Solader

20405804, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/aepp.13327 by Cochrane Peru, Wiley Online Library on [18/10/2022].
See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Received: 19 January 2022 Accepted: 7 May 2022
DOI: 10.1002/aepp.13327
SUBMITTED ARTICLE
Resource booms, state economic conditions,

and child food security
Seung Jin Cho 1 | Brent Kreider 2 | John V. Winters 3,4,5
1
Southeast Asia and Oceania Team,
Korea Institute for International Abstract
Economic Policy, Sejong, South Korea Child food security is a longstanding concern to
2
Department of Economics, Iowa State policymakers, exacerbated by economic slack and
University, Ames, Iowa, USA
3
instability. We use the fracking era oil and gas boom
Department of Economics, Center for
Agricultural and Rural Development
of the early 2000s as a natural experiment to exam-
(CARD), Program for the Study of ine the importance of state economic conditions for
Midwest Markets and Entrepreneurship child food security. The fracking boom was a large
(PSMME), Iowa State University, Ames,
Iowa, USA and unexpected economic shock that substantially
4
Global Labor Organization (GLO), improved labor market conditions in states with oil
Essen, Germany and gas resources but not elsewhere. We find that
5
Institute of Labor Economics (IZA), increases in oil and gas labor income improve child
Bonn, Germany
food security, especially for children with less edu-
Correspondence cated parents and those residing in single-mother
John V. Winters, Department of households.
Economics, Center for Agricultural and
Rural Development (CARD), Program for
KEYWORDS
the Study of Midwest Markets and
Entrepreneurship (PSMME), Iowa State children, food security, poverty, regional economic conditions,
University, Ames, Iowa, USA. resource booms
Email: winters1@iastate.edu
JEL CLASSIFICATION
Editor in charge: Craig Gundersen I12, Q18, Q40
Child food security is a major public policy concern with significant adverse consequences for
child well-being and human capital development (Gundersen, Brown, et al., 2011; Gundersen,
Kreider, & Pepper, 2011). In 2017, 8.9% of children in the United States lived in households
with low food security and 0.7% lived in households with very low food security. Conceptually,
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits
use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or
adaptations are made.
© 2022 The Authors. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Agricultural & Applied
Economics Association.
Appl Econ Perspect Policy. 2022;1–19. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/aepp 1

20405804, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/aepp.13327 by Cochrane Peru, Wiley Online Library on [18/10/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
2 APPLIED ECONOMIC PERSPECTIVES AND POLICY
a household is considered to be food insecure if it does not have access to enough food for an
active, healthy life of all its members (NRC, 2006).
Although food security has been increasingly studied in recent years, much remains to be
learned about its causes. Income is known to be a major economic factor, with poorer house-
holds having higher rates of food insecurity (Dharmasena et al., 2016; Leete & Bania, 2010).
Still, many poor households are food secure, while many non-poor households are food inse-
cure. Poorer households may have other observed and unobserved characteristics, such as
financial aptitude, which are correlated with both income and food security and affect observed
relationships (e.g., Millimet et al., 2018). Macroeconomic conditions also affect food security.
Indicators of food security in the United States worsened during the Great Recession and slowly
improved during the recovery (Gundersen, 2019). Gundersen, Brown, et al. (2011) also illustrate
that higher state unemployment rates are associated with worse food security outcomes. How-
ever, it remains unclear how macroeconomic conditions affect food security in general, and in
particular for households with children.
Our study contributes to the literature on child food security by using microdata from the
2001 to 2017 Current Population Survey (CPS) to examine the impacts on food security of the
oil and gas fracking era boom that began after the early 2000s. This fracking boom provides a
natural experiment useful for examining the influence of regional economic conditions on child
food security. It is also a particularly interesting shock in that the employment and income
gains accrued primarily to workers who are younger and less educated (Kearney &
Wilson, 2018; Winters et al., 2021). Such workers generally have lower incomes and may reside
in households more at risk of food insecurity.
The fracking boom was a large unexpected economic shock that resulted from new technol-
ogies and rising world oil prices that made oil and gas extraction profitable in areas with shale
resources (Brown, 2014, 2015; Kelsey et al., 2016; Munasib & Rickman, 2015; Weber, 2012). The
boom created new high-paying jobs in the oil and gas industry and created positive spillovers
for workers in other industries (Allcott & Keniston, 2018; Cai et al., 2019; Feyrer et al., 2017).
For example, oil and gas production can increase demand for workers in related industries such
as construction, transportation, and manufacturing. Income spillovers also occur across local
areas and commuting zones, in part because of long-distance commuting and local spending
multipliers. Many workers in oil and gas extraction and related industries work at least part of
the year in one or more commuting zones other than where they live (Gittings & Roach, 2020;
Wrenn et al., 2015). Thus, they often earn income in one local area and spend much of it in
another area, stimulating demand for local services outside of where the oil and gas extraction
occurred. Feyrer et al. (2017) suggest that positive spillovers generate average wage impacts that
are three times as large at the state level as at the county level; the spillovers attenuate with dis-
tance and are concentrated in states with oil and gas resources.
Our analysis using microdata allows us to estimate two-way state and year fixed effects
household-level regressions that control for observable individual characteristics of children
and their parents. We measure the oil and gas boom via oil and gas industry employee compen-
sation per capita by state and year using data from the US Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA).
As outcome variables, we construct various measures of child food security based on official
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) definitions. We also examine the impacts on
household income as a percentage of the poverty line for the household size and partition the
data into subsamples to examine how different groups are affected.
We focus on oil and gas booms at the state-level, rather than sub-state level, for several rea-
sons. First, income spillovers across counties and commuting zones within states suggest that
RESOURCES BOOMS AND CHILD FOOD SECURITY 3
impacts on food security will not be isolated within local areas where extraction occurs. Second,
most salient policies related to oil and gas extraction are set at the state level. Counties have
limited ability to set oil and gas policy, and multiple attempts to do so have been overruled by
state policy (Maguire & Winters, 2017). As a limitation of our study, confidentially protections
in our publicly available data greatly limit what one can examine below the state level. For
example, the CPS identifies state of residence and most specific metropolitan areas of residence
but not county of residence, except in a few cases for large metropolitan counties. The CPS
identifies where individuals reside, but not where they work. Furthermore, while oil and gas
employee compensation data are available at the state level, information for counties and met-
ropolitan areas is heavily suppressed to preserve confidentiality.
Several notable results surface. Most importantly, we find that increased state-level oil and
gas compensation significantly improves child food security, whether measured as a binary
indicator or as a score. We also find that the oil and gas boom increases children's household
incomes, including by increasing the probability that household income exceeds the poverty
threshold. Although estimated impacts of avoiding very low food security are mixed, subsample
analysis suggests that the improvement in food security is larger for children in more disadvan-
taged households. These main results are robust to excluding children with parents directly
employed in the oil and gas industry; the income benefits spill over to other industries, consis-
tent with previous literature.
Our paper also contributes to the literature on the broader impacts of natural resource
booms on nearby populations. Resource booms, and the fracking boom, in particular, involve
numerous costs and benefits. Although it is beyond the scope of our study to assess the overall
net impacts on social welfare, we provide useful evidence and general insights into the relation-
ship between regional economic conditions and child food security. Our results suggest that a
stronger regional economy boosts household income and lifts some children out of low food
security. Similarly, a weaker economy worsens food security. Of course, even a very strong
regional economy, such as one fueled by the fracking era resource boom, does not eliminate
child food insecurity. A strong labor market improves food security for some children but not
all. The uniqueness of the fracking boom suggests some caution in extrapolating the results too
broadly to other very different economic shocks.i Still, the fracking boom was a large and
important shock in many states, so it is important to study its effects on child food security.
EMPIRICAL APPROACH
We examine child food security using household data from the Current Population Survey Food
Security Supplement (CPS-FSS). The CPS collects labor market and demographic information
and is administered monthly to a sample of about 60,000 households. The CPS-FSS is adminis-
tered as an add-on to the December CPS and collects information about food security in the
prior 12 months and 30 days; we focus on the broader 12-month measure. The CPS-FSS is used
by the USDA to construct official measures of food security for the nation and individual sta-
tes.ii We use CPS-FSS data for years 2001–2017 for households with children under age 18 from
IPUMS (Flood et al., 2018).
The CPS-FSS asks households with children present 18 questions related to whether they
worried about running out of food, whether they could not feed children a balanced meal, and
whether children were not eating enough. Eight of the 18 questions focus on children and are
used to classify the food security status of children in the household; these eight questions are
listed in Table A1. The USDA classifies households with children as food secure if they provide
affirmative responses to no more than one child food insecurity question. Households reporting
2–4 child food insecurity conditions are classified by the USDA as having low food security
among children. Households with 5–8 child food insecurity conditions are defined by the USDA
as having very low food security among children.
We use the CPS-FSS to construct three child food security dependent variables based on
these USDA definitions. The first dependent variable is an indicator equal to 1 if the USDA
defines the household as food secure; households with low or very low child security are coded
as 0 for this first outcome. The second outcome is an indicator that equals 1 if the household is
either food secure or has low food security; very low food secure households are coded as
0. Thus, this second outcome indicates being at least food secure enough to avoid very low food
security. Our third outcome is the child food security score measured by the number of favor-
able child food security responses ranging from 0 to 8.
We study the effects of state oil and gas employee compensation per capita on child food
security by estimating linear regressions of the form:
Y ist ¼ θOilGasIncomePCst þ βX ist þ γ s þ δt þ εist , ð1Þ
where Yist is a dependent variable measuring household food security for child i in state s in
year t. The continuous explanatory variable of interest, OilGasIncomePCst, measures oil and gas
employee compensation per capita in state s and year t, combining data from the US Bureau of
Economic Analysis (BEA) and US Census Bureau. The controls Xist comprise characteristics of
the child and household, γ s are state fixed effects, δt are year effects, and εist is a disturbance
term that captures unobserved influences on food security.
We focus on oil and gas employee compensation per capita as our explanatory variable of
interest to measure oil and gas activity in a state. We intentionally exclude oil and gas royalties,
lease payments, and firm profits because these dollars more often flow outside of the state and
are heavily concentrated among a few wealthy owners; therefore, they are much less likely to
have local economic benefits that affect food security (Fry et al., 2015; Hardy & Kelsey, 2015).
Oil and gas employee compensation per capita can be viewed as a proxy for such activity more
broadly that partially captures royalties, lease payments, and firm profits. Our approach does
not rule out other potential mechanisms such as increased government revenues, charitable
donations, or inter-household transfers that may result from increased oil and gas economic
development and affect food security.
The year effects account for aggregate changes over time at the national level. Including
state fixed effects means that our identifying variation comes from changes over time within
states. The individual characteristic controls include detailed indicators for a child's age, gender,
race, ethnicity, citizenship, metropolitan area residence, number of siblings in the household,
presence of mother in the household, age of mother, education of mother, citizenship of
mother, presence of father in the household, age of father, education of father, and citizenship
of father. Our analysis uses CPS-FSS provided survey weights and clusters standard errors by
state to account for serial correlation within states.
Our baseline models do not control for household income since increased household
income is the primary mechanism by which we expect oil and gas activity in a state to influence
child food security. Household income would be a “bad control” (Angrist & Pischke, 2009,
pp. 64–68). However, we do estimate alternative models that control for household income as a
percentage of the poverty level to examine its influence as a mechanism. We also directly
examine the effect of oil and gas employee compensation per capita on children's household
income as a percentage of the poverty level for the household's size. The household income
information in the CPS-FSS has some limitations. Household income is reported in intervals,
which leads to some imprecision in this part of our analysis.iii Furthermore, the income variable
has a 12% item nonresponse rate for households with children in the sample; our income analy-
sis excludes children without reported household income.iv
In our baseline analysis, we estimate the parameters in Equation (1) for all children in the
CPS-FSS regardless of parental income or other characteristics. We also estimate additional
models for various subsamples of children including by household income, parental education,
and number of parents in the household. Child food security for less advantaged groups is
expected to be especially responsive to local economic conditions. In particular, food security
for children with less educated parents is expected to be especially responsive to oil and gas
income in the state because they typically have lower household incomes and the oil and gas
boom increased income the most for less educated workers (Kearney & Wilson, 2018; Winters
et al., 2021).
Table 1 displays sample means for selected variables for our full sample and main sub-
samples. Column 1 shows that 89.8% of the full sample is food secure, and 99% is at least
not very low food secure. The full sample mean for the child food security score is 7.6. Oil
and gas employee compensation per capita is measured in thousands of dollars and adjusted
to year 2017 price levels using the GDP deflator produced by the BEA. The variable has a
full sample mean of 0.103. Not reported in Table 1, the oil and gas employee compensation
variable has a standard deviation of 0.052 and ranges from 0 to a maximum of 1.59.
Table A2 displays oil and gas employee compensation per capita by state for selected years.
This value peaked in 2014 for most energy states. A few states including Alaska, North
Dakota, Oklahoma, Texas, and Wyoming experienced 2002–2014 increases that were 5–10
times the size of the standard deviation. Figure 1 maps 2014 oil and gas employee compensa-
tion per capita across states.
Columns 2–6 of Table 1 display means for subsamples by household income level. Column
2 reveals that only 74.2% of children below 100% of the poverty level are food secure. Expanding
the subsample to include higher income levels in Columns 2–5 raises mean food security as
expected. Column 6 shows that 99.4% of children in households with income above 400% of the
poverty level are food secure. Food security and income are strongly linked. Column 7 shows
that only 83% of children with non-college educated parents are food secure, but within the sub-
sample of children with parents with at least some college in Column 8, 93.4% are food secure.
Education is not perfectly predictive of food security, but it is strongly related. Column 9 shows
that 80.2% of children in single-mother households are food secure, while Column 10 shows
that 93.3% of children in two-parent households are food secure.v Column 11 shows that exclud-
ing children with parents employed in the oil and gas industry yields a sample statistically very
similar to the full sample.
EMPIRICAL RESULTS
We now turn to our estimated effects of oil and gas employee compensation per capita in a state
on our outcome measures. As our first outcome, we begin with a child's household income as a
percentage of the poverty level for household size. We then report our findings for food security
outcomes and examine the role of income as a mediating channel. We discuss income results
6
T A B L E 1 Subsample means for selected variables
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11)
Income Income Income Income Income Parent Parent

<100% of <200% of <300% of <400% of ≥400% of education education Single- Two- Parents
Full poverty poverty poverty poverty poverty ≤High ≥Some mother parent not in oil
sample line line line line line school college household household and gas
Food secure 0.898 0.742 0.803 0.843 0.867 0.994 0.830 0.934 0.802 0.933 0.897
Not very low food secure 0.990 0.971 0.980 0.985 0.987 1.000 0.984 0.994 0.979 0.994 0.990
Child food security score 7.622 7.058 7.279 7.422 7.509 7.974 7.380 7.754 7.274 7.752 7.621
Oil & gas compensation 0.103 0.126 0.120 0.113 0.109 0.085 0.118 0.094 0.107 0.101 0.100
PC
Female 0.490 0.493 0.490 0.489 0.489 0.492 0.492 0.488 0.497 0.489 0.490
Hispanic 0.217 0.364 0.327 0.282 0.252 0.079 0.380 0.135 0.245 0.203 0.216
White 0.559 0.306 0.395 0.466 0.513 0.763 0.385 0.655 0.361 0.633 0.559
Black 0.142 0.258 0.203 0.176 0.159 0.053 0.176 0.117 0.329 0.075 0.143
Native American 0.008 0.015 0.012 0.010 0.009 0.003 0.010 0.006 0.011 0.005 0.008
Asian or Pacific Islander 0.045 0.027 0.033 0.035 0.038 0.069 0.029 0.054 0.018 0.058 0.045
Other race 0.029 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.033 0.021 0.033 0.036 0.025 0.029
Age 8.578 7.906 8.149 8.299 8.382 8.904 8.520 8.535 8.741 8.522 8.582
Number of siblings 1.377 1.706 1.597 1.531 1.475 0.995 1.568 1.353 1.310 1.488 1.376
Observations 448,717 85,915 184,167 261,450 320,159 76,635 137,460 296,790 85,994 308,909 445,175
Note: The sample is from the 2001 to 2017 Current Population Survey Food Security Supplement and includes all children under age 18.
APPLIED ECONOMIC PERSPECTIVES AND POLICY
F I G U R E 1 Year 2014 oil and gas employee compensation (in thousands) per capita. Source: Authors'
computations combining oil and gas employee compensation data from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis
and population estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau.
before food security results because oil and gas employee compensation increases household
income, thus altering the composition of the sample within income groups.
Oil and gas effects on income
In Table 2, we present results for the case that the dependent variable is an indicator equal to
1 if a child's household income would exceed a specific level and 0 otherwise. Column 1 focuses
on the outcome that household income would exceed 100% of the poverty line. Columns 2–4
dependent variables are indicators for having household income above 200, 300, and 400% of
the poverty level accounting for household size, respectively. These results from linear probabil-
ity models include year and state fixed effects along with the individual control variables.
Results in Table 2 show that increased oil and gas employee compensation in a state statisti-
cally significantly increases children's household income and raises children out of poverty.
Specifically, an additional $1000 (in 2017 dollars) per capita oil and gas employee compensation
increases the percentage of children with household income above the poverty threshold by 9.1
percentage points. This reflects both direct effects of oil and gas employee compensation and
indirect effects due to spillovers to other industries in the state consistent with previous litera-
ture (Cai et al., 2019; Feyrer et al., 2017; Kearney & Wilson, 2018). An additional $1000 is a
large treatment magnitude. A one standard deviation increase in oil and gas employee
T A B L E 2 Effects of state oil and gas employee compensation on income-poverty measures
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Dummy for Dummy for Dummy for Dummy for

income ≥100% of income ≥200% of income ≥300% of income ≥400% of
Outcome poverty line poverty line poverty line poverty line
Oil & gas 0.091*** (0.022) 0.105*** (0.024) 0.048*** (0.018) 0.053*** (0.013)
compensation
per capita
Note: Standard errors in parentheses are clustered by state. All estimates are from linear regression models that include controls
for state fixed effects, year effects, and dummy variables for child age, sex, race, ethnicity, citizenship, metropolitan area
residence, number of siblings, presence of mother, age of mother, education of mother, citizenship of mother, presence of
father, age of father, education of father, and citizenship of father.
***Significantly different from zero at the 1% level.
compensation per capita ($52) increases the share of children above the poverty level by 0.47
percentage points.
Columns 2–4 show that oil and gas employee compensation also increases the percentage of
children with household income above 200, 300, and 400% of the poverty level for their house-
hold size. The magnitudes are roughly twice as large in Columns 1 and 2 as in Columns 3 and
4, indicating that income increases from oil and gas booms are especially pronounced at the
lower end of the income distribution. This is consistent with previous research finding larger
income effects for workers who are younger and less educated (Kearney & Wilson, 2018;
Winters et al., 2021). Notably, our results in Table 2 confirm that the oil and gas boom income
effects found in previous literature are not exclusive to households without children. Oil and
gas booms increase income for households with children and lift some children out of poverty.
Oil and gas effects on food security
Panel A of Table 3 presents results for our three food security outcomes for the full sample. Oil
and gas employee compensation statistically significantly increases food security as seen in Col-
umn 1 and the food security score as seen in Column 3. The coefficient estimate in Column
2 for the effect on being not very low food secure is positive but not statistically significant at
conventional levels. The coefficient estimate of 0.051 in Column 1 shows that a $1000 increase
in oil and gas employee compensation per capita (in 2017 dollars) increases the probability that
a child is food secure by 5.1 percentage points. A one standard deviation in oil and gas
employee compensation per capita increases child food security by 0.27 percentage points.
Recall from Table A2 that a few states had oil and gas compensation per capita increases 5–
10 times the size of the standard deviation during the boom corresponding to child food security
increasing by 1.5–3.0 percentage points. This magnitude is economically important. A strong
resource boom increases household incomes and improves food security for some children. Not
surprisingly, even the largest magnitude resource booms still leave many households with chil-
dren stuck in food insecurity. A strong labor market reduces food insecurity, but it does not
eliminate it.
Panels B-E of Table 3 present estimated effects on food security for various subsamples by
household income. A challenge in interpreting these panels is that, as noted above, oil and gas
T A B L E 3 Effects on food security for full sample and by income subsample
(1) (2) (3)
Not very low food Child food security

Outcome Food secure secure score
(A) Full sample
Oil & gas compensation per 0.051*** 0.003 (0.003) 0.156*** (0.050)
capita (0.017)
(B) Households with income <100% of poverty
Oil & gas compensation per 0.011 (0.038) 0.017 (0.015) 0.018 (0.113)
capita
(C) Households with income <200% of poverty
Oil & gas compensation per 0.060*** 0.008 (0.006) 0.165** (0.068)
capita (0.021)
(D) Households with income <300% of poverty
Oil & gas compensation per 0.069*** 0.009* (0.005) 0.203*** (0.060)
capita (0.020)
(E) Households with income <400% of poverty
Oil & gas compensation per 0.064*** 0.008* (0.004) 0.201*** (0.051)
capita (0.016)
(F) Households with income ≥400% of poverty
Oil & gas compensation per 0.009** 0.002 (0.001) 0.016 (0.012)
capita (0.004)
Note: Standard errors in parentheses are clustered by state. Dependent variables in Columns (1) and (2) are binary. The
dependent variable in Column (3) ranges from 0 to 8. All estimates are from linear regression models that include controls for
state fixed effects, year effects, and dummy variables for child age, sex, race, ethnicity, citizenship, metropolitan area residence,
number of siblings, presence of mother, age of mother, education of mother, citizenship of mother, presence of father, age of
father, education of father, and citizenship of father.
*Significantly different from zero at the 10% level; **Significant at 5% level; ***Significant at 1% level.
employee compensation increases household income and alters the composition of the sample
within income groups. Thus, we view these estimates as illustrative and not causal estimates.
Panel B restricts the sample to children with household income below 100% of the poverty level.
Interestingly, we find no statistically significant effect of oil and gas employee compensation in
the state on food security for children below the poverty line. This may reflect that many of
these children have no labor market participants in the household, or only persons weakly
attached to the labor market, and thus do not reap the benefits of increased labor demand in
the state due to oil and gas booms. Alternatively, it may reflect that some who benefit from oil
and gas booms are lifted above the poverty level and the altered composition of the remaining
sample may confound the estimated effects on food security.
Panels C, D, and E include incrementally broader income ranges. The Column 1 results for
these panels suggest similar but slightly larger effects of oil and gas employee compensation per
capita on food security compared with Panel A. The effects on the food security score in Col-
umn 3 are also somewhat larger than Panel A. Results in Panels D and E suggest a positive
effect of oil and gas employee compensation on being not very low food secure that is statisti-
cally significant at the 10% level. Panel F considers the sample with household income greater
than 400% of the poverty level. These findings suggest a small negative effect of oil and gas
employee compensation on food security. We did not expect a negative effect for this relatively
high-income group. As noted in discussing Table 1, 99.5% of children in this group are food
secure. As such, one possible explanation is that the volatility of oil and gas may create food
insecurity among high-income households during years with sudden and unexpected changes.
For example, oil and gas workers may have large incomes and expenditures during part of a
year but then experience food insecurity if energy prices drop suddenly resulting in layoffs for
which families were unprepared.
Given the limitations with subsamples by household income, Panels A–D in Table 4 exam-
ine effects by parent education level and household type as alternative proxies for socioeco-
nomic status. Panel A displays estimates for the subsample of children whose parents have only
a high school education or less. Panel B focuses on children with parents with some college or
higher education. Panel C examines children in single-mother households, and Panel D exam-
ines children in two-parent households. Panel E excludes children with parents employed in
the oil and gas industry to check if the results are driven only by direct effects of oil and gas
compensation on households with oil and gas workers.
The results in Table 4 confirm that the effect magnitudes are larger for children with less
educated parents than for children with parents who have at least some college education. This
likely reflects the lower income levels for less educated parents and the particularly strong
effects of oil and gas production on labor demand and incomes of less educated workers. The
effect magnitudes are also larger for children in single-mother households than for children in
two-parent households. Single-mother households have lower average incomes and lower food
security in general, so this is consistent with expectations. Panel E yields result very similar to
those in the full sample indicating that the effects are not experienced only by children with
T A B L E 4 Food security results for additional subsamples
(1) (2) (3)

Not very low Child food
Outcome Food secure food secure security score
(A) Parents with only high school or less education
Oil & gas compensation per capita 0.100*** (0.029) 0.009* (0.005) 0.285*** (0.087)
(B) Parents with some college or more education
Oil & gas compensation per capita 0.031** (0.012) 0.001 (0.003) 0.111*** (0.032)
(C) Single-mother households
Oil & gas compensation per capita 0.103*** (0.037) 0.014 (0.017) 0.336** (0.138)
(D) Two-parent households
Oil & gas compensation per capita 0.049*** (0.009) 0.005 (0.003) 0.138*** (0.027)
(E) Excluding children with parents employed in oil and gas
state fixed effects, year effects, and dummy variables for child age, sex, race, ethnicity, citizenship metropolitan area residence,
and number of siblings. Models also control for presence of mother, age of mother, education of mother, citizenship of mother,
presence of father, age of father, education of father, and citizenship of father as appropriate for the sample.
parents employed in the oil and gas industry; this is consistent with previous research finding
income spillovers to other industries.
Effects on food security with income controls
Table 5 provides evidence about the effect of income as a mechanism through which oil and
gas employee compensation per capita in a state affects food security. Panel A reproduces the
full sample results without income controls. Panel B includes as explanatory variables a set of
dummy variables for household income as a percentage of the poverty level for the household
size. Specifically, the omitted group is children in households with income below 50% of the
poverty level. We include dummies for household income above 50, 100, 150, 200, 250, 300,
350, and 400% of the poverty level. Including the income variables in the regression decreases
the coefficient on the oil and employee compensation per capita variable to 0.036 in Column
1 and to 0.104 in Column 3. Thus, controlling for income appears to explain some but not all of
the effect of oil and gas employee compensation in the state on food security. However, we
emphasize that the income data are reported in intervals, so we cannot fully account for income
effects. Labor income is an important mechanism, but we are unable to precisely assess its
direct importance. Although we cannot specifically test other mechanisms, we note that oil and
gas booms could lead to increased resources for food programs run by governments and non-
T A B L E 5 Food security effects controlling for income as a percentage of poverty level
(1) (2) (3)

(A) Baseline specification with no income controls
(B) Discrete income-poverty specification
Oil & gas compensation per capita 0.036*** (0.013) 0.004 (0.003) 0.104** (0.041)
Dummy for income ≥50% of poverty 0.023*** (0.005) 0.003 (0.002) 0.098*** (0.015)
Dummy for income ≥100% of poverty 0.070*** (0.005) 0.012*** (0.001) 0.242*** (0.016)
Dummy for income ≥350% of poverty 0.006*** (0.001) 0.000** (0.000) 0.025*** (0.004)
Dummy for income ≥400% of poverty 0.000 (0.002) 0.000 (0.000) 0.005 (0.005)
state fixed effects, year effects, and dummy variables for child age, sex, race, ethnicity, citizenship, metropolitan area residence,
number of siblings, presence of mother, age of mother, education of mother, citizenship of mother, presence of father, age of
father, education of father, and citizenship of father.
profit agencies that could improve food security beyond the labor income effects that accrue to
workers.
The results for the income variables in Panel B of Table 5 are also notable. Higher income
as a percentage of the poverty increases food security as expected. In addition, the marginal
effect of income diminishes as income increases. For example, having income above 400% of
the poverty level does not significantly improve food security relative to having income above
350% of the poverty level. This reflects the very high rates of food security as incomes become
relatively high and limited scope for further improvement in food security if nearly everyone is
food secure.
Two-stage procedure sensitivity analysis
Our main results above use traditional two-way fixed effects estimation. However, recent litera-
ture has shown that two-way fixed effects estimation can sometimes yield poor approximations
of average treatment effects when treatment effects are heterogenous across time and place
(Callaway, Goodman-Bacon, & Sant'Anna, 2021; Callaway, Pedro, & Sant'Anna, 2021), espe-
cially with a continuous treatment. Staggered treatment is a concern because the booms started
and intensified in different states at slightly different times.vi In this light, we conducted an
additional sensitivity analysis using a two-stage procedure proposed in Gardner (2022) that is
robust to heterogeneity in the timing of treatments.
The first stage involves linear regression on all variables except the treatment using the sam-
ple of untreated and not yet treated observations. First-stage results are used to predict counter-
factual adjusted outcomes for the full sample, and a second-stage regresses adjusted outcomes
on the treatment variable. We implement this method using the did2s Stata program developed
by Butts (2021) based on Gardner (2022). We specify 2001–2005 as the pre-treatment period and
define state-year observations with very low oil and gas compensation (less than $100 per
capita) as having zero treatment.
As seen in Tables A3–A6, results based on this two-stage procedure are broadly similar to
our main results using the simple two-way fixed effects estimator. Comparing estimates in
Tables 3 and A4, for example, the full-sample coefficient on the food security indicator in Col-
umn (1) rises from 0.051 to 0.074, while the full-sample coefficient on the child food security
score in Column (3) rises from 0.156 to 0.214. In each case, the estimates are significantly differ-
ent from zero at the 1% level. The Column (2) coefficient on not being very low food secure
remains positive but insignificant. Patterns are also similar across the various income subsam-
ples. As an exception, the small negative coefficient on the food security indicator in Column
(1) for households with income exceeding 400% of the poverty line turns positive, though not
significantly different than zero. The coefficients on not being very low food secure become
insignificant in rows (D) and (E), comprising households with income less than 300% and 400%
of the poverty lines, respectively.
C O N C L U S IO N
Macroeconomic conditions are widely considered to be important determinants of food security.

We examined the role of state economic conditions in child food security by considering the
fracking era oil and gas boom in the United States as a natural experiment. We found that
increased oil and gas industry employee compensation in a state increases household income
and improves child food security. Improvements in food security are especially large for chil-
dren with less educated parents and for children in single-mother households. A stronger
regional economy raises household income, lifts some children out of poverty, and improves
child food security. Conversely, weaker macroeconomic conditions increase poverty and worsen
child food security.
We focused on oil and gas booms at the state-level, rather than sub-state level, in part
because income spillovers across counties and commuting zones within states suggest that
impacts on food security will not be isolated within local areas where extraction occurs. Also,
most salient policies related to oil and gas extraction are set at the state level. Still, there is more
to learn about how the geography of oil and gas-related activity affects food security across a
state. Confidentially protections in our CPS data limit what can be examined below the state
level. A fruitful avenue for future research would be to expand the analysis to the sub-state
level, considering more precisely where changes in economic activity are occurring.
A C K N O WL E D G M E N T S
The authors received no funding for this work and have no conflict of interest. Open access
funding provided by the Iowa State University Library.
E N D N O T ES
i
For example, the COVID-19 pandemic, policy responses, recession, and economic recovery during 2020 had a
multitude of potentially offsetting effects on food security. Overall food insecurity rates in 2020 were similar to
those in previous years (Coleman-Jensen et al., 2021).
ii
For more details, see https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/food-security-in-the-united-states/documentation.aspx
iii
The income intervals for 2003–2017 have cutoffs at $5000, $7500, $10,000, $12,500, $15,000, $20,000, $25,000,
$30,000, $35,000, $40,000, $50,000, $60,000, $75,000, $100,000, and $150,000. For 2001–2002, the top cutoff is
$75,000.
iv
The CPS provides imputed income values for some recent years, but we do not use imputed values.
v
Some children do not live with parents, so the subsample observations in Columns 7 and 8 do not add up to
the total for the full sample. We do not consider single-father households as a separate subsample because the
number is relatively small.
vi
The two-way fixed effects estimator is a weighted average of pair-wise combinations of difference-in-difference
estimates. The more variation in treatment timing and the more heterogeneous the underlying group-level
treatment effects, the more likely our two-way fixed effects estimates diverge from a simple to interpret aver-
age treatment effect on the treated.
R EF E RE N C E S
Allcott, Hunt, and Daniel Keniston. 2018. “Dutch Disease or Agglomeration? The Local Economic Effects of Nat-
ural Resource Booms in Modern America.” The Review of Economic Studies 85(2): 695–731.
Angrist, Joshua D., and Jörn-Steffen Pischke. 2009. Mostly Harmless Econometrics. Princeton: Princeton Univer-
sity Press.
Brown, Jason P. 2014. “Production of Natural Gas from Shale in Local Economies: A Resource Blessing or
Curse?” Economic Review 99(1): 119–47.
Brown, Jason P. 2015. “The Response of Employment to Changes in Oil and Gas Exploration and Drilling.” Eco-
nomic Review 100(2): 57–81.
Butts, Kyle. 2021. “DID2S: Stata Module to Estimate a TWFE Model Using the Two-Stage Difference-in-
Differences Approach.” Statistical Software Components S458951, Boston College Department of Economics,
revised 27 Jun 2021.
Cai, Zhengyu, Karen Maguire, and John V. Winters. 2019. “Who Benefits from Local Oil and Gas Employment?
Labor Market Composition in the Oil and Gas Industry in Texas and the Rest of the United States.” Energy
Economics 84: 104515.
Callaway, Brantly, Andrew Goodman-Bacon, and Pedro H.C. Sant'Anna. 2021. “Difference-in-Differences with a
Continuous Treatment.” arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.02637.
Callaway, Brantly, and Pedro H. C. Sant'Anna. 2021. “Difference-in-Differences with Multiple Time Periods.”
Journal of Econometrics 225(2): 200–30.
Coleman-Jensen, Alisha, Matthew P. Rabbitt, Christian A. Gregory, and Anita Singh. 2021. “Household Food
Security in the United States in 2020, Economic Research Report Number 298, U.S. Department of Agricul-
ture, Economic Research Service.”
Dharmasena, Senarath, David A. Bessler, and Oral Capps Jr. 2016. “Food Environment in the United States as a
Complex Economic System.” Food Policy 61: 163–75.
Feyrer, James, Erin T. Mansur, and Bruce Sacerdote. 2017. “Geographic Dispersion of Economic Shocks: Evi-
dence from the Fracking Revolution.” American Economic Review 107(4): 1313–34.
Flood, Sarah, Miriam King, Renae Rodgers, Steven Ruggles, and J. Robert Warren, eds. 2018. Integrated Public
Use Microdata Series, Current Population Survey: Version 6.0 [Dataset]. Minneapolis, MN: IPUMS. https://
doi.org/10.18128/D030.V6.0.
Fry, Matthew, Adam Briggle, and Jordan Kincaid. 2015. “Fracking and Environmental (in) Justice in a Texas
City.” Ecological Economics 117: 97–107.
Gardner, John. 2022. “Two-Stage Differences in Differences.” arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.05943.
Gittings, R. Kaj, and Travis Roach. 2020. “Who Benefits from a Resource Boom? Evidence from the Marcellus
and Utica Shale Plays.” Energy Economics 87: 104489.
Gundersen, Craig. 2019. “The Right to Food in the United States: The Role of the Supplemental Nutrition Assis-
tance Program (SNAP).” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 101(5): 1328–36.
Gundersen, Craig, Julia Brown, Emily Engelhard, and Elaine Waxman. 2011. Map the Meal Gap: Technical Brief.
Chicago: Feeding America.
Gundersen, Craig, Brent Kreider, and John Pepper. 2011. “The Economics of Food Insecurity in the
United States.” Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy 33(3): 281–303.
Hardy, Kirsten, and Timothy W. Kelsey. 2015. “Local Income Related to Marcellus Shale Activity in Pennsylva-
nia.” Community Development 46(4): 329–40.
Kearney, Melissa S., and Riley Wilson. 2018. “Male Earnings, Marriageable Men, and Nonmarital Fertility: Evi-
dence from the Fracking Boom.” The Review of Economics and Statistics 100(4): 678–90.
Kelsey, Timothy W., Mark D. Partridge, and Nancy E. White. 2016. “Unconventional Gas and Oil Development
in the United States: Economic Experience and Policy Issues.” Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy
38(2): 191–214.
Leete, Laura, and Neil Bania. 2010. “The Effect of Income Shocks on Food Insufficiency.” Review of Economics of
the Household 8(4): 505–26.
Maguire, Karen, and John V. Winters. 2017. “Energy Boom and Gloom? Local Effects of Oil and Natural Gas
Drilling on Subjective Well-Being.” Growth and Change 48(4): 590–610.
Millimet, Daniel L., Ian K. McDonough, and Thomas B. Fomby. 2018. “Financial Capability and Food Security
in Extremely Vulnerable Households.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 100(4): 1224–49.
Munasib, Abdul, and Dan S. Rickman. 2015. “Regional Economic Impacts of the Shale Gas and Tight Oil Boom:
A Synthetic Control Analysis.” Regional Science and Urban Economics 50: 1–17.
National Research Council (NRC). 2006. In Food Insecurity and Hunger in the United States: An Assessment of the
Measure. Panel to Review the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Measurement of Food Insecurity and Hunger,
edited by G. S. Wunderlich and J. L. Norwood. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Weber, Jeremy G. 2012. “The Effects of a Natural Gas Boom on Employment and Income in Colorado, Texas,
and Wyoming.” Energy Economics 34(5): 1580–8.
Winters, John V., Zhengyu Cai, Karen Maguire, and Shruti Sengupta. 2021. “Causal Effects of the Fracking
Boom on Long-Term Resident Workers.” Journal of Regional Science 61(2): 387–406.
Wrenn, Douglas H., Timothy W. Kelsey, and Edward C. Jaenicke. 2015. “Resident vs. Nonresident Employment
Associated with Marcellus Shale Development.” Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 44(2): 1–19.
How to cite this article: Cho, Seung Jin, Brent Kreider, and John V. Winters. 2022.
“Resource Booms, State Economic Conditions, and Child Food Security.” Applied
Economic Perspectives and Policy 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1002/aepp.13327
A P P EN D I X A
T A B L E A 1 Child food security questions
1. “We relied on only a few kinds of low-cost food to feed our children because we were running out of
money to buy food.” Was that often, sometimes, or never true for you in the last 12 months?
2. “We couldn't feed our children a balanced meal, because we couldn't afford that.” Was that often,
sometimes, or never true for you in the last 12 months?
3. “The children were not eating enough because we just couldn't afford enough food.” Was that often,
sometimes, or never true for you in the last 12 months?
4. In the last 12 months, did you ever cut the size of any of the children's meals because there wasn't
enough money for food? (Yes/No)
5. In the last 12 months, were the children ever hungry but you just couldn't afford more food? (Yes/No)
6. In the last 12 months, did any of the children ever skip a meal because there wasn't enough money for
food? (Yes/No)
7. (If yes to question 6) How often did this happen—almost every month, some months but not every
month, or in only 1 or 2 months?
8. In the last 12 months did any of the children ever not eat for a whole day because there wasn't enough
money for food? (Yes/No)
Note: Bold indicates an affirmative response.

T A B L E A 2 Real oil and gas employee compensation (in thousands) per capita for selected years
Year 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

Alabama 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01
Alaska 0.96 0.84 0.92 1.19 1.20 1.37 1.58 1.35
Arizona 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Arkansas 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.05 0.07 0.06 0.04
California 0.03 0.05 0.05 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.08 0.06
Colorado 0.11 0.20 0.22 0.31 0.31 0.35 0.41 0.33
Connecticut 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Delaware 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Florida 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Georgia 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hawaii 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Idaho 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Illinois 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00
Indiana 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Iowa 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Kansas 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.07 0.09 0.08 0.07
Kentucky 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01
Louisiana 0.27 0.25 0.26 0.32 0.29 0.35 0.36 0.31
Maine 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Maryland 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Massachusetts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Michigan 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
Minnesota 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Mississippi 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.04
Missouri 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Montana 0.04 0.05 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.09 0.10 0.11
Nebraska 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Nevada 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
New Hampshire 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
New Jersey 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
New Mexico 0.15 0.17 0.22 0.26 0.33 0.30 0.33 0.30
New York 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
North Carolina 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
North Dakota 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.10 0.16 0.34 0.51 0.55
Ohio 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.02 0.01
Oklahoma 0.40 0.47 0.84 0.80 0.70 0.99 1.01 0.84
Oregon 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Pennsylvania 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.07 0.06
T A B L E A 2 (Continued)
Year 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

Rhode Island 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
South Carolina 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
South Dakota 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Tennessee 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Texas 0.50 0.53 0.63 0.78 0.73 0.85 0.90 0.74
Utah 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.07 0.07 0.09 0.09 0.07
Vermont 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Virginia 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00
Washington 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
West Virginia 0.06 0.07 0.10 0.14 0.11 0.13 0.19 0.15
Wisconsin 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Wyoming 0.62 0.69 0.94 1.12 0.99 1.06 1.11 0.85
T A B L E A 3 Two-stage procedure results for state oil and gas employee compensation and income-poverty
measures
(1) (2) (3) (4)

Dummy for Dummy for Dummy for Dummy for
income ≥ 100% income ≥ 200% income ≥ 300% income ≥ 400%
Outcome of poverty line of poverty line of poverty line of poverty line
Oil & Gas 0.112*** (0.023) 0.136*** (0.027) 0.078*** (0.023) 0.058*** (0.019)
Compensation
Per Capita
Note: Standard errors in parentheses are clustered by state. All estimates are from two-stage linear regression models using the
did2s Stata program and include controls for state fixed effects, year effects, and dummy variables for child age, sex, race,
ethnicity, citizenship, metropolitan area residence, number of siblings, presence of mother, age of mother, education of mother,
citizenship of mother, presence of father, age of father, education of father, and citizenship of father.
T A B L E A 4 Two-stage procedure results for food security for full sample and by income subsample
(1) (2) (3)

(A) Full sample
Oil & Gas Compensation Per Capita 0.074*** (0.014) 0.001 (0.003) 0.214*** (0.043)
(B) Households with income < 100% of poverty
Oil & Gas Compensation Per Capita 0.028 (0.054) 0.004 (0.017) 0.009 (0.162)
(C) Households with income < 200% of poverty
(D) Households with income < 300% of poverty
(E) Households with income < 400% of poverty
(F) Households with income ≥ 400% of poverty
Oil & Gas Compensation Per Capita 0.006 (0.006) 0.002 (0.002) 0.018 (0.015)
dependent variable in Column (3) ranges from 0 to 8. All estimates are from two-stage linear regression models using the did2s
Stata program and include controls for state fixed effects, year effects, and dummy variables for child age, sex, race, ethnicity,
citizenship, metropolitan area residence, number of siblings, presence of mother, age of mother, education of mother,
*Significantly different from zero at the 10% level; **5% level; ***1% level.
T A B L E A 5 Two-stage procedure results for food security for additional subsamples
(1) (2) (3)

(A) Parents with only high school or less education
(B) Parents with some college or more education
Oil & Gas Compensation Per Capita 0.029* (0.016) 0.001 (0.005) 0.131*** (0.050)
(C) Single-mother households
(D) Two-parent households
(E) Excluding children with parents employed in oil and gas
citizenship metropolitan area residence, and number of siblings. Models also control for presence of mother, age of mother,
education of mother, citizenship of mother, presence of father, age of father, education of father, and citizenship of father as
appropriate for the sample.
*Significantly different from zero at the 10% level; ***1% level.
T A B L E A 6 Two-stage procedure results for food security effects controlling for income as a percentage of
poverty level
(1) (2) (3)

(A) Baseline specification with no income controls
(B) Discrete income-poverty controls specification
citizenship, metropolitan area residence, number of siblings, presence of mother, age of mother, education of mother,

Solader

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Solader

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

20405804, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/aepp.13327 by Cochrane Peru, Wiley Online Library on [18/10/2022].

Resource booms, state economic conditions,

Seung Jin Cho 1 | Brent Kreider 2 | John V. Winters 3,4,5

Appl Econ Perspect Policy. 2022;1–19. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/aepp 1

Y ist ¼ θOilGasIncomePCst þ βX ist þ γ s þ δt þ εist , ð1Þ

T A B L E 1 Subsample means for selected variables

Income Income Income Income Income Parent Parent

Oil and gas effects on income

T A B L E 2 Effects of state oil and gas employee compensation on income-poverty measures

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Dummy for Dummy for Dummy for Dummy for

Oil and gas effects on food security

T A B L E 3 Effects on food security for full sample and by income subsample

(1) (2) (3)

Not very low food Child food security

T A B L E 4 Food security results for additional subsamples

(1) (2) (3)

Effects on food security with income controls

T A B L E 5 Food security effects controlling for income as a percentage of poverty level

(1) (2) (3)

Not very low Child food

Two-stage procedure sensitivity analysis

Macroeconomic conditions are widely considered to be important determinants of food security.

T A B L E A 1 Child food security questions

Note: Bold indicates an affirmative response.

Year 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

Year 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

(1) (2) (3) (4)

(1) (2) (3)

Not very low Child food

T A B L E A 5 Two-stage procedure results for food security for additional subsamples

(1) (2) (3)

Not very low Child food

(1) (2) (3)

Not very low Child food

You might also like