The Economic Research Service (ERS) is part of the U.S. Department of Agricultural (USDA). Its focus is to analyze and distribute economic information and research. Their results provide decision makers the information they need to run business, create policies and understand the farm, rural and food economy. Total citrus production forecast to remain stable in 2012/13.

Evaluation of publicly funded research can help provide accountability and prioritize programs. In addition, Federal intramural research planning generally involves an institutional assessment of the appropriate Federal role, if any, and whether the research should be left to others, such as universities or the private sector. Many methods of evaluation are available, peer review-used primarily for establishing scientific merit-being the most common. Economic analysis focuses on quantifying ultimate research outcomes, whether measured in goods with market prices or in nonmarket goods such as environmental quality or human health. However, standard economic techniques may not be amenable for evaluating some important public research priorities or for institutional assessments. This report reviews quantitative methods and applies qualitative economic reasoning and stakeholder interviewing methods to the evaluation of economic benefits of Federal intramural research using three case studies of research conducted by USDA's Agricultural Research Service (ARS). Differences among the case studies highlight the need to select suitable assessment techniques from available methodologies, the limited scope for comparing assessment results across programs, and the inherent difficulty in quantifying benefits in some research areas. When measurement and attribution issues make it difficult to quantify these benefits, the report discusses how qualitative insights based on economic concepts can help research prioritization.

Food security-consistent access to enough food for an active, healthy life-is essential for health and good nutrition. The extent to which a nation's population achieves food security is an indication of its material and social well-being. Differences in the prevalence of household-level food insecurity between Canada and the United States are described at the national level and for selected economic and demographic subpopulations. Associations of food security with economic and demographic characteristics are examined in multivariate analyses that hold other characteristics constant. Comparable measures of household food security were calculated from the nationally representative Canadian Community Health Survey Cycle 2.2 (2004) and the U.S. Current Population Survey Food Security Supplement (2003-05). Based on the standard U.S. methodology, the percentage of the population living in households classified as food insecure was lower in Canada (7.0 percent) than in the United States (12.6 percent). The difference was greater for the percentage of children living in food-insecure households (8.3 percent vs. 17.9 percent) than for adults (6.6 percent vs. 10.8 percent). These differences primarily reflected different prevalence rates of food insecurity for Canadian and U.S. households with similar demographic and economic characteristics. Differences in population composition on measured economic and demographic characteristics account for only about 15 to 30 percent of the overall Canada-U.S. difference.

Assessment of issues that will affect China's future trends in consumption, production, import, and export of food and agricultural commodities. A series of 13 articles cover China's food consumption, marketing, international trade, agricultural policy, transportation infrastructure, regional diversity, livestock sector, biotechnology, water and irrigation policy, land tenure system, rural development, employment, and market information.

Federal intervention in food labeling is often proposed with the aim of achieving a social goal such as improving human health and safety, mitigating environmental hazards, averting international trade disputes, or supporting domestic agricultural and food manufacturing industries. Economic theory suggests, however, that mandatory food-labeling requirements are best suited to alleviating problems of asymmetric information and are rarely effective in redressing environmental or other spillovers associated with food production and consumption. Theory also suggests that the appropriate role for government in labeling depends on the type of information involved and the level and distribution of the costs and benefits of providing that information. This report traces the economic theory behind food labeling and presents three case studies in which the government has intervened in labeling and two examples in which government intervention has been proposed.

This report evaluates the impact of Indonesia's transition from a food-first focus to an export-oriented development strategy on its agricultural production, productivity growth, consumer food demand, and lifestyle. Shifting production and consumption patterns have led to improving agricultural trade patterns and food security, which in turn have contributed to increased export opportunities for U.S. agricultural suppliers.

A minimum of $3.6 billion would be saved if breastfeeding were increased from current levels (64 percent in-hospital, 29 percent at 6 months) to those recommended by the U.S. Surgeon General (75 and 50 percent). This figure is likely an underestimation of the total savings because it represents cost savings from the treatment of only three childhood illnesses: otitis media, gastroenteritis, and necrotizing enterocolitis. This report reviews breastfeeding trends and previous studies that assessed the economic benefits of breastfeeding.

This annual bestseller presents historical data on food consumption, prices, and expenditures by commodity and commodity group, supply and use, prices, total expenditures, and U.S. income and population. Includes 29 charts dealing with food consumption trends, from changes in per capita consumption, to share of income spent for food.

Industrial hemp has been the focus of official interest in several States. However, hemp and marijuana are different varieties of Cannabis sativa, which is classified as a controlled substance in the United States. With Canada now allowing hemp production, questions have been raised about the demand for hemp products. U.S. markets for hemp fiber (specialty textiles, paper, and composites) and seed (in food or crushed for oil) are, and will likely remain, small, thin markets. Uncertainty about longrun demand for hemp products and the potential for oversupply discounts the prospects for hemp as an economically viable alternative crop for American farmers.