Food Policy Evaluation

Research Topic: Food Policy Evaluation

Cómo influye el etiquetado de alimentos en las elecciones de snacks de niños y adolescentes chilenos

A better understanding of youth as autonomous consumers in the food market is needed to guide food and nutrition policies to achieve healthier and sustainable diets because they interact with the food environment to obtain, prepare, and consume food and beverages. Compared to other age groups, evidence on children and adolescents (youth) purchasing behavior and front-of-package (FOP) labeling is limited. The objective of the study was to assess youth’s purchasing behavior by conducting an online discrete choice experiment (DCE) in Santiago, Chile. We assessed four different food attributes: price, FOP nutrition warning label, FOP eco-label, and type of product (i.e., yogurt, cookie, apple). Data were analyzed using mixed logit models complemented with latent class logit models to further explore heterogeneity in preferences. A total of 329 youth aged 10–14 years participated in the study. Our results reveal that youths’ purchasing behavior is mostly determined by price, followed by product type and environmental sustainability as measured by the FOP eco-label; responsiveness to price was not moderated by whether the youth received pocket money from a family member regularly. We further identified five classes (groups) of youth consumers where some exhibited preference for health and nutrition attributes, environmental sustainability, or price. Our findings provide a better understanding of youth as diverse and autonomous consumers and suggest at least some youths are responsive to labeling interventions.

Gabriela Fretes, Norbert L.W. Wilson, Camila Corvalan, Christina D. Economos, Sean Cash. Front-of-pack labels and young consumers: An experimental investigation of nutrition and sustainability claims in Chile. Food Quality and Preference Volume 127, June 2025, 105432. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2025.105432

Do food labels influence snack choices among youth in Chile?

Food Waste, Date Labels, and Risk Preferences: An Experimental Exploration

In January 2025, FSIS and FDA requested seeking public input on food date labeling. The Request for Information (Docket No. FSIS-2024-0021) seeks information on industry practices and preferences for date labeling, research results on consumer perceptions of date labeling, and any impact date labeling may have on food waste.

In the new article “Food Waste, Date Labels, and Risk Preferences: An Experimental Exploration” published in the Applied Economic Perspectives & Policy (AEPP), Wilson and Miao look at how consumers change their premediated food waste and willingness to pay (WTP) when they see a simple date label that indicates quality (“Best by”) versus one that signals safety (“Use by”). It also examines how these changes depend on the type of food and consumers’ attitudes toward risk, including risk aversion, loss aversion, and how they perceive probabilities, based on prospect theory. The goal is to understand the effects of simplifying date labels and to add to the research on how different food waste reduction strategies affect consumers in various ways.

“We are excited to contribute to the work on reducing food waste. The Food Safety and Inspection Service has an open request for information on date labels like “Best by” and “Use by” affecting food waste. Our experiment found that date labels affect how people think about waste. People also respond differently to these labels, given their thoughts about financial losses, what is called loss aversion. We find evidence that simplifying the date labels could lower waste for some products but not for others. Further, we see that changing labels may have little effect on some consumers because they dislike financial losses more than others. Our findings suggest food waste reduction efforts like simplifying date labels are a start but will not prevent food waste alone,” said agricultural economist Norbert Wilson, Duke University.

“One key contribution of this work is using prospect theory—a decision-making framework that accounts for risks and losses—to understand how consumers’ food waste behavior may change when facing different date labels and food items,” said agricultural economist Ruiqing Miao, Auburn University.

If you are interested in setting up an interview, please contact Allison Ware in the AAEA Business Office.

ABOUT AAEA: Established in 1910, the Agricultural & Applied Economics Association (AAEA) is the leading professional association for agricultural and applied economists, with 2,500 members in more than 60 countries. Members of the AAEA work in academic or government institutions as well as in industry and not-for-profit organizations, and engage in a variety of research, teaching, and outreach activities in the areas of agriculture, the environment, food, health, and international development. The AAEA publishes three journals, the Journal of the Agricultural and Applied Economics Association (an open access journal), the American Journal of Agricultural Economics and Applied Economic Perspectives & Policy, as well as the online magazine Choices and the online open access publication series Applied Economics Teaching Resources. To learn more, visit www.aaea.org.

FSIS-2024-0021 Food Date Labeling Response

In December 2024, the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) solicited public input on food date labeling. The Request for Information sought information on industry practices and preferences for date labeling, research results on consumer perceptions of date labeling, and any impact date labeling may have on food waste.

This response from the Duke World Food Policy Center and Auburn University is informed by prior research and a new study published in Applied Economics and Perspectives entitled “Food Waste, Date Labels, and Risk Preferences: An Experimental Exploration” (Wilson & Miao, 2025), which explores consumer behavior and decision-making related to food date labels.

DOWNLOAD RESPONSE

Front-of-pack labels and young consumers: An experimental investigation of nutrition and sustainability claims in Chile

Abstract

Empowering Eaters: Access, Affordability, Healthy Choices

“The Health and Wellbeing of Future Generations in Policy”

Summit in Support of the National Strategy on Hunger, Nutrition, and Health

The Summit was co-hosted by Food Tank, the White House, and Duke University’s
World Food Policy Center, housed in the Sanford School of Public Policy.

The goals of this session were to highlight progress, elevate solutions to barriers, and identify areas for continued effort toward each of the National Strategy’s five pillars. Plenary conversations took place on the main stage, and breakout sessions were held to facilitate more focused discussions on key topics.

The following experts (in alphabetical order) participated as speakers and/or facilitators:

Alma S. Adams, U.S. Member of Congress (via video); Craig Albanese, Duke University Health System; Alice Ammerman, UNC-Chapel Hill; Kelliann Blazek, The White House; Sean B. Cash, Tufts University Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy; Chris M. Collins, The Duke Endowment; Roy Cooper, North Carolina Governor (via video); Don Davis, U.S. Member of Congress (via video); Lauren Davis, North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University; Merry Davis, Blue Cross Blue Shield NC Foundation; Rachel Ferencik, CDC Foundation; Gavan Fitzsimons, Duke Fuqua School of Business; Valerie Foushee, U.S. Member of Congress; Maggie Funkhouser, Carrboro Farmers Market and NC Farmers Market Network; Luis Guardia, Food Research & Action Center; Debbie Hamrick, North Carolina Farm Bureau; Jeff Jackson, U.S. Member of Congress (via video); Steven Jennings, Ahold Delhaize USA; Debra Clark Jones, Community Health at Duke University; Rob Kinneen, Native Alaskan Chef + NĀTIFS; Ken Kolb, Furman University; Kathy Manning, U.S. Member of Congress (via video); Will McIntee, White House; Dr. Greg Murphy, U.S. Member of Congress (via video); Jennifer Norka, American Frozen Food Institute; Mary Oxendine, Potlikker Capital; Justine Post, Rural Advancement Foundation International-USA; Deborah Ross, U.S. Member of Congress (via video); Luke Saunders, Farmer’s Fridge; Sean Sherman, Executive Director of NĀTIFS; Baldemar Velasquez, Farm Labor Organizing Committee; Eric Wiebe, Emanuel Food Pantry; Leonardo Williams, Mayor of Durham; and Norbert Wilson, Duke World Food Policy Center.

Following the main stage program, participants chose one breakout session to attend. Conversations during these breakout sessions inform the “The Community Perspective” sections of this report. Sessions included the following:

Community-Based Efforts to Improve Local Food Environments, focusing on how community-driven initiatives are ensuring all residents have access to healthy, nutritious, and culturally relevant food options. Participants discussed the qualities that define successful programs and strategies to overcome barriers to developing/scaling these initiatives.
The Role of Food Business in Increasing Access to Healthy Foods, focusing on how food businesses can help eaters access healthy food options. Participants discussed opportunities for companies of all sizes to take action, as well as the potential of public-private partnerships.
Good Food Purchasing for Farmers, Eaters, and the Planet, focusing on links between producers and resilient communities. Participants discussed the importance of farmers toward food and nutrition security, the power of procurement practices, and the resources farmers in rural and urban environments need to thrive.

A full replay of the mainstage program is available here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zUUqYmGEEo&ab_channel=FoodTank

Workshop Report – Strengthening Gleaning Incentives for North Carolina Farmers

Gleaning usually involves collecting fruit and vegetables left on the field after conventional harvesting. It can involve picking crops that the farmer won’t gather because of high harvesting costs and low produce prices. And gleaning can also include collecting excess foods from gardens, farmers markets, grocers, restaurants, state/ county fairs, or any other sources in order to provide it to those in need.

Results from Consensus-focused Solutioning Session

Farmer Support

Create an alert network for farmers to announce a need gleaners and/or direct farm sales
Help farmers with taxes and tax preparation related to gleaning
Create collective tax incentive filing for shared resources
Establish congregation “food hubs”
Create local farmer co-op programs for before gleaning to maximize their opportunity to sell for fair market value
Create markets for UGLY but edible food
Offer liability/safety training for gleaners
Brand and promote gleaning as best practice in operations

Food as Medicine

Subsidize local CSA produce prescription programs and use gleaned foods
Integrate healthcare system and gleaning in creative ways
Increase funding from healthcare partners & data collection
Offer grant funding for farmers to grow food as medicine specifically
Promote food as medicine

Community Engagement and Farmer Recognition

Create recognition programs for farmers
Create marketing campaigns to farmers (personal connections)
Offer visible farmer recognition such as signage, web badges, social media to signal
“great neighbor” and “great environmental steward”
Celebrate farmers as community partners in visible, locally relevant ways
Show appreciation through gifts and recognition
Drive commerce to gleaner farmers as reciprocity – storytelling is key

Legislative Changes

Build a policy case for a generous NC tax credit that is financially beneficial to small/medium farms in particular
Remove cap on tax break
Reinstate tax break with no requirement to claim break as income
Higher tax incentive
Allocate more farm to table funds
Place market value on donation and give tax write off
Subsidize gleaned food aggregation and shipping (also send food back to farmers)
Develop financial incentives that farmers want Economic Policies and Incentives
Create ways to increase farm labor force
Change USDA categorization from specialty to essential
Ease farmer liability concerns
Strengthen institutional sourcing policies

We received funding from The Eads Family Undergraduate Research Endowment Fund and The Duke Endowment Fund to support this effort. This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Award No. 2115405. Any opinions, findings and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

Virtual water trade: Does bilateral tariff matter?

Abstract

Virtual water trade (VWT) is the trade of water ‘embodied’ in a product. This paper explores the extent to which bilateral tariffs, World Trade Organization (WTO), and Regional Trade Agreements (RTA) reshape the trade of water across nations and alleviate water scarcity issues. To achieve this goal, we built a panel database on blue (irrigation water) and green (rainwater) VWT among paired trading countries from 1998 to 2002. Using a standard gravity model, we study how the bilateral tariff and WTO/ RTA affect the intensity of blue and green VWT. The results indicate that, on average, a 1% tariff reduction increases the green virtual water trade by 0.219%. In most water-stressed countries, a 1% reduction in tariffs increased blue VWT by 0.416% and green VWT by 0.424%. By crops, we find that tariffs had a negative effect on VWT for the less water-intensive crops, but a positive effect or no effect on the more water-intensive crops. We further find in the most water-stressed countries, RTA facilitated VWT. As a climate mitigation strategy, water-scarce countries can increase VWT, thus reducing the production of water-intensive crops, by lowering tariff rates independently or through trade agreements.

North Carolina Tax Advantaged Policies for Crop Gleaning

Gleaning is a powerful tool to address food insecurity and waste. Gleaning is when farmers work with volunteers to rescue and donate crops left behind after the main harvest. If a farmer has crops they cannot sell, gleaning can both reduce food loss and help the less fortunate. Many farmers are motivated by the humanitarian component but are dissuaded by the logistical and coordination challenges.

Findings

Tax incentives have a mixed track record. Public policy is an important factor for gleaning, acting as an incentive or a barrier. In practice, there is evidence that many tax incentives are ineffective. The federal government and numerous states offer tax incentives to farmers who glean in hopes of encouraging and subsidizing the practice. Farmers argue they are not large enough to make the paperwork worth it, while others are unaware of the incentives. If policymakers are interested in designing more effective incentives, they could increase the incentive size, shift from deductions to credits, and/or reduce the administrative burden, among other ideas.
Ambiguity and lack of awareness weaken the potential benefits of current legal protections for farmers. Governments offer liability protections and exemptions to food safety laws. Congress has passed strong protections for farmers who glean. These protections are meant to alleviate farmers’ concerns over the risks of gleaning. Yet many of these laws have potential gaps and ambiguous language. Thus, many farmers are still wary of allowing gleaners on their fields. The federal government has taken action in recent years to update food donation laws, but there is still room for further reforms.
North Carolina’s tax incentive (now repealed) was the smallest offered among States, and the least financially attractive for farmers. NC implemented a tax credit in 1984 before the legislature repealed it in 2013. Comparatively few farmers took advantage of it, likely because the benefits were minor and not enough to overcome the filling burden or convince farmers who might otherwise glean. These same trends are seen in other states with tax incentives.
A wide range of more generous state tax-based incentives have or are being offered in several states. These incentives provide a backdrop for consideration of any new state tax credits or incentives for North Carolina.

Recommendations for policy change to support gleaning

Policymakers have options to design strong economic incentives and bolster legal protections for farmers. A lack of currently existing quantitative data on the impact of gleaning incentives does not support evidence-based policy setting. More academic research analysis is needed. Similarly, the gleaning community has an opportunity to collaborate with academics, including legal and tax experts, to inform policy interventions that promote gleaning.

Two recommendations are as follows:

Policy Option #1: Design an effective state tax incentive for NC farmers and gleaned crops, with special emphasis on small and medium sized farmers.
Policy Option #2: Adopt stronger and clearer legal protections for farmers and gleaners, and increase awareness of these policies.

Exploring Farmer Incentives for Gleaning in North Carolina

The WFPC partnered with the Society of St. Andrew to explore opportunities to strengthen North Carolina farmer participation in gleaning. As Covid-19 pandemic emergency food support funding has expired, the ecosystem of food donations has shifted. The Society of St. Andrew is interested in learning how to create the best win-win for farmers and families in need.

Objectives

Conduct research on North Carolina’s now expired tax deduction for gleaned crop donations to determine if it makes sense to lobby for a new deduction
Better understand the needs and motivations of farmers with respect to gleaning, farm safety, and community engagement
Hold a convening of stakeholders to develop consensus-based recommendations for the Society of St. Andrew