Antibiotic resistance is a global problem affecting both human and animal health. Ensuring the strategic and effective use of antibiotics is paramount to combatting the emergence and spread of resistance. This study explored New York State (NYS) dairy farmers' perceptions regarding antibiotic use in dairy farming and antibiotic resistance. Dairy farmers' perceptions were assessed through semi-structured, in-person interviews. Twenty interviews with farm owners and/or managers of 15 conventional and five USDA certified organic dairy farms with 40 to 2,300 lactating cows were conducted. Thematic analysis was used to assess, compare and contrast transcripts for farmers' characterization of their beliefs, values, and concerns. Conventional dairy farmers had a low level of concern about the possible impacts of on-farm antibiotic resistance on human health and believed their antibiotic use was already judicious. Generally, they believed their cattle's health would suffer if antibiotic use were further curtailed. Conventional farmers expressed frustration over the possibility of more stringent governmental, milk cooperative, buyer, or marketer requirements for antibiotic use and associated animal welfare in the future. They attributed expanding regulations in part to misinformed consumer preferences, that farmers felt were influenced by the marketing of organic dairy products. Organic dairy farmers were generally more concerned about issues related to antibiotic resistance than conventional farmers. Both conventional and organic farmers placed emphasis on disease prevention through herd health management rather than treatment. In conclusion, the conventional NYS dairy farmers in this study were skeptical of the need for and benefits of reduced antibiotic use on their dairy farms. Interventions for farmers, delivered by a trusted source such as a veterinarian, that provide training about proper antibiotic use practices and information of possible financial benefits of refining antibiotic use may hold promise.

Background The COVID-19 pandemic profoundly affected food systems including food security. Understanding how the COVID-19 pandemic impacted food security is important to provide support, and identify long-term impacts and needs. Objective The National Food Access and COVID research Team (NFACT) was formed to assess food security over different U.S. study sites throughout the pandemic, using common instruments and measurements. This study present results from 18 study sites across 15 states and nationally over the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods A validated survey instrument was developed and implemented in whole or part through an online survey of adults across the sites throughout the first year of the pandemic, representing 22 separate surveys. Sampling methods for each study site were convenience, representative, or high-risk targeted. Food security was measured using the USDA six-item module. Food security prevalence was analyzed using analysis of variance by sampling method to statistically significant differences. Results Respondents (n = 27,168) indicate higher prevalence of food insecurity (low or very low food security) since the COVID-19 pandemic, as compared to before the pandemic. In nearly all study sites, there is higher prevalence of food insecurity among Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC), households with children, and those with job disruptions. The findings demonstrate lingering food insecurity, with high prevalence over time in sites with repeat cross-sectional surveys. There are no statistically significant differences between convenience and representative surveys, but statistically higher prevalence of food insecurity among high-risk compared to convenience surveys. Conclusions This comprehensive study demonstrates higher prevalence of food insecurity in the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. These impacts were prevalent for certain demographic groups, and most pronounced for surveys targeting high-risk populations. Results especially document the continued high levels of food insecurity, as well as the variability in estimates due to survey implementation method. Summary Multi-site assessment demonstrates widespread food insecurity during COVID-19, especially on households with children, job loss, and Black, Indigenous, People of Color across multiple survey methods.

The U.S. Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (Tobacco Control Act) of 2009 paved the way for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to propose nine different graphic warning labels (GWLs) intended for prominent placement on the front and back of cigarette packs and on cigarette advertisements. Those GWLs were adjudicated as unconstitutional on the ground that they unnecessarily infringed tobacco companies' free speech without sufficiently advancing the government's public health interests. This study examines whether less extensive alternatives to the original full-color GWLs, including black-and-white GWLs and text-only options, have similar or divergent effects on visual attention, negative affect, and health risk beliefs. We used a mobile media research lab to conduct a randomized experiment with two populations residing in socioeconomically disadvantaged communities: biochemically confirmed adult smokers (N = 313) and middle school youth (N = 340). Results indicate that full-color GWLs capture attention for longer than black-and-white GWLs among both youth and adult smokers. Among adults, packages with GWLs (in either color or black-and-white) engendered more negative affect than those with text-only labels, while text-only produced greater negative affect than the packages with brand imagery only. Among youth, GWLs and text-only labels produced comparable levels of negative affect, albeit more so than brand imagery. We thus offer mixed findings related to the claim that a less extensive alternative could satisfy the government's compelling public health interest to reduce cigarette smoking rates.

This research shows that 30% GWLs on cigarette packages increase negative affect relative to packages without front-of-package GWLs. Larger GWLs on cigarette packages (50% vs. 30%) increase visual attention to the warning and its pictorial content among low-SES smokers and at-risk youth but do not further increase negative affect. A 50% GWL increased adults' quit intention compared to no GWL at all, but we were underpowered to detect modest differences in quit intentions between a 50% and 30% GWL. Future work should thus continue to explore the boundary conditions under which relatively larger GWLs influence cognitive, affective, and behavioral outcomes.