fareshare_specialissue2014

8/10/2019 FAREShare_SpecialIssue2014

1/8

Celebrating FARE Achievements

SharWhatsnside

This special issue ofFARE Shareshowcasesaccomplishments withinhe department in recentmonths. This includesawards bestowedpon FARE faculty andtudents by the Canadian

Agricultural EconomicsSociety (CAES). TheUniversity of Guelphalso recently named twoew University Research

Professors from within theFARE department JohnCranfeld and SpencerHenson in recognition ofheir outstanding researchfforts. Some of theirecent work is featuredn this edition. Finally, we

ighlight developmentsat the Institute for theAdvanced Study of Foodand Agricultural Policy.

Contact:

Getu HailuEditor, FARE Share

[email protected]

The FARE Share Newslettereatures research and analysis

rom faculty and students in thenstitute for the Advanced Study of

Food and Agricultural Policy in theDepartment of Food, Agriculturalnd Resource Economics (FARE).

Special IssSeptember 2

FARE Professor Alfons Weersink was recently

awarded the title Fellow of the Canadian Agricultural

Economics Society (CAES). This honour recognizes

his continuous and distinguished contributions to the

agricultural economics profession and the institutions

of Canadian agricultural economics.

Over the past few years, I have written a letter of

support for individuals selected to be fellows of the

Canadian Agricultural Economics Society. In myopinion, none of these individuals deserved the honour

of being selected as a fellow more than Alfons, said

an external reviewer in a letter of support.

Weersink joined the University of Guelph in 1989

after completing his Ph.D. at Cornell University.

Among other things, his research examines the

effectiveness of agri-environmental policies. He

has won several awards for his work, including

recognition for outstanding articles in the Canadian

Journal of Agricultural Economics, theReview of

Agricultural Economics and theAustralian Journal of

Agricultural Economics.

While Professor Weersink has been a most prolic

researcher, he is also one of the departments best

teachers and has always maintained a full teaching

load, said Alan Ker, former Chair, FARE. His

overall evaluation by students has never been less than

four out of ve on a point scale.

Of special note, is that much of Weersinks research

has been done in conjunction with graduate students.

Alfons has supervised 10 Ph.D. students and 36

M.Sc. students. Most impressively, almost all of these

students have produced a publication in a refereed

academic journal.

One student commented: Professor Weersink i

one of the best, if not the best, instructor I have

in university. He is very approachable and teach

the course material very well. I would recomme

his class to anyone who asks.

Weersink is also commended for his work outsi

the classroom.Alfons is an outstanding mentor

younger faculty at FARE in a number of ways,

says Getu Hailu, Associate Professor, FARE. Hhelps them to establish and further their careers

and shine. Im absolutely delighted that my

colleague Alfons has won this award.

Weersink has made substantial contributions

in the areas of teaching, research and service.

The quantity of students that he has mentored

and impacted over his 25-year career in terms

of courses taught, membership on student

committees, and students supervised is impressi

Weersink has made signicant contributions

to research on timely and important topics

in the elds of agri-environmental policies,

encompassing bioproducts, farm management

practices, the food versus fuel debate and more.

Weersink receives honou

Picture at right:

Alfons and his

wife Maureen

Excerpts from Prof. Alfons Weersink Named CAES Fellow,

At Guelph, June 6, 2014.


2/8

Canadian Agricultural EconomicSociety (CAES)Award Winners

Outstanding Masters Thesis AwardWinning thesis: Tor Tolhurst, Department of FARE, University of Guelph, for the thesis

entitled, Econometric Models of Crop Yields: Two Essays supervised by Alan Ker.

Award description: Excellence in the Masters program and encourages the study of

agricultural economics, resource economics and farm management at the Masters level

Tolhurst received high praise from the review panel, including the following comment: I

was already very impressed by the quality of the rst essay and that work alone would grant

rst place among the three works that I read. The second essay by Tolhurst is even better than

the rst, making Tolhursts thesis a far distant rst place in my opinion. Both essays have the

potential to be published in good economic journals. In some departments, this work would

be enough to grant the student a Ph.D. Congratulations to Tolhurst and his advisers.

Tolhurt describes his award-winning thesis in the following way: This thesis is an

investigation of econometric crop yield models divided into two essays. In the rst essay,

I propose estimating a single heteroscedasticity coefcient for all counties within a crop-

reporting district by pooling county-level crop yield data in a two-stage estimation process.

In the context of crop insurance where heteroscedaticity has signicant economic

implications I demonstrate the pooling approach provides economically and statistically

signicant improvements in rating crop insurance contracts over contemporary methods. In

the second essay, I propose a new method for measuring the rate of technological change

in crop yields. To date the agricultural economics literature has measured technological

change exclusively at the mean; in contrast, the proposed model can measure the rate of

technological change in endogenously dened yield subpopulations. I nd evidence of

different rates of technological change in yield subpopulations, which leads to interesting

questions about the effect of technological change on agricultural production.

UndergraduateBook PrizeAwardFARE Winner: Rachael Vriezen

Award description:

Outstanding undergraduate

student in agricultural

economics, farm management

or a closely related eld

of study. Each University

establishes its own criteria.

The winners receive a cash

award from CAES in addition to

a complementary membership.

FARE Winner: Tor Tolhurst (left)

2

FARE faculty and students reached the podium many times

during the CAES awards ceremony held in Vancouver on

May 31, 2014.The annual awards recognize and encourage

excellence in agricultural economics and related elds. FAREs

own Alan Ker, Alfons Weersink, Rakhal Sarker, Rachael Vriezen

and Tor Tolhurst were all recognized for their achievements.

One of the top 50 universities in the worldThe University of Guelph is ranked 24thin agriculture and forestry in

the world, according to the 2014 QS World University Rankings. In

fact, the University of Guelph is the only Canadian university to rank

among the 30 top universities in the world in agriculture and forestry.


3/8

Publication ofEnduring Quality AwardWinning article: Weersink, A., S. Clark, C.G. Turvey, and R. Sarker.

1999. The Effect of Agricultural Policy on Farmland Values. Land

Economics 75: 425-39.

Award description: A publication by a CAES member that has had

a signicant impact on agricultural, environmental or resource

economics in Canada and has been available for 10 years or more.

Entries are judged on the basis of the enduring quality of their effect

on agricultural, environmental and resource economics in Canada.

According to nominators Brady Deaton and John Craneld: The

paper provided the infrastructure for ongoing research and discussionssurrounding the extent to which government payments are capitalized

into farmland values, and the contemporary debate regarding the extent to

which the targeted beneciaries of government payments i.e., producers

capture intended benets.

Subsequent to its publication, their paper received 101 citations (according

to Google Scholar). Moreover, these citations have continued unabated

since publication, including 35 citations since 2010.

This paper will continue to provide a compass for researchers and policy

makers trying to measure and understand the effect of government

payments on farmland values. Weersink et al. (1999) is an article of

enduring quality and is therefore deserving of the 2014 CAES Publication

of Enduring Quality Award.

Outstanding JournalArticle AwardWinning article: Rude, J. and A. Ker. 2013. Transfer

Efciency of Margin-Based Programs. Canadian

Journal of Agricultural Economics 61: 509-529.

Award description: Achievement in agricultural

economics, resource economics and farm

management for articles appearing in the Canadian

Journal of Agricultural Economicsin 2013.

The abstract of the award-winning article clearly highlig

the value of the research: AgriStability, Canadas majo

farm support and business risk management program,has been in place since 2007. As with most agricultural

insurance programs, AgriStability creates opposing

incentives where moral hazard and misallocation effects

discourage production while the risk reduction effects

encourage production. We investigate the relative size

of these effects to determine both the degree to which

production is distorted and the percentage of governmen

transfer that remains with the producer. Our results

indicate mild but differential effects across crops. We n

roughly 45% of program payments remains with primar

producers. These ndings are of particular interest becau

of their World Trade Organization implications.

3

FARE winners: Associate Professor

Rakhal Sarker (left) & Professor

Alfons Weersink (centre)

FARE Winner:

Professor Alan Ker (left)


4/8

Paying a premium forspecialty eggsBy: John Craneld, University Research Professor in the Economics oAgri-Food Markets and Policy; Professor and Chair, FARE

4

Increasing consumerawareness of animal welfare

issues is impacting how eggsare produced and marketed.Some jurisdictions have passed legislation prohibiting the use

of conventional cages and requiring that hens be housed in

alternative systems, while a growing number of food retailers and

manufacturers require eggs they sell/use to come from alternative

housing systems. While the vast majority of eggs sold in Canada arestill produced in conventional cages it is expected that demand for

eggs from enhanced animal welfare production systems will grow

in Canada.

The relative immaturity of this specialty egg market means

that consumer acceptance and willingness to pay for eggs from

enhanced animal welfare production systems is still poorly

understood in Canada. For this reason, we undertook research that

sought to generate new economic knowledge that helps to inform

industry stakeholders regarding consumer acceptance and valuation

of eggs from enhanced animal welfare production systems, and the

potential size of the market for such eggs.

The specic objectives of this study were: To understand the socio-demographic and psychographic factors

associated with consumer acceptance of eggs from animal

welfare enhanced production systems, including enriched and

cage-free systems

To identify and measure the size of consumer segments with a

high degree of acceptance of eggs from different enhanced animal

welfare production systems

To measure consumers stated willingness-to-pay (WTP) for eggs

from different enhanced animal welfare production systems

Explore how stated WTP varies across segments of consumers,

as well as segments of consumers with differing actual

purchase behaviours of eggs from enhanced animal welfare

production systems

Experiments provideeconomic knowledge on

specialty egg marketTwo choice experiments (CE) were designed. In each CE,

respondents were presented with a set of choice tasks. In each

choice task, the respondent was presented with eggs embodying

different attributes, and they had to indicate which, if any, they

would purchase. The attributes of eggs in CE I were: price; hou

systems; organization that veries the housing systems; Omega

and shell colour. The attributes of eggs in CE II were: price;whether hens had access to the outdoors; whether cages were u

in the housing system; and the availability of nest boxes, perche

for roosting and scratch pads for dust bathing.

The effect of information on consumers purchase behaviour

towards eggs from enhanced animal welfare production system

was also investigated by including two information treatments i

each CE. In treatment 1, a description of the housing systems w

provided to respondents. In treatment 2, in addition to dening

the housing system, respondents received scientically based

information regarding the consequences of each housing system

on: hens health; hens ability to exhibit natural behaviours;

affective states; and the impact of housing systems on environm

Structured this way, the two information treatments will reveal

whether scientically valid information affects consumer WTP,

if so, how. Note that WTP is not the price for the product, but ra

the premium associated with that attribute.

Providing detailed information aboutthe consequences of the housingsystems on hen health and welfarereduces consumer valuation of eggsfrom free-run and free-range.


5/8

An on-line survey (Ipsos i-Say on-line panel) was conducted

with a sample representative of the Canadian population in

terms of demographic characteristics. Respondents were

generally concerned about animal welfare, but did not consider

animal welfare among the top issues when purchasing food. Of

the three aspects of animal welfare, namely basic health and

functioning, natural behaviour, and affective states, basic health

and functioning was viewed as most important. Respondents

knowledge of animal production was limited, and they believed

that scientic evidence, rather than ethical or moral considerations,

should be used to determine how farm animals are treated.

The results from the CE were informative. In CE I treatment 1,respondents were willing to pay a premium of $1.147 ($0.863

in treatment 2) per dozen for free-range and $0.550 ($0.276

in treatment 2) per dozen for free-run systems. The premiums

for these two housing systems were higher than the premiums

for Omega-3 fatty acid enhanced eggs, or white/brown colour

attribute. However, eggs from an enriched cage system did not

induce a positive premium. In fact, eggs from a system labeled

as enriched cage system had a discount of $0.313 per dozen in

treatment 1 and $0.331 per dozen in treatment 2. For verication

attributes, respondents were willing to pay a premium of $0.693 in

treatment 1 (or $0.599 in treatment 2) if government veries the

housing systems, $0.156 (or $0.179 in treatment 2) for a third-

party certier verication and $0.218 (or $0.112 in treatment 2)for industry certier.

Consumers value absence

of cagesIn CE II, eggs from systems where hens had access to the outdoors

yielded the highest WTP ($0.634 in treatment 1 and $0.571 in

treatment 2) followed by the presence of nest boxes, perches for

roosting and scratch pads for dust bathing ($0.451 in treatment 1

and $0.438 in treatment 2), and the cage-free attribute ($0.191 in

treatment 1 and $0.078 in treatment 2). The latter result suggests a

premium for the absence of cages in the housing systems; viewedanother way, the presence of cages in the housing system would

result in a discount. This is an important result and it aligns with

the results from treatment 1; it suggests that consumers value the

absence of cages in hen housing. Respondents were willing to pay

$0.005 in treatment 1 ($0.004 in treatment 2) for every square inc

increase in a housing system.

Comparing the WTP results from two information treatments in

each CE allows one to assess the effect of information. In CE I,

the provision of additional information in treatment 2 resulted in

lower (and the difference was statistically signicant) premiums

for eggs from free-run and free-range housing systems (compared

to treatment 1). Across the two treatments, there were no other

signicant differences in WTP for the other attributes in choicetreatment 1. In CE II, the WTP for the cage-free attribute decrease

in treatment 2, but not for the other attributes. As there were no

differences in sample characteristics across treatments, we may

attribute the disparity in WTPs across the treatments to difference

in the information that was provided. Consequently, it is conclude

that information on the consequences of each housing system on

hen health and welfare reduces consumer valuation of eggs from

free-run and free-range systems (and their valuation of the absenc

of cages generally).

Study shows producers need t

communicate with consumersAlthough consumers have limited knowledge about animal

production systems and animal welfare, they are sensitive to

information about housing systems. It is important for egg

producers to communicate well with consumers. Providing

detailed information about the consequences of the housing

systems on hen health and welfare reduces consumer valuation

of eggs from free-run and free-range. And while respondents

value the absence of cages (or discount eggs from systems

that use cages), this value is also reduced when information on

the consequences of the system on hen health and welfare is

presented to subjects. An important lesson from this is that use

of the word cage (e.g., enriched cages) should be avoided lest theprice consumers would pay will be reduced.

5

While the vast majority of eggs sold inCanada are still produced in conventionalcages it is expected that demand for eggsfrom enhanced animal welfare productionsystems will grow in Canada.

This work was completed in collaboration with Yiqing Lu, former M.Sc. student in FARE, and Tina Widowski, Professor in the Department of Animal and Poultry Science at

the University of Guelph. A version of this report appears in the May 2014 issue of Canadian Poultry Magazine. The nancial support of the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture,

Food and Rural Affairs and the Poultry Industry Council is gratefully acknowledged.


6/8

The global rise of privatfood safety standardsBy: Spencer Henson, University Research Professor in Economics of Food,Health and Development; Professor, FARE

The regulation of food safetyhas long been regarded as theresponsibility of government.Thus, countries like Canada have a wide array of acts and regulations

that lay down requirements on how food is produced, processed

and distributed with the aim of reducing the microbiological,

chemical and physical risks that are potentially associated with

food. Increasingly, however, the private sector nationally and

internationally is establishing its own food safety standards. For

some, the rise of these private standards presents a welcome sign that

the food industry is being proactive in managing food safety. Others,however, have concerns over the ability of the private sector to

effectively regulate itself, and about the impact of private standards

on smaller rms and farms. This article looks at why private food

safety standards have emerged and what they mean for the role of

government in regulating food safety into the future.

Three types of privatesafety standardsPrivate standards have become increasingly important in global

agri-food value chains, progressively pervading both domestic

business and international trade. One of the dening characteristics

of private standards, particularly as they relate to food safety, isan increasing focus on the processes by which food is produced

rather than the end product per se. In this respect, they mirror the

increasing importance of process standards in public regulations,

as increasingly seen with requirements for food processors to

implement Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP)

under regulations governing food hygiene.

Within the broad array of private standards relating to food safety, it

is possible to distinguish between three types of standard based on

who sets them.Individual company standards are set by particular

rms, usually large food retailers and food service operators, and

adopted across their supply chains. The Loblaw Vendor Operating

Standards and McDonalds Supplier QMS are examples in Canada.Collective national standardsare set by organizations that operate

within national boundaries, including industry associations and non-

governmental organizations (NGOs). Some of these standards are

specically designed to establish claims about food from particular

countries or regions. The various on-farm food safety programs in

Canada, such as CanadaGAP, Canadian Quality Milk and Veried

Beef Production, are examples. A third set of standards, collective

international standards, are designed to be required or used by

organizations in different countries. This frequently means that the

organization setting the standard has international membership.

GlobalGAP is perhaps the best-known example.

Food safety standards, public and private, are fundamentally

about establishing controls and conformance in the production,

processing and distribution of food. Two questions need to be as

to understand why private food safety standards have developed

so rapidly in recent years. First, what are the drivers of increased

controls along national and global agri-food value chains? Secon

why is this need for control expressed in the form of a proliferati

of private standards?

Drivers for increasing control agri-food value chainsThere are four key drivers for increasing control in agri-food valchains. First, ongoing reforms of food safety regulatory systems

are a response to real and/or perceived risks in food production,

processing and distribution, which predominantly reect heighte

consumer anxiety brought about by high-prole food safety crise

Second, heightened interest among consumers and businesses in

food production processes and changes in their conceptions of fo

safety are reinforced by company competitive strategies around

food safety and quality. Third, the globalization of food supply a

increased role of coordination economies in dening competiven

creates new risks and new challenges for value chain coordinatio

and control. For example, over 80 per cent of fruit, 55 per cent o

vegetables and 40 percent of sh and seafood consumed in Cana

each year is imported. Fourth, responsibility for food safety has

progressively been devolved from the state towards the private

sector. Thus, the recently enacted Safe Food for Canadian Act ha

specic provisions with respect to the responsibility of businesse

regarding the safety of the food they supply.

These four drivers combine to create an environment in which

businesses are under more pressure to deliver food safety and to

maintain the integrity of their brands. They need to do this in the

of increasingly globalized and complex food supply chains that c

across multiple regulatory jurisdictions.

Going beyond government

requirementsPrivate standards are frequently characterised as going beyond

the requirements of government regulations. There are at least

three different elements to this. First, private standards may set

a higher standard for particular food product attributes, such as

levels of pesticide residues or microbial pathogens. In other wor

private standards may be seen as more stringent than regulations

Second, private standards may increase the scope of activities th

are regulated, whether vertically or horizontally. Increased vertic

coverage means extending the span of control up and down the v

chain. Increased horizontal coverage relates to including new

For further information see: Henson, S.J. and Humphrey, J. (2009). The Impacts of Private Food Safety Standards on the Food Chain and on Public Standard-Setting Processes. FAO, 6


7/8

elements that are not subject to government regulations. Third,

private standards are much more specic about how to achieve the

desired outcomes than is typical with regulations. In many cases,

regulations lay down the basic parameters of a food safety system,

while private standards elaborate on what this system should look

like in order to be effective.

In addition to reducing risk, private standards also provide businesses

with a basis for product differentiation, although this is less common

in the arena of food safety than with the environment or animal

welfare, for example. Standards can be adopted to support claims to

consumers that products have certain extrinsic characteristics that

reect the way in which they have been produced. Foods producedand labelled using organic methods are an example.

The legitimacy of privatestandardsAt the heart of the ongoing debate about the role and implications of

private food safety standards are questions about their legitimacy,

both in general and in comparison to government regulations.

Anyone can create a new standard, and businesses can then decide

whether or not to use it. But when standards begin to have wide

impact, as with GlobalGAP and national equivalents such as

CanadaGAP, questions begin to be raised about the extent to which

these are effective, fair and reasonable.A key concern in ongoing debates about the legitimacy of private

food safety standards is whether they are science-based and bring

about safer food. Intuitively, private rms would be unlikely to

engage in the setting and/or adoption of standards that impose costs

on the value chains in which they operate unless these brought

about greater protection than prevailing regulations. At the same

time, it is clear that there is considerable overlap between regulatory

requirements and private standards, and that one of the key roles

of private standards is to dene a coherent and auditable roadmap

towards regulatory compliance. In this sense, the strict dichotomy

between government regulations and private standards may be

somewhat false.

Cost of food safetymanagementAs with regulations, compliance with private food safety standards

inevitably imposes costs on agri-food value chains. Thus, we

observe winners and losers in a world where private standards are

playing an increasing role in governing food safety. Key concerns

here relate to the ability of smaller rms and farms to comply,

and the extent to which private standards are used effectively by

dominant players, such as large retailers and food service operators,

to push the cost of food safety management down the value chain.

Private standards, furthermore, are likely to have profound impactson the structure of agri-food value chains. For example, to the exten

that there are economies of scale in compliance and/or larger rms

are better able to access nance and other resources, compliance

with private food safety standards is likely to induce processes of

consolidation and concentration.

Whilst regulations have long been seen as a key way in which

national governments provide protection to their populations

against the risks inherent in food, it is also recognised that they can

impede trade. Thus, the international community has established

rights and responsibilities for nation states in promulgating food

safety regulations, which aim to minimise adverse impacts ontrade whilst offering the needed protection for consumers, throughthe Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures under the

World Trade Organization (WTO). Many argue that private food

safety standards fall outside of the purview of the WTO.

Quick response toemerging issuesIt is argued that one of the key advantages of organizations setting

private standards is their ability to evolve and adapt requirements

quickly in response to emerging issues. In contrast, regulators are

often criticised for the slow speed at which they promulgate new

or revised regulatory requirements. It is important to recognise,however, that regulators are bound to established procedures, the aim

of which is to ensure accountability and the ability of stakeholders

to provide input to the regulatory process. Many organizations

that establish private food safety standards only allow and/or seek

input from selected (usually industry) stakeholders, with little

direct voice for consumers and marginalised groups such as smallbusinesses and farms.

As outlined above, the continued evolution of private food safety

standards raises important issues for those interested in the safety

of food, and also for the welfare of those engaged along agri-food

value chains from consumers back to farmers. More profoundly,

however, it raises questions over the role of government in regulatin

the safety of food. Thus, what is the role of public regulators in aworld where the private sector is developing and implementing

food safety standards that are stricter than regulations? Furthermore

should regulators embrace private food safety standards, for exampl

by taking them into account in assessing the risk a particular food

business poses, or even encouraging compliance? These are difculquestions for government and ones that the Federal government in

Canada is just beginning to ask. Thus, whilst the various documents

associated with the Safe Food for Canadian Act demonstrate that the

Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) recognises the emergenc

of private food safety standards, it is not clear that they have a clear

idea yet as to how to respond.

What is the role of public regulators in a world where theprivate sector is developing and implementing food safetystandards that are stricter than regulations?

7


8/8

http://www.uoguelph.ca/far

University of Guelph

Department of Food, Agricultural anResource Economics (FARE)

J.D. MacLachlan Building

Guelph, Ontario, Canada N1G 2W1

Telephone: 519-824-4120 x53625

Facsimile: 519-767-1510

uoguelph.ca/fare

Excerpts from the OAC website

Institute to co-host CanadianAgriculture Policy ConferenceThe fth annual Canadian Agriculture Policy Conference hosted by the Canadian Agricultural

Economics Society (CAES) will be co-hosted by the Institute for Advanced Study of Food and

Agricultural Policy and the Canadian Agri-Food Policy Institute (CAPI). The event will be held from

January 28-30, 2015 at the Chateau Laurier in Ottawa.

The conference is considered the premier national policy outlook for the agri-food sector. The gener

theme for this years event is Keeping Up with Consumers: Understanding the Policy Implications

of a Changing Landscape. Stay tuned for more details.

Leading ageconomistsguide InstituteThe Institute for Advanced

tudy of Food and Agricultural

Policy is an integral part of

ARE, bringing together leading

oices and researchers in

gricultural economics.What makes the Institute

nique is that it is built solely on

cademia, harnessing the brain

rust of leading agricultural

conomists. The Institute

ecently formalized its structure,

nnouncing FARE Professor

Alan Ker as Director and FARE

Research Associate Kenneth

Poon as Associate Director. They

re supported by 10 Fellows who

end signifcant expertise and

epth to the organization.

This group includes:

ohn Craneld,University of Guelph

Brady Deaton, Jr.,University of Guelph

effrey Dorfman,University of Georgia

Barry K. Goodwin,

North Carolina State University

Getu Hailu,University of Guelph

ill E. Hobbs,University of Saskatchewan

Ken McEwan,University of

Guelph-Ridgetown Campus

Michael von Massow,University of Guelph

ames Rude,University of Alberta

Alfons Weersink,University of Guelph

Canadian Agriculture Policy ConferenceJanuary 28-30, 2015

Chateau Laurier, Ottawa

John Craneld is new FARE ChairProfessor John Craneld

has been appointed as

the new Chair of FARE

effective September 1,

2014. I am honoured thatthe department, college and wider communityexpressed its support and condence in me

serving as Chair in the department, says

Craneld.FARE has gone through a period

of considerable growth and renewal in the

last ve years. My aim is to work to further

enhance the high quality of our educational

and research activities, and engagement with

the broader community.

Craneld has been a faculty member with

the department since 2001 and has served as

the graduate program coordinator since July

2010. His research focuses on the economics

of consumer behaviour and demand analysis

at the individual, household and market level,

innovation in the agri-food and biotechnology

sectors and economic history. He has publishe

over 50 articles in peer-reviewed journals.

Craneld is an alumnus of the University ofGuelph receiving his Bachelor of Science

in Agriculture in 1993 and his M.Sc. in

Agricultural Economics in 1995. He then

attended Purdue University for his Ph.D.,

which he completed in 1999.

I am thrilled to have Professor Craneld

step into this important leadership role, and I

look forward to working with him in this new

capacity, says Robert Gordon, Dean, Ontario

Agricultural College (OAC). A sincere thank

you also goes to Professor Alan Ker for his

considerable contributions as Chair of thedepartment during the last ve years.

fareshare_specialissue2014

Documents