Food Insecurity Prevalence Across Diverse Sites During COVID-19: A Year of Comprehensive Data

Key Findings NFACT includes 18 study sites in 15 states as well as a national poll, collectively representing a sample size of more than 26,000 people. Some sites have implemented multiple survey rounds, here we report results from 22 separate surveys conducted during the year since the COVID-19 pandemic began in March 2020. 18 out of 19 surveys in 14 sites with data for before and since the pandemic began found an increase in food insecurity since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic as compared to before the pandemic. In nearly all surveys (18/19) that measured food insecurity both before and during the pandemic, more Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) were classified as food insecure during the pandemic as compared to before it began. Prevalence of food insecurity for BIPOC respondents was higher than the overall population in the majority of surveys (19/20) sampling a general population. In almost all surveys (21/22), the prevalence of food insecurity for households with children was higher than the overall prevalence of food insecurity. Food insecurity prevalence was higher for households experiencing a negative job impact during the pandemic (i.e. job loss, furlough, reduction in hours) in nearly all surveys and study sites (21/22). Food insecurity prevalence in most sites was significantly higher before COVID-19 than estimates from that time period. Reporting a percent change between pre and during COVID-19 prevalence may provide additional information about the rate of change in food insecurity since the start of the pandemic, which absolute prevalence of food insecurity may not capture. Results highlight consistent trends in food insecurity outcomes since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, across diverse study sites, methodological approaches, and time

Strategic Communication Introduction

N/AOverview of the Strategic Communication ToolkitN/

Supplementary Data from: Responsible antibiotic use labeling and consumers’ willingness to buy and pay for fluid milk

These files contain data along supporting all results reported in Schell et al 2021 Responsible antibiotic use labeling and consumers’ willingness to buy and pay for fluid milk.This study was supported by USDA-NIFA’ Federal Formula Funds under Accession # 1014331 and Multistate Research Funds accession number #1016738 awarded to Renata Ivanek

Vector-Borne Disease Workforce Training & Development Needs Assessment

A primary goal of the Northeast Regional Center for Excellence in Vector-Borne Diseases: Teaching & Evaluation Center (NEVBD-TEC) is to offer professional development opportunities for the public health entomology workforce. In spring 2024, NEVBD-TEC conducted an online needs assessment to understand the training needs for vector-borne disease (VBD) and public health professionals working in public agencies. The assessment focused on those involved in the surveillance and control of ticks, mosquitoes, and their associated diseases in the northeastern United States. This report provides a summary of the outcomes from this training needs assessment.This work was supported through Cooperative Agreement U50CK000633 between Cornell University and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. This content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Consumer perceptions of antibiotic use in animal agriculture in the United States, Canada, and the European Union: A scoping review

Given the global rise of antibiotic resistance, many industries have been called on to minimize antibiotic use. The purpose of this review is to specifically understand consumer opinions surrounding the use of antibiotics in animal agriculture

Consumer perceptions of antibiotic use in animal agriculture in the United States, Canada, and the European Union: A scoping review

Given the global rise of antibiotic resistance, many industries have been called on to minimize antibiotic use. The purpose of this review is to specifically understand consumer opinions surrounding the use of antibiotics in animal agriculture

Consumer perceptions of antimicrobial use in animal husbandry: A scoping review

Antimicrobial use in animal agriculture is often perceived to play a role in the emerging threat of antimicrobial resistance. Increased consumer awareness of this issue places pressure on animal husbandry to adopt policies to reduce or eliminate antimicrobial use. We use a scoping review methodology to assess research on consumer perceptions of antimicrobial drugs in meat products in the United States, Canada, or the European Union. Evaluating peer-reviewed and grey literature, we included studies for assessment if they met these topical and geographic requirements, involved primary data collection, and were originally published in English. Our screening process identified 124 relevant studies. Three reviewers jointly developed a data charting form and independently charted the contents of the studies. Of the 105 studies that measured consumer concern, 77.1% found that consumers were concerned about antimicrobial use in meat production. A minority of studies (29.8% of all studies) queried why consumers hold these views. These studies found human health and animal welfare were the main reasons for concern. Antimicrobial resistance rarely registered as an explicit reason for concern. A smaller group of studies (23.3%) measured the personal characteristics of consumers that expressed concern about antimicrobials. Among these studies, the most common and consistent features of these consumers were gender, age, income, and education. Regarding the methodology used, studies tended to be dominated by either willingness-to-pay studies or Likert scale questionnaires (73.64% of all studies). We recommend consideration of qualitative research into consumer views on this topic, which may provide new perspectives that explain consumer decision-making and mentality that are lacking in the literature. In addition, more research into the difference between what consumers claim is of concern and their ultimate purchasing decisions would be especially valuable.https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.026101

The E-Cigarette Population Paradox: Testing Effects of Youth-Targeted Population Warnings for E-Cigarettes among Two Key Populations

Trial and use of e-cigarettes among youth who are not users of combustible cigarettes has reached epidemic levels, and e-cigarette product advertisements (ads) have likely played a role. The widespread use of e-cigarettes poses significant harms to the health and well-being of adolescents. Increasing the strength of warning labels on ads for other tobacco products have been found to reduce the appeal of these products among young people, suggesting that they may also be an effective strategy to curb this epidemic among adolescents. One major challenge to the design of stronger and more effective health warnings on e-cigarette ads, however, is the risk that smokers of combustible cigarettes may be deterred from switching completely to e-cigarettes when they could experience major health benefits from doing so. Warnings therefore must communicate the risks of e-cigarettes to youth and non-smokers while also protecting perceptions of the benefits of switching completely to e-cigarettes among combustible cigarette smokers. This paradox presents a challenge for regulators. The goal of this study is to inform the FDA on issues pertaining to e-cigarette warning regulations given this complex population paradox. Targeted outcomes include: -Risk beliefs about combustible and electronic cigarette products -Willingness to use combustible and electronic cigarette products -Perceived benefits of switching from combustible to electronic cigarette products -Intentions to use e-cigarettes to help with smoking cessation We have developed a set of candidate warning messages. The current study will assess the effects of these messages on these targeted outcomes among two populations within the paradox: non-smoking youth and adult smokers. The current study will use a randomized, controlled experiment to test warnings on e-cigarette ads to maximize favorable effects on youth as a critical at-risk population. We will test the effects of warnings in a randomized experiment with a 5between (candidate warnings) x 3within (ad appeals) design, N=1200 youth. We will identify warning labels that increase risk beliefs and reduce use intentions. We will also experimentally test for unintended effects of warnings on e-cigarette with adult cigarette smokers who may be discouraged from switching to e-cigarettes when exposed to some types of warnings. We will conduct a parallel randomized experiment with the same 5between (candidate warnings) x 3within (ad appeals) design, N=1500 adult tobacco users (N=500 e-cigarette users who do not smoke combustible cigarettes, N=500 combustible cigarette smokers who do not use e-cigarettes, and N=500 dual users), to test whether the most effective warnings among youth have any unintended consequences among adult tobacco users. We will test whether youth-effective warning labels influence comparative risks between combustible and e-cigarettes, and intentions/willingness to use both products (switching completely to e-cigarettes, dual use, or continued smoking of combustible cigarettes) among adults