Nutritional information on packaged foods encourage healthier eating and can change consumer habits, according to a new study by the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University. The study assessed the effectiveness of multiple types of food labels and found that these approaches can impact some targets, but not others, for both consumer and industry behavior.

The study reviewed two million unique observations, including consumer reported dietary intakes, purchases, and sales receipts. The research found label information reduces consumer intake of calories by 6.6 percent, fat by 10.6 percent, and other unhealthy food options by 13 percent. Labeling also increased consumers’ vegetable consumption by 13.5 percent.

In contrast, labeling did not significantly impact consumer intakes of other targets such as total carbohydrate, total protein, saturated fat, fruits, whole grains, or other healthy options.

Antibiotics use in livestock dropped 33 percent between 2016 and 2017, according to data from the Food and Drug Administration. The FDA’s 2017 Summary Report on Antimicrobials Sold or Distributed for Use in Food-Producing Animals documents the decline.

The report also found domestic sales and distribution of all medically important antimicrobials decreased 41 percent since 2015 and decreased 28 percent since the first year of reported sales in 2009. While sales data do not necessarily reflect actual antimicrobial use, the reduction in sales volume observed in 2016 and 2017 is an indicator that ongoing efforts to support antimicrobial stewardship are having a significant impact, according to the FDA.

The federal watchdog says optimizing how antimicrobial drugs are used and limiting their use to only when necessary to treat, control, or prevent disease will help to preserve the effectiveness of these drugs for fighting disease in both humans and animals.

China has bought a second round of U.S. soybeans this month, the first purchases of U.S. soybeans by China since the beginning of a tit-for-tat trade war. The Department of Agriculture announced exporters sold 1.1 million metric tons to China for delivery by August 31st.

The sales follow a trade war cease-fire to allow the U.S. and China to discuss a trade agreement of some sort by March of 2019. China is the largest buyer of U.S. soybeans, but halted purchases after implementing a 25 percent tariff on U.S. soybeans in retaliation to U.S. tariffs on Chinese goods.

China had pledged to begin purchasing U.S. agricultural products following a meeting with President Trump at the G20 Summit. Meanwhile, Trump is reportedly seeking to meet with China in January to further advance trade talks.

The National Corn Growers Association says the second round of trade aid payments provide virtually no relief. The payments, released by the White House Monday, sets the payment rate for corn at just one cent per bushel, despite the fact that corn farmers have suffered an average 44 cent per bushel loss since tariffs were first announced, according to NCGA. President Lynn Chrisp says, “One cent per bushel is woefully inadequate to even begin to cover the losses.” The payments stem from the Department of Agriculture’s Market Facilitation Program. The first round of payments was authorized earlier this fall. In a November 19 letter to USDA Secretary Perdue, Chrisp stressed the disappointment around USDA’s approach to calculating MFP payments. Many farmers, according to NCGA, felt it was too narrow in scope and did not capture real-time impacts of trade disruptions.

A coalition of agriculture groups is asking the Trump administration to keep pushing agriculture issues in the European Union-U.S. trade talks. In a letter sent to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, 53 organizations, led by the National Pork Producers Council, urged the Trump administration “to continue stressing” that only a “truly comprehensive agreement will be acceptable.”

The EU has expressed reluctance to include agriculture as it did during earlier negotiations on the U.S.-EU Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, knowing it would require lifting import barriers that protect EU farmers and removing regulatory measures that are scientifically unjustified or overly restrictive.

Because of the EU’s barriers, the United States had a trade deficit in food and agricultural goods of nearly $11 billion last year. That deficit was $1.8 billion in 2000. NPPC President Jim Heimerl says he and others expect the Trump administration “to require the EU to negotiate on agriculture and to eliminate all tariff and non-tariff barriers to U.S. pork and other agricultural products.”

A former central bank official in China is optimistic the U.S. and China can reach an agreement by the March deadline that will “pave the way for future talks.” The South China Morning Post reports Zhu Min, the deputy governor of the People’s Bank of China from 2009 to 2010, expects it would take at least six months to a year before the two countries could resolve their trade conflict.

The official said China was willing to make compromises needed to address some U.S. concerns and to work to reduce the trade imbalance. But he also expressed concern over Washington’s rivalry with Beijing beyond trade, and the unpredictability of the U.S. president.

China began buying U.S. ag products last week as part of the ceasefire agreement between the U.S. and China. Agriculture remains hopeful more purchases are planned.