Search

Over the last 20 years, earth's increasing surface temperature has dramatically altered local climates and risks associated with agricultural work. In parallel, increasing automation has continued to be a hallmark of innovation in agriculture, promising to lower the economic and health externalities of labor in food production by reducing worker demand and hazardous exposure. However, many of these automations neither eliminate labor nor ameliorate climate change pressures on farms. As a result of the confluence between automation and environmental change, empirical studies into the social determinants of agricultural health and safety in rapidly automating industries impacted by local effects of climate change are essential for a responsive agricultural health and safety science. In this commentary, I suggest that looking outside of our disciplinary boundaries to the lessons learned from rural studies (RS), environmental social science (ESS), and science and technology studies (STS) can lend useful theoretical framing for the development of new research trajectories in the areas of automation and climate change as they impact agricultural health and safety.

In this study, we seek to illuminate: (1) the ways farm service providers and mental health professionals understand the drivers of farm stress, (2) the strategies, challenges, and opportunities farm service providers and mental health professionals identify for supporting the mental health needs of farm families, and; (3) opportunities for future research and outreach to improve the mental health of farmers in the U.S. Midwest region. We obtained qualitative data from a series of semi-structured key informant interviews with 19 subject matter experts, using content analysis to identify themes across four domains: main challenges, unique impacts by subpopulation, coping strategies, and interventions and recommendations. The key informants we interviewed identified a variety of acute and chronic stressors, including several that are structural, rather than individual and interpersonal, and which lie outside of the control of farmers themselves. They also highlighted diversity within farm populations by socio-demographic and farm characteristics as well as positive and negative coping strategies, with negative being more common. For interventions and recommendations, they stressed the importance of education on mental health, improving access to care, and addressing root causes of stress. While farmer stress is well-documented, less is known about the perspectives of farm service professionals and mental health providers who care for them. The insights from this study add important information on how to best support the immediate and long-term mental health needs of farmers and farm families in the U.S. Midwest and beyond.

Increased attention to suicide in agriculture has led to an increase in interventions informed in part by research on who is most likely to die from suicide, using what means, and for what reason(s). However, the limited understanding of how suicide is studied and the limited engagement in previous studies with theories raises questions about the body of knowledge underpinning these interventions. To assess prevailing methodological approaches and the implications of gaps in our understanding of suicide, we conducted a scoping review of 108 English-language articles. The use of the prevailing health science model to conduct literature reviews also provides a space to reflect on the knowledge that is missed or obscured when using overly positivistic approaches to identify and summarize bodies of literature. We find that the prevailing approaches to studying suicide are methodologically narrow, overplay a limited set of individual-level factors, and underplay key structural-level factors. In line with previous critics, our review hints at the inadequacy of existing interventions given that the existing body of knowledge has not adequately incorporated theoretically important drivers of suicide. Our reflections on current approaches to conducting literature reviews and gaps in the suicide literature provide a roadmap to bridge disciplinary traditions while helping address the knowledge gaps we have identified. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Community-supported agriculture (CSA) is an alternative food marketing model in which community members subscribe to receive regular shares of a farm's harvest. Although CSA has the potential to improve access to fresh produce, certain features of CSA membership may prohibit low-income families from participating. A 'cost-offset' CSA (CO-CSA) model provides low-income families with purchasing support with the goal of making CSA more affordable. As a first step toward understanding the potential of CO-CSA to improve access to healthy foods among low-income households, we interviewed 24 CSA farmers and 20 full-pay CSA members about their experiences and perceptions of the cost-offset model and specific mechanisms for offsetting the cost of CSA. Audio recordings were transcribed verbatim and coded using a thematic approach. Ensuring that healthy food was accessible to everyone, regardless of income level, was a major theme expressed by both farmers and members. In general, CSA farmers and CSA members favored member donations over other mechanisms for funding the CO-CSA. The potential time burden that could affect CSA farmers when administering a cost-offset was a commonly-mentioned barrier. Future research should investigate various CO-CSA operational models in order to determine which models are most economically viable and sustainable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Farmers must earn revenues that both cover costs and provide adequate returns. The goal of this research was to understand how diversified farmers measure their cost of production and determine prices. We conducted in-depth interviews of diversified Vermont farmers and used the constant comparative method to analyze the data. Farmers and their operations, the process of measuring the cost of production and pricing, farmers' decision-making process, and tradeoffs in the face of uncertainty are described and analyzed. This study's findings contribute to current discussions of farmer decision making by developing practical implications for important, but difficult tasks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]