TransNets: Learning to Transform for Recommendation

Recently, deep learning methods have been shown to improve the performance of recommender systems over traditional methods, especially when review text is available. For example, a recent model, DeepCoNN, uses neural nets to learn one latent representation for the text of all reviews written by a target user, and a second latent representation for the text of all reviews for a target item, and then combines these latent representations to obtain state-of-the-art performance on recommendation tasks. We show that (unsurprisingly) much of the predictive value of review text comes from reviews of the target user for the target item. We then introduce a way in which this information can be used in recommendation, even when the target user's review for the target item is not available. Our model, called TransNets, extends the DeepCoNN model by introducing an additional latent layer representing the target user-target item pair. We then regularize this layer, at training time, to be similar to another latent representation of the target user's review of the target item. We show that TransNets and extensions of it improve substantially over the previous state-of-the-art.Comment: Accepted for publication in the 11th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems (RecSys 2017

Green Jobs in a Sustainable Food System

The U.S. food sector is among the most productive in the world and is a significant driver of our economy. Yet, it's failing us in major ways -- putting public health, livelihoods and our environment at great risk. Obesity and diabetes rates are rising, communities are plagued by food deserts, and agriculture runoff is the biggest source of pollution in our rivers and lakes.The good news is that communities across the country are addressing this crisis in innovative ways. Through different community-based efforts, local activists and food advocates are finding ways to improve community health and environmental outcomes while creating a more economically equitable food system.It is within this context that this report identifies opportunities to transform jobs in the green economy and enhance environmental and economic equity outcomes in the future. The initial analysis promises opportunities for workers to build long-term skills, and emphasizes the importance of linking local efforts to broader regional and national policy platforms. This multi-level engagement and collaboration will help set in motion the systemic changes needed to create a more sustainable and equitable food system

Informality and Productivity in Bolivia: A Gender Differentiated Empirical Analysis

The urban labor market in Bolivia can be divided into 4 main sectors: 1) the public sector, 2) the formal private sector, 3) self-employed informals, and 4) informal workers. Although incomes are generally higher in the public sector and in the formal private sector, there is a strong preference in Bolivia for being informally self-employed. Two thirds of both men and women in urban areas respond that they would prefer to be self-employed rather than a salaried employee, and few see any advantage of becoming formal under the current institutional set-up. Currently, half of all economically active women in urban areas are informally self-employed, while this is the case for only one third of men. This implies that women are actually closer to the desired state than men, according to their own preferences. The real problem for women is not that they are informally self-employed, but rather that the profitability of their informal enterprises is low. On average, monthly profits of female micro-entrepreneurs is about 40% lower than those of male micro-entrepreneurs. This report uses quantitative information from about 600 micro and small enterprises to break down and understand this gender gap in profitability, and the results show that almost the whole gap is due to the fact that women operate their businesses on a much smaller scale (with less productive capital and fewer employees) than men. Why do female entrepreneurs operate on a smaller scale? One partial explanation is that they do not want to grow, because the business then would loose some of the features that make a micro-business particularly attractive for women (not to depend on others, to be able to care for children simultaneously, flexible working hours, and daily revenues). More important, however, is the lack of access to capital. Micro and small businesses operated by women have only a third of the operating capital of male operated businesses. There are two main reasons for this. First, women generally have fewer opportunities to accumulate capital, both because their household and reproductive work takes time away from paid work, and because they tend to earn less than men when they do work for money. Second, they do not have access to credit on reasonable terms. Access by itself is not the problem, as there is a very active micro-credit industry in Bolivia, but the terms are so unattractive that women try to avoid it if at all possible. The interest rates are high (20-40% per year); the group-lending practices increases the risk for the borrower, as they may end up paying other group members’ debt also; and they are typically required to assist at compulsory training courses twice a month, which is demanding for busy women running both a business and a household. Banks offer loans at more reasonable terms, but the requirements are difficult for micro-entrepreneurs to comply with (especially proof of a monthly pay check) and the risk is large as an entire house is often put up as collateral for even a small loan. Capital and credit is not a binding constraint in all sectors, however. On average, returns to additional capital investments are estimated to be relatively high (internal rates of return of over 20%) in the food sales sector, the textile clothing sector, and the camelid clothing sector. In contrast, they are estimated to be negative for grocery stores and the transport sector, which have experienced overinvestment to the extent that the returns to both capital and labor in these two sectors have been severely depressed. Even in the sectors where returns to capital are relatively high, a doubling of productive capital would not lead to a doubling of monthly profits. In fact, estimation results show strongly diminishing returns to scale, which means that micro-enterprises have little incentive to grow. Under the current institutional setup in Bolivia, it makes more economic sense to have several identical micro-enterprises in the family rather than one larger enterprise, and this is indeed often observed in practice. This is partly due to the characteristics of the sectors (for example, several small stores can capture a larger market due to the geographical dispersion), but it is mostly due to the tax-system, which becomes very demanding, both in terms of bureaucratic procedures and in terms of tax burden, as soon as an enterprise grows past a certain threshold. Under the current institutional set up, micro-entrepreneurs perceive no benefits from becoming formal, and indeed estimation results confirm that formality would lower the monthly profits of micro-enterprises (less than 3 workers and less than $1000 in operating capital) by 30-40%. Slightly bigger firms (3-5 workers), however, may benefit from getting a NIT and thus be able to offer facturas to the clients.Informality, Productivity, Gender, Bolivia

Stronger Partnerships for Safer Food: An Agenda for Strengthening State and Local Roles in the Nation's Food Safety System

Examines federal, state, and local agencies' responsibilities, strengths, and weaknesses in ensuring food safety. Recommends systemwide reforms to enhance state and local roles and improve surveillance, outbreak response, and regulation and inspection

Widespread Adoption of Organic Agriculture in the US: Are Market-Driven Policies Enough?

Organic food production has rapidly growing consumer demand in the U.S. and other industrialized countries, along with a worldwide regulatory framework and rapidly developing support infrastructure, making it a premier technology in the efforts of many public and private organizations that advocate more sustainable farming practices. The use of organic farming systems for crop production in the U.S. has grown rapidly during the last decade, but is still under 0.5 percent of total U.S. farmland-substantially less than in many countries in Europe and elsewhere. Within the U.S., conversion to organic farming systems has been more extensive in particular commodity sectors and regions. In California, for example, about two percent of the state's crop acreage is managed under organic farming systems, and over 15 percent of the dairies in some New England states are organic. The objectives of this paper are to examine commodity-sector and regional adoption rates and trends for organic farming systems in the U.S., and determine the impact of evolving markets and public support on adoption. First we will describe the current adoption and trends for the US and the world for organic production. Next we will examine current research on consumer attitudes towards organic products and the results of research trials comparing the risks and input requirements of organic versus conventional agriculture. In most cases organic producers rely on price premiums to offset the increased risks and production costs. We will discuss in detail market policies that directly and indirectly impact the profitability of organic production. We will then look at current conservation, commodity, and trade policies in the context of adoption of organic production. Finally, we will discuss organic production in the context of the next farm bill. The U.S. ranked fourth in land area managed under organic farming systems, behind Australia (with 24 million acres under organic management), Argentina (7.3 million acres), and Italy (3 million acres), in a recent worldwide survey. Argentina and Australia each had about 1.6 percent of their land area under organic management, much of that acreage in pasture. The U.S. was not among the top ten as a percentage of total farmland, which included Italy (8 percent), Sweden (5.2 percent), the Czech Republic (5 percent), and the United Kingdom (4 percent). Worldwide conversion levels are currently the highest in European Union countries, which have been developing consumer education initiatives and providing direct financial support to producers for conversion since the late 1980's to capture the environmental benefits of these systems and support rural development. Many EU countries have set targets for organic farming adoption of 10-20 percent of agricultural land area by 2010. National organic standards were implemented in the U.S. in 2002, and incorporate an ecological approach to farming that affects the entire system, unlike many new farming technologies-such as improved crop varieties and innovative yield monitoring tools-which typically alter only a single input or aspect of production. Farmers that transition to organic farming systems from chemical-intensive systems must make changes across the spectrum of their production inputs and practices. Strong market demand and organic price premiums have given some commodities comparable or higher whole-farm profits than conventional chemical-intensive systems in the U.S. In particular, the organic market is dominated by fresh fruit and vegetable production representing three fourths of retail organic sales. The fastest growing subsector is dairy resulting in correspondingly rapid growth in organic pasture and feed. In addition to relatively small market demand, the three year transition period required by USDA's organic regulations, the higher risks of shifting to a new way of farming, the steep learning curve, the high costs for fertility and weed management, and other obstacles have the limited conversion to organic farming systems for many commodities. USDA regulations require third party certification for growers grossing more than $5,000 in organic sales. Fees charged by State and private certifiers represent an additional, ongoing expense. By law certification agencies require a documentation of a 3-year transition (conversion) period, during which land must be managed with practices consistent to those required for organic certification, before certifying any crop or pasture acreage. Farmers cannot obtain organic price premiums during this period, though in some cases higher prices can be obtained for "transitional" commodities. Limited access to federal commodity programs due to the composition of the organic sector also presents obstacles for some farmers. A growing number of public and private groups have begun efforts to support more widespread adoption of organic agriculture in the U.S. Many groups support organic farming for multiple reasons-food safety, environmental protection, lower energy use, reduced use of pesticides are potential benefits to society from more widespread use of organic farming systems-and could justify financial or other assistance to farmers to adopt these practices. As the organic farm sector expands, some university-based research and technical assistance, federal cost-share funds, and other State and federal support for organic farmers is beginning to emerge. At the Federal level, at least nine USDA agencies have started or expanded programs and pilot projects to help organic producers with production and marketing problems and risks, and the 2002 Farm Act for the first time included several small initiatives to assist organic farmers. Organic farmers are now exempt from paying assessments to federal marketing orders. In September 2003, the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture released a policy statement supporting a number of policy measures to encourage conversion to organic farming systems, including targeted marketing assistance for small and medium-sized producers, expanded data collection, and improved government research coordination. While most of these state and Federal policy reflect a market facilitation policy orientation, one Federal program has been used to provide cost share payments to organic farmers to help pay for organic certification. And several States have begun subsidizing conversion to organic farming systems with conservation payments-using federal EQIP program funds-as a way to capture the environmental benefits of these systems. A new federal conservation program, the Conservation Security Program, may be especially important to organic producers when it is fully implemented, because it provides payments to producers for adopting or maintaining a wide range of management, vegetative, and land-based structural practices to address resource concerns, many of which organic farmers commonly adopt as part of their organic farming systems. Unlike most other Federal conservation programs, producers who grow specialty crops will be eligible to participate. The technical assistance features of the Conservation Security Program may be useful for organic farmers and those interested in transitioning to organic farming systems. Research and policy initiatives often play a key role in the adoption of new farming systems. Organic agriculture has attracted mainstream producers and processors in part due to the price premiums it has commanded and the rapid rate of growth at a time of stagnant or decreasing prices and flat growth in conventional agriculture. At the same time organic agriculture has the potential to achieve environmental goals. The details of the next farm bill with respect to conservation, trade assistance, research, and other policies will inevitably determine the size and scope of organic agriculture in the United States and the ability of organic agriculture to contribute to achieving environmental goals.organic agriculture, farm policy, consumer demand, Marketing,

RESEARCH UPDATES

Includes: Price and Distribution Variations for Value-Added Vegetable Products in California. Jim Ahern and Marianne Wolf, Professors, Agribusiness Department, Cal Poly State University SLO. Case Study of Heritage Ranch, "Wolf-Friendly Beef." Helen L. Aquino, Graduate Research Assistant, Agricultural Economics, New Mexico State University. Branding Locally Grown Fruit and Vegetables Via State Logos. John R. Brooker, David B. Eastwood, and Morgan D. Gray; Faculty Members; Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Tennessee, Knoxville. Findings of Strategies Followed by the 28 Past Winners of the Malcolm Baldridge National Quality Award, 1988-1996. Robert R. Cangemi and Raymond H. Lopez, Pace University, Lubin School of Business, White Plains, New York. Consumer Opinions Concerning Fresh Potatoes: Delaware, A Case Study. Khari A. Cook, Ulrich C. Toensmeyer, Carl L. German, and J. Richard Bacon; Graduate Student, Professor, Extension Marketing Specialist, and Associate Scientist, respectively; Department of Food and Resource Economics, University of Delaware. Country-of-Origin Labeling of Foods from the Consumer's Perspective. Robert L. Degner and Susan D. Moss; Professor and Director, and Economic Analyst, respectively; Florida Agricultural Market Research Center, University of Florida. Attributes Important to Wine Sales in On-Premise Markets. Tim Dodd, Director, Texas Wine Marketing Research Institute, Texas Tech University. The Effectiveness of U.S. Promotion Programs on the Export Demand for U.S. Pecans. James E. Epperson, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, University of Georgia. Evaluating Consumer Use of Food Advertisements: The Influence of Socioeconomic Characteristics. Ramu Govindasamy and John Italia; Assistant Professor and Marketing Specialist, and Program Associate, respectively; Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing, Rutgers University, Cook College, New Brunswick, New Jersey. Predicting Willingness-to-Pay for Integrated Pest Management Produce: A Logistic Approach. Ramu Govindasamy, John Italia, and Adesoji Adelaja Govindasamy; Assistant Professor and Marketing Specialist, Program Associate, Associate Professor and Department Chair, respectively; Department of Agricultural, Food and Resource Economics, Rutgers University, Cook College, New Brunswick, New Jersey. Survey Update on Retail Marketing of Fruits and Vegetables Over the Internet. Morgan Gray, David Eastwood and John Brooker; Faculty Members, Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Tennessee, Knoxville. Food Quality Management Systems: A Research Update. Neal H. Hooker, Postdoctoral Research Associate, Center for Food Safety, Texas A&M University, and Department of Resource Economics, University of Massachusetts; Maury E. Bredahl, Director, Center for International Trade Studies, and Professor, Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Missouri; Julie A. Caswell is Professor, Department of Resource Economics, University of Massachusetts. U.S. Export Demand for Poultry Meat Products: A Bayesian Approach for Almost Ideal Demand System (AIDS) Model Estimation. Man-ser Jan, Chung L. Huang, and James E. Epperson, University of Georgia. Trade and Foreign Direct Investment in the U.S. Food Processing Industry. Mary A. Marchant, R. Munirathinam, and Michael R. Reed, University of Kentucky. New Uses for WIC Data: The Case of Ethnic Food Preferences. James R. Matthews, WIC Information, Research, and Evaluation Unit, California Department of Health Services. A Food Industry Forecast. John L. Park and Edward W. McLaughlin, Food Industry Management Program, Cornell University. Consumer Selection for and Knowledge of the Nutrient Content of Fresh Meats. Alvin Schupp, Jeffrey Gillespie, and Jose Aguero, Louisiana State University. Produce The Safe Way. Cheryle Jones Syracuse, Christine Taylor, and Barbara James; Associate Professor, Extension Agent, and Professor, respectively; Ohio State University Extension. Impact of Chain Store Expansion on Mexican Produce Distribution Practices. Debra Tropp, Agricultural Economist, Marketing and Transportation Analysis Program, USDA/Agricultural Marketing Service, Washington, DC; Jaime Malaga, Research Fellow, Texas Agricultural Market Research Center, Department of Agricultural Economics, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX; David Skully, Economist, Market and Trade Economics Division, Asia/Western Hemisphere Branch, USDA/Economic Research Service, Washington, DC; John Link, Senior Economist, Market and Trade Economics Division, Asia/Western Hemisphere Branch, USDA/Economic Research Service, Washington, DC; Javier Calderon, Economist, Agricultural Planning Agency, Mexican Secretariat of Agriculture, Livestock, and Rural Development, Mexico City, Mexico. Potential for Marketing Pacific Northwest Wheat Using Contract Specifications. Thomas Worley and Thomas Wahl, Department of Agricultural Economics, Washington State University, Pullman, Washington.Research and Development/Tech Change/Emerging Technologies,

The role of packaging in minimising food waste in the supply chain of the future

This report focuses on packaging opportunities that may help to reduce or recover food waste, proposes opportunities for industry to address food waste through innovative and sustainable primary, secondary and tertiary packaging. Food security is an emerging challenge for policy makers and companies in the food supply chain. The global population is expected to grow to 9 billion and demand for food by 77% by 2050. Over the same period food production will be under threat from climate change, competing land uses, erosion and diminishing supplies of clean water. One of the solutions to this dilemma is increased efficiency and waste reduction in the food supply chain. This report focuses on packaging opportunities that may help to reduce or recover food waste. Packaging has a vital role to play in containing and protecting food as it moves through the supply chain to the consumer. It already reduces food waste in transport and storage, and innovations in packaging materials, design and labelling provide new opportunities to improve efficiencies. Product protection needs to be the primary goal for packaging sustainability, and sometimes this requires trade-offs between packaging and food waste. The report draws on an international literature review and interviews with representatives from 15 organisations in the Australian food and packaging supply chain. It considers food waste along the entire food supply chain, but with a particular emphasis on food waste that occurs prior to consumption, i.e. during agriculture production, post-harvest handling and storage of raw materials, and in the commercial and industrial (C&I) sector consisting of food manufacturing, wholesale trade, food retail and distribution and food services. Food rescue through charities is also a focus of the report. Over 4.2 million tonnes of food waste is disposed to landfill in Australia each year. Around 1.5 million tonnes of this is from the commercial and industrial sector (the focus of this report), costing around $10.5 billion in waste disposal charges and lost product. The largest single contributor in the commercial and industrial sector is food service activities (e.g., cafes, restaurants, fast food outlets), which generate 661,000 tonnes of food waste per year, followed by food manufacturing (312,000 tonnes) and food retail (179,000 tonnes). Most waste in food manufacturing is unavoidable, and almost 90% is already recovered as animal feed, compost or energy