The role of rural land in mixed asset investment portfolios

Rural land has not always been considered as a major long-term investment with both institutional investors and absentee owners in countries such as U.K. and Australia. Although rural land is included in both single asset and mixed asset portfolios in the U.S, it is not at the same levels as either commercial or industrial property. Rural land occupies over 50% of the total area of Australia, and comprises over 115,000 economic farm properties (excludes rural residential, hobby farms and rural lifestyle blocks. However, less than 1.6% of the total economic farm numbers are actually owned by corporate or institutional investors. This low level of corporate involvement in the Australian rural property market has limited both the investment performance research and inclusion of this rural land type in both property and mixed asset investment portfolios. In the U.S. rural land is also the most extensive real estate type based on total area occupied. The United States Department of Agriculture statistics (1998) show that in 1997 there were 2.06 million farms in the U.S., covering 968 million acres, with a total value of $912 billion and generating an annual income of $202 billion. The level of corporate ownership of farms in the U.S. is also higher than the level of corporate farm ownership in Australia. This high level of institutional ownership in rural land in U.S has provided the opportunity for the rural property asset class to be analysed in relation to it’s investment performance and possible role in a mixed asset or mixed property investment portfolio.

Current measure of food insecurity used in the National Health Survey may be underestimating its prevalence

Objective: Food insecurity may be associated with a number of adverse health and social outcomes however our knowledge of its public health significance in Australia has been limited by use of a single-item measure in the Australian National Health Surveys (NHS) and, more recently, the exclusion of food security items from these surveys. The current study compares prevalence estimates of food insecurity in disadvantaged urban areas of Brisbane using the one-item NHS measure with three adaptations of the United States Department of Agriculture Food Security Survey Module (USDA-FSSM). Design: Data were collected by postal survey (n= 505, 53% response). Food security status was ascertained by the measure used in the NHS, and the 6-, 10- and 18-item versions of the USDA-FSSM. Demographic characteristics of the sample, prevalence estimates of food insecurity and different levels of food insecurity estimated by each tool were determined. Setting: Disadvantaged suburbs of Brisbane city, Australia, 2009. Subjects: Individuals aged ≥ 18 years. Results: Food insecurity was prevalent in socioeconomically-disadvantaged urban areas, estimated as 19.5% using the single-item NHS measure. This was significantly less than the 24.6% (P <0.01), 22.0% (P = 0.01) and 21.3% (P = 0.03) identified using the 18-item, 10-item and 6-item versions of the USDA-FSSM, respectively. The proportion of the sample reporting more severe levels of food insecurity were 10.7%, 10% and 8.6% for the 18-, 10- and 6-item USDA measures respectively, however this degree of food insecurity could not be ascertained using the NHS measure. Conclusions: The measure of food insecurity employed in the NHS may underestimate its prevalence and public health significance. Future monitoring and surveillance efforts should seek to employ a more accurate measure.

Food and Brisbane households : dietary, social and health consequences of food insecurity

Background & Aims: Access to sufficient amounts of safe and culturally-acceptable foods is a fundamental human right. Food security exists when all people, at all times, have physical, social, and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life. Food insecurity therefore occurs when the availability or access to sufficient amounts of nutritionally-adequate, culturally-appropriate and safe foods, or, the ability to acquire such foods in socially-acceptable ways, is limited. Food insecurity may result in significant adverse effects for the individual and these outcomes may vary between adults and children. Among adults, food insecurity may be associated with overweight or obesity, poorer self-rated general health, depression, increased health-care utilisation and dietary intakes less consistent with national recommendations. Among children, food insecurity may result in poorer self or parent-reported general health, behavioural problems, lower levels of academic achievement and poor social outcomes. The majority of research investigating the potential correlates of food insecurity has been undertaken in the United States (US), where regular national screening for food insecurity is undertaken using a comprehensive multi-item measurement. In Australia, screening for food insecurity takes place on a three yearly basis via the use of a crude, single-item included in the National Health Survey (NHS). This measure has been shown to underestimate the prevalence of food insecurity by 5%. From 1995 – 2004, the prevalence of food insecurity among the Australian population remained stable at 5%. Due to the perceived low prevalence of this issue, screening for food insecurity was not undertaken in the most recent NHS. Furthermore, there are few Australian studies investigating the potential determinants of food insecurity and none investigating potential outcomes among adults and children. This study aimed to examine these issues by a) investigating the prevalence of food insecurity among households residing in disadvantaged urban areas and comparing prevalence rates estimated by the more comprehensive 18-item and 6-item United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Food Security Survey Module (FSSM) to those estimated by the current single-item measure used for surveillance in Australia and b) investigating the potential determinants and outcomes of food insecurity, Methods: A comprehensive literature review was undertaken to investigate the potential determinants and consequences of food insecurity among developed countries. This was followed by a cross-sectional study in which 1000 households from the most disadvantaged 5% of Brisbane areas were sampled and data collected via mail-based survey (final response rate = 53%, n = 505). Data were collected for food security status, sociodemographic characteristics (household income, education, age, gender, employment status, housing tenure and living arrangements), fruit and vegetable intakes, meat and take-away consumption, presence of depressive symptoms, presence of chronic disease and body mass index (BMI) among adults. Among children, data pertaining to BMI, parent-reported general health, days away from school and activities and behavioural problems were collected. Rasch analysis was used to investigate the psychometric properties of the 18-, 10- and 6-item adaptations of the USDA-FSSM, and McNemar's test was used to investigate the difference in the prevalence of food insecurity as measured by these three adaptations compared to the current single-item measure used in Australia. Chi square and logistic regression were used to investigate the differences in dietary and health outcomes among adults and health and behavioural outcomes among children. Results were adjusted for equivalised household income and, where necessary, for indigenous status, education and family type. Results: Overall, 25% of households in these urbanised-disadvantaged areas reported experiencing food insecurity; this increased to 34% when only households with children were analysed. The current reliance on a single-item measure to screen for food insecurity may underestimate the true burden among the Australian population, as this measure was shown to significantly underestimate the prevalence of food insecurity by five percentage points. Internationally, major potential determinants of food insecurity included poverty and indicators of poverty, such as low-income, unemployment and lower levels of education. Ethnicity, age, transportation and cooking and financial skills were also found to be potential determinants of food insecurity. Among Australian adults in disadvantaged urban areas, food insecurity was associated with a three-fold increase in experiencing poorer self-rated general health and a two-to-five-fold increase in the risk of depression. Furthermore, adults from food insecure households were twoto- three times more likely to have seen a general practitioner and/or been admitted to hospital within the previous six months, compared to their food secure counterparts. Weight status and intakes of fruits, vegetables and meat were not associated with food insecurity. Among Australian households with children, those in the lowest tertile were over 16 times more likely to experience food insecurity compared to those in the highest tertile for income. After adjustment for equivalised household income, children from food insecure households were three times more likely to have missed days away from school or other activities. Furthermore, children from food insecure households displayed a two-fold increase in atypical emotions and behavioural difficulties. Conclusions: Food insecurity is an important public health issue and may contribute to the burden on the health care system through its associations with depression and increased health care utilisation among adults and behavioural and emotional problems among children. Current efforts to monitor food insecurity in Australia do not occur frequently and use a tool that may underestimate the prevalence of food insecurity. Efforts should be made to improve the regularity of screening for food insecurity via the use of a more accurate screening measure. Most of the current strategies that aim to alleviate food insecurity do not sufficiently address the issue of insufficient financial resources for acquiring food; a factor which is an important determinant of food insecurity. Programs to address this issue should be developed in collaboration with groups at higher risk of developing food insecurity and should incorporate strategies to address the issue of low income as a barrier to food acquisition.

Assessing food insecurity : current underestimations in Australia, alternative measures and reflections on their use

Food insecurity is the limited access to, or availability of, nutritious, culturally-appropriate and safe foods, or the inability to access these foods by socially acceptable means. In Australia, the monitoring of food insecurity is limited to the use of a single item, included in the three-yearly National Health Survey (NHS). The current research comprised a) a review of the literature and available tools to measure food security, b) piloting and adaptation of the more comprehensive 16-item United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Food Security Survey Module (FSSM), and c) a cross-sectional study comparing this more comprehensive tool, and it’s 10- and 6- item short forms, with the current single-item used in the NHS, among a sample of households in disadvantaged urban-areas of Brisbane, Australia. Findings have shown that internationally the 16-item USDA-FSSM is the most widely used tool for the measurement of food insecurity. Furthermore, of the validated tools that exist to measure food insecurity, sensitivity and reliability decline as the number of questions in a tool decreases. Among an Australian sample, the current single-measure utilised in the NHS yielded a significantly lower prevalence for food insecurity compared to the 16-item USDA-FSSM and it’s two shorter forms respectively (four and two percentage points lower respectively). These findings suggest that the current prevalence of food insecurity (estimated at 6% in the most recent NHS) may have been underestimated, and have important implications for the development of an effective means of monitoring food security within the context of a developed country.

The RNA world in plants: Post-transcriptional control III

Post-transcriptional control of gene expression has gone from a curiosity involving a few special genes to a highly diverse and widespread set of processes that is truly pervasive in plant gene expression. Thus, Plant Cell readers interested in almost any aspect of plant gene expression in response to any environmental influence, or in development, are advised to read on. In May 2001, what has become the de facto third biennial Symposium on Post-Transcriptional Control of Gene Expression in Plants was held in Ames, Iowa. The meeting was hosted by the new Plant Sciences Institute of Iowa State University with additional funding from the National Science Foundation and the United States Department of Agriculture. In 1997, the annual University of California-Riverside Plant Physiology Symposium was devoted to this topic. This provided a wake-up call to the plant world, summarized in this journal (Gallie and Bailey-Serres, 1997), that not all gene expression is controlled at the level of transcription. This was expanded upon at a European Molecular Biology Organization Workshop in Leysin, Switzerland, in 1999 (Bailey-Serres et al., 1999). The 3-day meeting in Ames brought together a strong and diverse contingent of plant biologists from four continents. The participants represented an unusually heterogeneous group of disciplines ranging from virology to stress response to computational biology. The research approaches and techniques represented were similarly diverse. Here we discuss a sample of the many fascinating aspects of post-transcriptional control that were presented at this meeting; we apologize to those whose work is not described here.