Skip to content

52 search results for "farmers' markets"

Are the Foods You Buy at the Farmers Market Safer than Other Foods?

For the past year or so, I have been working on a paper with my colleague Rob King which I am hoping to debut sometime soon in which we look at the relationship between farmers markets and food-borne illness.

I have presented that paper twice so far–once at Ohio State, and once at Oklahoma State. Every time I present it, one thing that comes up is whether there is reverse causality, i.e., whether people perceive the foods they buy from farmers markets as safer than the foods they buy at supermarkets, which would lead to a spurious relationship between farmers markets and food-borne illness because increases in the number of outbreaks and cases of food-borne illness would then cause increases in the number of farmers markets.

After my talk at Oklahoma State, I was discussing this with Jayson Lusk, who had invited me to give that talk, and the outcome of our conversation was that we simply didn’t know what most people would think. So Jayson (whose blog you really should be reading if you don’t already) decided to include a question to that effect in his monthly Food Demand Survey (FooDS), and which he discussed in a post last week:

Messing with Markets: Raisin Hell

Since the 1940s raisin farmers have been obliged to make over a portion of their crop to a government agency called the Raisin Administrative Committee. The committee, run by 47 raisin farmers and packers, along with a sole member of the raisin-eating public, decides each year how many raisins the domestic market can bear, and thus how many it should siphon off to preserve an “orderly” market. It does not pay for the raisins it appropriates, and gives many of them away, while selling others for export. Once it has covered its own costs, it returns whatever profits remain to farmers. In some years there are none. Worse, farmers sometimes forfeit a substantial share of their crop: 47% in 2003 and 30% in 2004, for example.

Participation in this Brezhnevite scheme is mandatory. Although a large majority of raisin farmers approved of it by referendum when it started 65 years ago, they have not been formally consulted since. And raisins are just one of 30 products subject to such “marketing orders” overseen by the Department of Agriculture.

From an article in this week’s edition of The Economist.

Since the 1940s? Thirty such marketing orders? I wonder why the asinine crowd who usually delights in braying “Socialiss’!” in this country hasn’t made itself heard on this matter yet.

Small Farmers, NGOs, and a Walmart World

Despite more than a decade of NGO and government activities promoting developing world farmer participation in high-value agricultural markets, evidence regarding the household welfare effects of such initiatives is limited. This article analyzes the geographic placement of supermarket supply chains in Nicaragua between 2000 and 2008 and uses a difference-in-differences specification on measures of supplier and nonsupplier assets to estimate the welfare effects of small farmer participation. Though results indicate that selling to supermarkets increases household productive asset holdings, they also suggest that only farmers with advantageous endowments of geography and water are likely to participate.

The abstract of a new article by my friend, coauthor, and grad school colleague Hope Michelson in the American Journal of Agricultural EconomicsHere is recent ungated version the paper.