers spent so much less on collegeHow are student loans accounted for by the U.S. federal governmentWhat is the impact on the deficit and potentially inflation of forgiving billions of dollars of student debtFor more information on this episode click here.Show NotesStudent Debt And The Federal Budget | How Student Loans Impact The U.S. Fiscal Outlook, November 2021—Bipartisan Policy CenterWhat the Student-Loan Debate Overlooks by Ronald Brownstein—The AtlanticSee the Average College Tuition in 2022-2023 by Emma Kerr and Sarah Wood—U.S. News & World ReportBiden's Student-Debt Plan Could Chip Away at the Racial Wealth Gap by Sheelah Kolhatkar—The New YorkerIf your federal student loan payments are high compared to your income, you may want to repay your loans under an income-driven repayment plan—Federal Student AidWhat Does Student Debt Cancellation Mean for Federal Finances?—Committee for a Responsible Federal BudgetGovernment payments by program—Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of AgricultureProjected Lifetime Earnings by Major by Douglas A. Webber, December 1st, 2019Related Episodes245: Is College Worth It?307: Income Share Agreements—Good for Students or Investors?327: Is Student Loan Forgiveness A Good Idea?See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

USDA's Economic Research Service just released its annual report on food security, showing a slight decline in 2021 from 2020. American Farm Bureau Federation Senior Economist Veronica Nigh explains the data.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

USDA's Economic Research Service reports the interest expense ratio of farms was 0.04 in 2020, remaining in line with the long-term trend and initial forecasts, despite the pandemic.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

U.S. beef producers face higher input costs this year, predicted up seven percent compared to 2021. USDA's Economic Research Service reported Monday the farmer's share of the retail value of beef also increased year over year, but rising input costs, especially for cattle feed, may limit farmers' ability to benefit from higher cattle prices.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

New data released this week from USDA's Economic Research Service shows the number of U.S. farms continues to decline slowly. After peaking at 6.8 million farms in 1935, the number of U.S. farms and ranches fell sharply through the early 1970s. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

New data from USDA's Economic Research Service shows the U.S. dairy sector has experienced a gradual shift in milk production toward larger dairy operations. The research indicates that the shift in production from small dairy herd-size farms to large dairy herd-size farms mirrors total factor productivity growth across the dairy sector. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

New data from USDA's Economic Research Service shows restaurant transactions fell 47 percent in 2020, compared to 2019. In March of 2020, the federal government declared a national emergency in response to the Coronavirus pandemic.  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.