Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout[06c] Farm to School Initiative • CITY OF ST. JOSEPH www.cityolstioseph.com DATE: September 15, 2010 MEMO TO: St. Joseph Economic Development Authority Administrator FROM: Cynthia Smith - Strack, Municipal Development Group Judy Weyrens RE: Farm to School Initiatives Mayor Al Rassier Background Over the past several months you've on occasion received copies of emails which mentioned "Farm Councilors to School" initiatives and programs. Several variables that seem to lend themselves toward exploring Steve Frank a farm to school program: Bob Loso Renee Symanietz • Presence of local farmers involved in everything from production of mushrooms to apples to Dale Wick honey to beef. EDA • Movement toward establishing a local food cooperative that would involve locally produced Carolyn Yaggie products for sale within a St. Joseph store front. Heinen Ken Jacobson • Presence of St. Joseph Meat Market/processing facility within the City of St. Joseph. Al Rassier Tom Skahen • Presence of Kennedy Community School within community. Dale Wick • Proximity to CSB /SJU as potential outlet for locally produced food products as well. • Hiring of Sustainability Director at CSB. • Emphasis on reducing childhood obesity • Available resources for farm to school programs and examples from Winona and Morris. Please find attached additional information regarding farm to school programs. I've contacted ISD 742 and CSB regarding interest in participating in F2S program. I've also shared information with the organizers of the local food cooperative and the local meat processing plant. Action: This item is for your information and discussion as the EDA contemplates potential uses of capital program funds and excess TIF proceeds. Why Farm to School? The basic goal of farm to school is to increase the supply of fresh, local, nutritious foods in schools around the state. With that goal, however, come much broader missions that involve developing smarter food decision - making among students, supporting and connecting with local farmers, developing community ties, and reinvesting in local economies. Farm to school initiatives are gaining momentum across the country in face of two recent phenomena — rising obesity, in particular among the youth, and economic challenges faced by small to medium scale family farms. While one quarter of Americans over 19 are overweight or obese, only 1 in 10 children eat the recommended servings of fruits and vegetables. Rising obesity rates and the growing awareness of negative health consequences of poor nutritional choices has expanded interest in the nutritional quality of food served in school cafeterias. The percentage of school -age children 6 -11 years that are overweight more than doubled between the late 1970s and 2000 (Center for disease Control 2002, http: / /apps.nccd.cdc.gov/brfss/ ) Meanwhile, our nation's food and agricultural system has experienced increased vertical integration, making it increasingly difficult for small and medium size farms to remain competitive. Family farming, which plays a key role in sustaining rural landscapes and the economic prospects and social well -being of American communities, are no longer listed on the national census as a profession. The industrial agriculture model has also contributed to declining farm income: the farmer share of every dollar spent of food has dropped from 41 cents in 1950 to 20 cents in 1999. Farm to school constitutes an important response to both of these growing concerns because of the interconnected ways it can bring benefits to students, farmers, schools, and communities alike. Farm to school programs are not only about sourcing locally, but about sourcing fresh and nutritious foods, integrating those purchases with educational opportunities for students about food choices and about where our food comes from, and knowing that the dollars being spent are helping to reinvigorate local economies. For Students: Farm to school can mean having access to fresh, nutritious food, as well as gaining invaluable knowledge and experience with making more informed food decisions. Research has shown that practices tried in childhood have a formative role in shaping food consumption and preparation behaviors as adults. There are countless opportunities for sourcing from farmers in the area to be integrated into school wellness programs or various other areas of the curriculum. Incorporating farm field trips with dining hall options, for example, allows students to make connections between community life, biological systems, and their own health. o According to a UCLA study the average fruit and vegetable consumption by children increased by one serving a day when a Farmers' Market Salad Bar was created in the School Cafeteria. These students also saw a reduction in average caloric intake by 200 calories a day, and fat intake by 11 grams a day] o In Olympia, Washington, school meal participation rates increased 13 -16% during the pilot year of the organic choices salad bar, offsetting the higher cost of the organic produce (from the F2S book) For School Food Service: Fresh and local food options in cafeterias have been shown to increase participation rates in school food programs, thereby boosting revenues. Gaining access to fresh and local foods enabled school food services to expand their options in ways that can support wellness or curricular priorities, while improving public relations and gaining community recognition. While fresh & healthy local foods can sometimes be slightly more expensive, investing in the viability of local food systems can increase the revenues from school food service, maintain the rural land base that helps keep the rising cost of providing school services at bay and can create more community support for school food services. For Farmers: Farmers can benefit from increased sales opportunities that school lunch programs can offer. Once a relationship is established, schools offer steady and reliable demand for their product. This more direct farm income can also garner farmers a greater share of the food dollar. Farm to school programs are also more likely to expand local food purchasing in the household as well, as students bring home lessons to their parents. For the Community: Spending on local food sources stimulates the local economy by keeping and multiplying food dollars in the community. Viable farms provide jobs, pay taxes, and protect working agricultural land. Undeveloped farm land can also benefit the region by maintaining open space, a diversified wildlife habitat and reducing the cost of community services. See American Farmland Trust's fact sheet on Cost of Community Service Studies (link to AFT COCS study description: http: / /www.farmlandinfo. org/documents /27757/FS_COCS_11 - 02.pdf). For the Environment: Sourcing locally also supports a food system that is more sustainable — providing an alternative to the current system of production and distribution in which about 10- 15 calories of energy, mostly in the form of fossil fuels, are consumed in order to produce one calorie of food. A twelve ounce can of diet soda requires a total of 2200 kcal to produce (over 70% of which goes toward the aluminum can) and may provide only one kcal of food energy. Sustainable farming has been shown to be an effective method of carbon sequestration reducing greenhouse gas emissions. By supporting sustainable producers through consumer demand for fresh, healthy local foods, individuals can use their purchasing power to vote for more environmentally sound production and delivery of food and help to preserve the health and beauty of farmland. Why Ohio? Farm to school initiatives can be an important component of bridging the current gap between Ohio's rural and urban settings, helping build local food systems that can act as a source of food security and an economic buffer. For a state concerned about the decline of rural communities, the challenge of food accessibility in the inner cities, shrinking job markets and declining economic receipts it is important to think about food and farmingas an essential part of social, environmental and economic viability. Ohioans spend $35 billion per year on food. Capturing just 10% of that market for Ohio growers and producers would mean $3.5 billion of additional income for the state After recirculating in the state economy Ohio would see an increase of over 7 Billion dollars a year. This is sustainable investment in every sense in that food spending is non - discretionary. People will continue to eat making local food systems a relatively recession proof industry. Ohio in particular has important potential opportunities and benefits associated with local purchasing, beginning with our interest in protecting farmland. While Ohio's prime farmland is one of our greatest resources, the state has been ranked second in the nation for the rate at which it is losing its farmland. Our farmland face the challenges associated with growing development, environmental degradation, and all various growing pressures on economic viability, and these challenges have significant consequences for the long -term prospects for Ohio farms, the communities that depend on them, and the rural settings we treasure. Part of Ohio's unique opportunity in local food systems relates to the fact that Ohio's sixteen metropolitan regions account for more than 80 percent of the state population and over 80 percent of jobs. (from Greater Ohio/Brookings- Restoring Prosperity preliminary report). We a have the advantage of a high percentage of prime, unique and locally important soils in and around those regions —over 11 million acres. Beyond a rural amenity this is a critical resource for life and prosperity. This presents an opportunity to create and expand local food and agricultural businesses and jobs, enhance the viability of Ohio farmers, conserve critical natural resources and increase Ohioans access to fresh, healthy, locally grown food. Governor Strickland has recognized the opportunities and potential that a strong Ohio local food system provides. In August of 2007 he created the Ohio Food Policy Council by executive order to study state's food and agriculture network and make recommendations to help increase access to local, nutritious food to all Ohioans while strengthening the food and agriculture segment of Ohio's economy. There is work already in progress to improve freezing, storage, and processing capacities across the state. Farm to school initiatives are an important piece of the puzzle — providing markets for farmers, supporting the development of food - related infrastructure, but also raising awareness in the next generation of Ohio food consumers as to the importance of • conscious food decisions. ] sij . S NA INSTITUTE FOR AGRICULTURE AND TRADE POLICY MN School Nutrition Association Hunger ends on our watch For Release: August 24, 2010 Contact: JoAnne Berkenkamp, IATP, (612) 870 -3410 Mary Anderson, MSNA, (763) 745 -5153 MEDIA ADVISORY — MEDIA ADVISORY — MEDIA ADVISORY First Annual Minnesota Farm to School Week Set for September 20-24 Minneapolis — Minnesota schools, students and agricultural producers will celebrate Minnesota's first annual Farm to School Week from September 20-24, 2010. The celebration is designed to increase awareness about the benefits of rapidly growing Farm to School initiatives around the state. Farm to School Week was initiated by the Minnesota School Nutrition Association (MSNA) and the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP), whose partnership has helped catalyze Minnesota's Farm to School movement. During the week of September 20, students across the state will enjoy locally grown sweet corn, tomatoes, peppers, zucchini, melons, grains and other foods at their schools. Participating schools may also schedule visits to nearby farms, offer volunteer opportunities for community members, launch new school gardens and engage in other Farm to School activities that are a priority in their communities. "Farm to School benefits our students, communities, farmers and the local economy. It's a positive on so many levels and Farm to School Week is a great way to celebrate that success," said MSNA President Debra LaBounty. "Parents, students and educators know that good nutrition is essential if our kids are to be healthy and ready to learn. Small- and mid -size farmers whose products have largely been absent from America's lunch trays can offer our children fresh, minimally processed choices and a chance to learn how and where their food is grown," said IATP's JoAnne Berkenkamp. "Farm to School is good for our kids and for our farmers." Farm to School programs are rapidly taking root across the state. A survey of MSNA members released in March 2010 revealed that the number of Minnesota school districts purchasing from local farms had grown to 69, more than double the number from 15 months earlier, according to a survey conducted by MSNA and IATP. Additional schools are expected to launch new Farm to School programs this fall. The Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy has also developed an extensive promotional package (see www.iatp.org/farm2school) to help schools educate students, parents and others about Farm to School. IATP is making the material available for free to interested schools across the state. In the coming year, MSNA and IATP will build on the growing momentum for Farm to School to expand farmer involvement, train school foodservice staff, work with more students and increase public awareness. You can learn more about Farm to School at mnsna.org and iatp.org. 1 1 1 A INSTITUTE FOR AGRICULTURE AND TRADE POLICY P PRESS RELEASE For immediate release Farm to school efforts March 9, 2010 Press Contact double in Minnesota Ben Lilliston Communications Director Demand from students, farmers and schools +1 (612) 870 -3416 ben(aiatp.org grows for farm to school programs MINNEAPOLIS — The number of Minnesota school districts purchasing fresh food from About IATP local farms has more than doubled in the last 15 months, according to a survey released today Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy by the Minnesota School Nutrition Association (MSNA) and the Institute for Agriculture works locally and globally at the intersection and Trade Policy (IATP). of policy and practice to ensure fair and sustainable food, farm and trade systems. IATP Farm to school programs link school children with local farmers and farm products, is headquartered in Minneapolis, Minnesota including fruits and vegetables, meat, grains and other items. Farm to school provides with offices in Washington D.C., and Geneva. fresh, healthy food choices, helps children develop healthy eating habits and supports small and mid -size farmers. The survey gathered input from MSNAs membership, which includes foodservice profes- sionals from nearly 100 public school districts serving approximately 550,000 K -12 students across the state. Sixty -nine districts reported purchasing Minnesota -grown products in 2009, more than double the figure from late 2008. Further, 77 percent of the districts now involved with farm to school initiatives expect to expand their activities in the upcoming school year, a sign that these programs are taking root and growing. "Farm to school benefits our students, communities, farmers and the local economy throughout the state," said MSNA President Mary Anderson. "This is a very positive program on so many levels. The potential for growth is enormous." "Parents, students and educators know that good nutrition is essential if our kids are to be healthy and ready to learn. Small and mid -size farmers, whose products have largely been absent from America's lunch trays, can offer our children fresh, less- processed choices and a chance to learn how and where their food is grown," said IATP's JoAnne Berkenkamp. "The momentum is rapidly building for farm to school programs and it's great to see schools and farmers embracing this opportunity." 2105 First Avenue South Minneapolis, Minnesota 55404 USA iatp.org Other key findings from the survey include: The most commonly used local foods were apples, potatoes, peppers, winter squash, sweet corn and tomatoes. A growing number of schools are also purchasing Minnesota -grown bison, wild rice, dried beans and grains. Nearly 43 percent of school districts purchasing Minnesota -grown food in 2009 did so by purchasing directly from a farmer or farmer co -op. While 84 percent of the survey respondents reported purchasing foods grown in Minnesota, 35 percent also purchased foods grown in neighboring areas of Wisconsin, Iowa and /or North or South Dakota. The biggest barriers to expanding farm to school purchases were the need for extra labor and preparation time in the cafeteria, pricing and tight food budgets, and difficulty finding nearby farmers to purchase from directly. In the future, schools are most interested in purchasing local vegetables and fruit, with growing interest in bread and grains, dairy and meat. The survey also showed strong interest in expanding student education about Farm to School and growing food in school gardens. IATP's work on expanding farm to school initiatives is funded in part by Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota's Prevention Minnesota Initiative, which works to improve the health of Minnesotans by combating the root causes of cancer and heart disease, of which unhealthy eating is a leading factor. In the coming year, IATP and MSNA will build on the growing momentum for Farm to School to expand farmer involvement, increase foodservice staff training opportunities, work with more students and increase public awareness You can learn more at iatp.org and mnsna.org. 30- Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy Page 2 A Guide to Developing a Sustainable Food Purchasing Policy Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education Food Alliance Health Care Without Harm Institute for Agricultural Trade and Policy Oregon Center for Environmental Health Acknowledgments This project was directed by Food Alliance with funding from the Russell Family Foundation and Kaiser Permanente. The guide was authored by Matthew Buck at Food Alliance, with preliminary research and interviews contracted to John Stoddard at the Oregon Center for Environmental Health. The following individuals also contributed to the guide: Roberta Anderson, Food Alliance Julian Dautremont- Smith, Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education Jamie Harvie, Health Care Without Harm Marie Kulick, Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy Neha Patel, Oregon Center for Environmental Health Emma Sirois, Oregon Center for Environmental Health Judy Walton, Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education Thanks are also due to the many organizations and agencies that shared their experiences with sustainable food purchasing and policy development, and that have posted materials for review at: www.SustainableFoodPolicy.org A Guide to Developing a Sustainable Food Purchasing Policy • www.SustainableFoodPolicy.org Page 1 2 Table of Contents Introduction 4 Defining sustainable purchasing 5 The Importance of Sustainable Food Purchasing 5 Benefits of Sustainable Food Purchasing 6 Benefits of a Sustainable Food Purchasing Policy 6 Developing a Sustainable Purchasing Policy 6 1. Set the Stage for Success 7 2. Identify the Parties and Nature of the Effort 7 3. Establish a Vision 7 4. Anticipate Challenges — Identify and Prioritize Opportunities 8 5. Establish Strategies, Standards and Compliance Mechanisms 9 6. Establish a Baseline 10 7. Set Goals 11 8. Create an Action Plan 12 9. Create an Evaluation Plan 12 10. Communicate Your Effort and Your Accomplishments 13 Conclusion 13 Appendix: Common Food - Related Claims and Certifications 14 Page 1 3 A Guide to Developing a Sustainable Food Purchasing Policy • www.SustainableFoodPolicy.org INTRODUCTION Universities, colleges, hospitals and other institutions throughout the United States are starting to think seriously about the impact of purchasing on the environment, human health, labor, animal welfare and other concerns. It is increasingly clear that, as mission - driven organizations committed to the public good, these institutions can be important engines for development of more socially and environmentally responsible products and services. This is especially clear in the realm of food and dining services. This document is intended to help universities, colleges, hospitals, and other institutions — as well as those advocating for food system change — create, promote and implement practical sustainable food purchasing policies. It draws from the successes and lessons learned by a variety of institutions, and from the experience of for - profit and non - profit partners that have worked with institutions in this arena. This document does not promote any particular policy positions, but rather offers a framework to help you develop policies that will be meaningful and achievable for your institution. This document is a product of the Sustainable Food Policy Project, which was initiated in 2006 to support efforts by educational, healthcare and other institutions to have a positive impact on the food system through purchasing. The Project has three primary objectives: 1. To collect and share sample food purchasing policies addressing a range of social and environmental concerns, as well as related requests for information (RFIs), requests for proposals (RFPs) and contract language. 2. To identify and outline sustainable food purchasing policy options, the implications of these policies for institutions, and their potential for beneficial impacts on the food system. 3. To share insights on the policy development process, and on the implementation and evaluation of sustainable food purchasing policies, drawing from the experience of representatives, constituents and stakeholders of institutions that have gone down this road. Participating organizations include: • Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education, a membership -based association of colleges and universities in the U.S. and Canada working to create a sustainable future. • Food Alliance, a non - profit organization that creates market incentives for socially and environmentally responsible agricultural practices, and that educates business leaders and other food system stakeholders on the multiple benefits of sustainable agriculture. • Health Care Without Harm, a global coalition of 443 organizations in 52 countries working to protect health by reducing pollution in the health care industry. • Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, a non - profit organization that promotes resilient family farms, rural communities and ecosystems around the world through research and education, science and technology, and advocacy. • Oregon Center for Environmental Health, a membership organization dedicated to protecting public health and the environment through community action to eliminate toxic pollutants. More information and sample purchasing policies can be found at www.SustainableFoodPolicv.org. A Guide to Developing a Sustainable Food Purchasing Policy • www.SustainableFoodPolicv.org Page 1 4 DEFINING SUSTAINABLE PURCHASING The United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development defines sustainability as "ensuring that we meet our needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs." From a purchasing perspective, this means considering not only the cost and quality of products, but also social and environmental factors associated with each purchase. As a practical matter, it requires seeking both 'value' and to satisfy 'values,' while assuring the security and continuity of supply and the smooth operation of the facility. With increased flows of information about product needs, product qualities, buyer interests and supplier capacities, sustainable purchasing is the basis for continued efforts to add value to products, and to improve social and environmental performance throughout the supply chain. It can also facilitate more mutually beneficial relationships between buyers and sellers. THE IMPORTANCE OF SUSTAINABLE FOOD PURCHASING Agriculture and food processing and distribution are arguably the cornerstone of any economy. Food is a basic human need. It conditions human health, and is one of our most direct connections to the environment. After all, you are what you eat! Examining food and agriculture through the lens of sustainability reveals a complex web of interrelated issues. A partial list includes: • Labor issues — Agriculture and food processing are among the most difficult, most dangerous, and lowest paid occupations in the US. • Animal welfare — Improper confinement and handling of animals can cause stress, pain, injuries and chronic disease, all contributing to animal mortality. • Hormones and non - therapeutic antibiotics — Used to promote animal growth and productivity, these treatments can result in antibiotic resistant bacteria and other human health concerns. • Genetic modification of crops and livestock — With limited Tong -term testing of GMOs, the precautionary principle raises concerns for potential human health and environmental impacts. • Toxicity — Conventional agriculture relies heavily on pesticides, herbicides, and fungicides, which, used improperly, threaten both human and environmental health. • Water conservation and quality — Agriculture represents 84% of freshwater used in the US. Environmental Protection Agency studies also identify agriculture as the leading source of ground and surface water contamination. • Soil conservation and health — Tillage, wind and water erosion, and use of soil fumigants and other chemicals all contribute to depletion of soils. • Global warming — Agriculture is a known source of nitrogen from soil degradation, methane from animal waste, ozone - depleting chemicals, carbon dioxide from farm equipment and transportation, and additional energy is used for food processing, packaging and refrigeration. • Protection of wildlife — Ninety percent of threatened species in the US are known to spend some portion of their life cycle on privately owned agricultural lands. • Local economies — Family -scale agriculture and food processing are under significant economic pressure due to consolidation in industry, and increasingly international trade. • Food quality and safety — Concerns have been raised for food additives used to extend shelf -life or enhance color and flavor, for contaminants, and for food -borne illnesses like e-coli. • Diet - related health concerns — Diet is closely linked with the increasing incidence of obesity, diabetes, high blood pressure, and other preventable causes of sickness and death. Fortunately, we have choices. There are a number of more socially and environmentally responsible product options. These may not always appear on order sheets presented by mainline distributors or food service providers — but if you ask, you may be surprised by what's possible! The unprecedented attention being paid to food quality and food origins in just the last few years has accelerated efforts by farmers, ranchers, food processors, wholesale distributors and group purchasing organizations (GPOs) to better understand and address social and environmental concerns, while also meeting quality expectations and price constraints. Suppliers making the transition to more socially and environmentally responsible foods need your institution's support. Those considering it need your encouragement. A Guide to Developing a Sustainable Food Purchasing Policy • www.SustainableFoodPolicy.org Page 1 5 BENEFITS OF SUSTAINABLE FOOD PURCHASING As you establish your sustainable purchasing program look for benefits on a variety of levels: • Improve information flow and relationships with suppliers • Meet or exceed quality and cost expectations (yes, it's absolutely possible!) • Reduce risk or liability exposure related to environmental, social and health concerns • Avoid negative publicity associated with purchasing "problem products" • Reduce waste and waste disposal charges • Contribute to the organizational mission (education or health services organizations) • Set a positive examples for students, patients and other constituents or stakeholders • Deliver morale and health benefits for employees and students /patients /customers • Get credit for helping improve social and environmental performance by suppliers • Demonstrate organizational values and improve public relations • Realize marketing advantages over less proactive competitors BENEFITS OF A SUSTAINABLE FOOD PURCHASING POLICY There are a growing number of successful projects around the world that are bringing more sustainable food to institutions. However, to date, very few institutions have formal purchasing policies to guide and support these initiatives, and as a result the overall impact of many projects has been limited. Adoption of a sustainable food purchasing policy enables institutions to move from isolated projects, sustained by the interest and involvement of a few people, to an institutional framework for understanding and making change towards a more sustainable food system. Adoption of a sustainable food purchasing policy offers many important potential benefits: • Institutionalize grassroots purchasing initiatives. • Build awareness and support by decision - makers, budget holders and purchasing staff. • Clarify goals, expectations and the limits of initiatives. • Facilitate communication with GPOs, suppliers, employees, students /patients, and the public. • Establish a framework and tools to drive purchasing decisions. • Specify and justify bidding and contracting provisions. • Create and rationalize incentives for change by food and food service suppliers. • Address policy conflicts and other barriers that hamper many projects. • Create mechanisms to collect and assess cost and performance data to guide efforts. • Provide a clear path for increasing scope and impact. DEVELOPING A SUSTAINABLE PURCHASING POLICY A successful sustainable food purchasing policy will be fully integrated with the overall goals and objectives of the institution. It will clearly state the institution's social and environmental goals, identify procurement strategies, and commit resources to those strategies. It will also set targets and timelines, and establish means for evaluating progress and making course corrections. The following steps will help you develop a practical and effective sustainable food purchasing policy: A. Set the Stage for Success B. Identify the Parties and Nature of the Effort C. Establish a Vision D. Anticipate Challenges, Identify and Prioritize Opportunities E. Identify Strategies, Standards and Compliance Mechanisms F. Establish a Baseline G. Set Goals H. Create an Action Plan I. Create an Evaluation Plan J. Communicate Your Effort and Your Accomplishments These steps are addressed in greater detail below. A Guide to Developing a Sustainable Food Purchasing Policy • www.SustainableFoodPolicy.org Page 1 6 Set the Stage for Success As important as the content of the policy is the ownership and commitment of leaders and staff at all levels. The policy must have the backing of senior management. Responsibility for its implementation must be allocated to staff who understand and accept its importance, and are empowered to see it through. And the policy must be communicated throughout the organization, and to all suppliers and constituents. As noted, many institutions start down this road with a project initiated by a small group or even a single individual. The success of that project often creates interest, gives a sense of possibility, and leads to larger institutional commitments. If your institution has no experience with sustainable purchasing, you may want to start with a project — not a policy — or take extra care to set realistic, achievable goals. At the point you think your institution is ready to step up to a formal sustainable purchasing policy, it's important to lay groundwork in order to ensure a positive outcome. • Identify management, staff, constituent and stakeholder needs and interests. What issues and potential outcomes will inspire engagement? What barriers (real or perceived) will limit enthusiasm and participation? • Engage institutional leaders at all levels People in management, involved in planning and budgeting, in operations, in purchasing, or on the front line can either help or hinder efforts. Be sure to touch base early in the process to understand and address their concerns, to hear their suggestions, and to solicit their participation. • Identify sustainability champions. Who has a personal or professional interest, the position and the skills to advocate for and lead the effort? • Identify allies — You will not make the move to sustainability alone. Your current vendors and service providers may be eager to help.What other for - profit and non - profit partners have the knowledge and resources to help you gather information, and set and achieve goals? Identify the Parties and Nature of the Effort If the stage has been set properly, you already have a successful project and a group of people working in and associated with your institution who are interested in taking things to the next level. A good first step is formalizing that interest and the role the group intends to play in developing and implementing the new policy. • Identify the individuals and organizations that are party to development of the policy so that there is transparency in terms of the interests represented in the group. • Describe how the group was formed and any criteria for membership. • Describe the group's charter and any limits to decision - making authority. If the parties are advocates for change — but not directly empowered to set policy for the institution — that's fine, but it should be clearly stated. • Identify any individuals or entities with final authority to review and approve the policy. Establish a Vision The vision should outline the institution's interest in supporting a more sustainable food system and its connection to that system. This statement will ideally tie directly to the overall mission of the institution. Make a "big picture" statement of the institution's values and long -term goals. Don't get bogged down considering strategies at this point. Focus on values and desired outcomes. • Don't just recycle a general statement about sustainability. Consider the full range of issues that have been discussed. What are the priority concerns for people in your institution? Write a statement that speaks directly to those concerns. If you've done your homework and understand the needs and perspectives represented in your institution, you already have a good sense of what is motivating interest and participation in this process. • Don't confuse means with ends. There is a tendency in discussion of sustainable food systems to reduce the issues to "support local and organic foods." Local and organic foods represent means to ends — the ends being outcomes such as healthier food, thriving local economies, amelioration of global warming, or reductions in pesticide use and toxicity. Focusing on local or organic as ends in themselves may have the unintended consequence of precluding other opportunities for progress. Your policy should encourage creativity and entrepreneurship in achievement of goals, not limit options. A Guide to Developing a Sustainable Food Purchasing Policy • www.SustainableFoodPolicy.org Page 1 7 • Try to take a holistic view of sustainability. In the early going, look closely at any existing institutional policies and assess the potential for overlap or conflict. Ideally, the institution should not have separate policies for health, labor concerns, toxics, animal welfare, energy usage, recycling and waste management, green procurement, etc. Try to integrate all relevant concerns for food, food procurement, and food service facilities in one policy. As an example of a vision statement, Kaiser Permanente, the nation's largest non - profit healthcare provider, has published the following: Kaiser Permanente aspires to improve the health of our members, employees, our communities and the environment by increasing access to fresh, healthy food in and around KP facilities. We will promote agricultural practices that are ecologically sound, economically viable and socially responsible by the way we purchase food. As a healthcare provider, Kaiser Permanente's priority focus is health, including fresh, healthy food in and around their facilities — but they recognize other ways in which purchasing can support broader food systems interests that contribute to their health vision. Anticipate Challenges — Identify and Prioritize Opportunities Setting goals that are both meaningful and achievable will require a clear understanding of your institution's capacities and limits, how it relates to food production and distribution systems, the ability of GPOs, suppliers and partners to help meet its needs, and its opportunities to really make a difference. It pays to be candid about difficulties that your institution may face in implementing a sustainable food purchasing policy. Anticipating challenges is the first step to overcoming them. Be sure to consider: • Partner Constraints — The capacity and willingness of current food service providers, wholesale vendors and /or GPOs to help the institution meet objectives may vary. Will the institution need new partners to achieve its goals? • Contract and Policy Barriers — There may be food service contracts, prime vendor contracts, vendor - approval requirements such as product liability insurance, or related barriers to sustainable purchasing. What changes can be made when the time comes to renegotiate? • Physical Limitations — Storage and cooking facilities may need upgrades. • The Learning Curve — Staff may require additional skills or training to perform successfully. • Budgetary Constraints — There may be investment costs associated with implementing new requirements, even if there are Tong -term cost savings. It is also important to recognize on -going management challenges, such as: • Supply Constraints — It may be challenging to procure supplies of products on a year -round basis that meet specifications for social and environmental performance, as well as expectations for form, volume, price, and delivery terms. • Complexity — Will there be more vendors? Will your institution buy directly from farmers? Will seasonal availability complicate inventory and ordering? Will menus have to change more regularly? Will deliveries be more or Tess frequent? • Integration of Social and Environmental Concerns into Procurement — Your institution's ability to pass ongoing cost increases on to food service customers may be limited. How will the institution weigh social and environmental factors against cost and other concerns in evaluating service and supply contracts and spot purchases? • Tracking and Reporting — How will performance be measured, evaluated and rewarded? Remember - what gets measured gets done. These or other challenges may limit the institution's scope of activities initially, but rest assured that every challenge eventually finds a solution and there are abundant opportunities for progress. A Guide to Developing a Sustainable Food Purchasing Policy • www.SustainableFoodPolicy.org Page 1 8 To navigate the challenges you encounter: • Focus on Core Needs and Interests — What will motivate management and staff to make needed changes? What will add the most value for the institution? • Identify Available Resources — Think about both financial and non - financial resources. • Identify Strengths — Where do you already have skills and capacity? • Identify Opportunities for Quick Impact — What are potential easy wins? • Identify Opportunities for Greatest Impact — What will really make a difference? Working through these and similar questions should help the institution tighten its focus to a few key issues and opportunities. This will concentrate efforts and increase the likelihood of successful implementation. Outline your priority concerns and why the institution is well positioned to address those priorities. Build a case for taking action that recognizes assets available to the institution, as well as challenges that it may face. Recognize that you are engaged in a process of recruiting interest, demonstrating success, and challenging people to imagine what is possible. Don't sacrifice the possibility of incremental gains for the prospect of a perfect, but ultimately unrealistic, policy. Don't worry about getting everything you want now. Additional issues can be brought back for consideration as the institution develops its track record and its confidence — and new opportunities will emerge in the process of implementation. For those institutions that have a constituency that changes over time, such as universities and colleges with cohorts of students, recognize that each generation will need an opportunity to express its interests. Expectations will change. This is good. It's how we make progress. The Berea College Local Foods Initiative conducted an extensive analysis and made detailed recommendations for the college following a similar process to that outlined here. A copy of the document can be found at: www .berea.edu /localfoodinitiative /documents /ACreportFINAL.pdf Establish Strategies, Standards and Compliance Mechanisms With a vision and priorities in place, now it's time to imagine how your institution's sustainable food policy will play out on the ground. Strategies for promoting a more sustainable food system will ultimately have to be reflected in guidelines and specifications provided to purchasers. Purchasing staff will have to request information from service providers, wholesalers, food processors and farmers and ranchers about the origin and nature of products. Information and claims about products will have to be evaluated to categorize and qualify purchases. As you list your strategies, it is important to be as clear as you can about your priorities, and to what standards purchasers, service providers and suppliers will be held. It is also critical to think through how you will assess compliance and performance. As an example, Kaiser Permanente's sustainable food purchasing initiative includes the following strategies (partial list only): • We will encourage our vendors to supply us with food that is, among other attributes, produced without synthetic pesticides and hormones, or antibiotics given to animals in the absence of diagnosed disease. • We will work with our food suppliers, local farmers, and community-based organizations to increase the availability of locally- sourced food, when seasonality permits, in order to: reduce negative environmental impacts by decreasing the distance food travels from farm to plate; improve the economic vitality of communities in and around KP service areas; and increase the freshness of fruits and vegetables that enter KP's food supply. • We recognize explicit and ordered priorities in KP's comprehensive food policy. First, we seek to increase the availability and consumption of fresh fruits and vegetables. Our second priority is to purchase food that is free from pesticides, hormones and non - therapeutic antibiotics. Our third priority is to increase the proportion of KP food that is locally- sourced. • Any changes in our food purchasing policies and practices will minimize operational impacts, be economically viable and, whenever possible, be cost neutral. A Guide to Developing a Sustainable Food Purchasing Policy • www.SustainableFoodPolicy.org Page 19 It is critical to develop clear, operational definitions for any terms that will have bearing in solicitations for bids and contracts or in routine purchasing. Terms that may need definition include: "sustainable," "socially responsible," "environmentally responsible," "fair," local," or "humane." Make sure that definitions of terms are practical, with both clear criteria and a feasible means for determining compliance with the stated standard. It may also be valuable to establish a means to measure progress against a scaled standard so that superior performance by contractors and vendors can be recognized and rewarded. A number of companies are making efforts to differentiate their food products based on social and environmental claims, or on specific product claims such as "hormone free." Be careful. Some product claims have no standard industry definitions and practices may vary depending on the supplier. Others, like "natural," have a standard industry definition, but are so weak as to be essentially meaningless. Verification of compliance is a critical issue. Once standards have been established, and terms defined, the policy must be clear what constitutes adequate demonstration of compliance. There are typically three means for establishing compliance: • First -party claims — usually a statement made by the producer, sometimes with a signed affidavit; • Second -party claims — often a statement by an industry association on behalf of a group of growers /manufacturers, or by a business intermediary on behalf of a sub - supplier; • Third -party certification — an independent inspection to verify product claims. Products that are subject to first -party and second -party claims can offer meaningful and measurable social and environmental benefits. However, third -party certification provides the highest degree of confidence that standards have been met. Third -party certifications for agricultural products include: Certified Humane, Food Alliance, USDA Organic, and Protected Harvest. These certifications are deemed "Highly Meaningful" by Consumers Union Guide to Environmental Labels. Visit www.eco labels.org to learn more about what makes a good eco- Zabel. See Appendix 1 for more detailed information on some common food - related claims and certifications. Your institution may end up relying on a combination of third -party certification, commonly used marketing claims (ex. rBST -free) which may or may not have a verification component, and /or on standards developed internally (ex. defining local as a radius of 150 miles). Generally, be careful that the institution is not put in the position of having to independently verify the compliance of contractors and vendors with the selected standards. This often requires specific expertise and can offer significant administrative and logistical challenges. It is also generally not advisable to adopt any standard that only represents compliance with existing regulation or law (ex. asking suppliers to meet minimum wage requirements). This does not create any incentive for improving performance against social or environmental criteria. Nor, in most instances, will the institution have any means of verifying compliance with law. Establish a Baseline Establishing baseline data allows the development of realistic and challenging goals for the institution. You will want to outline how the institution is currently performing, how that estimate was developed, and what additional information would be desirable to confirm performance. It is acceptable for the baseline to be estimated from available data or the judgment of knowledgeable informants in procurement or vendor management — but be sure to consult your service providers and suppliers. More than one institution has learned after setting a goal that they were already exceeding it A Guide to Developing a Sustainable Food Purchasing Policy • www.SustainableFoodPolicy.org Page 1 10 SET GOALS Where are you going? How fast do you think you can get there? Defining clear goals will help you to track and report success. Goals for percentage of total purchases may be assigned for categories such as fresh produce, dairy products, meat products, dry goods or processed foods — or even for single products (such as ground beef, wheat flour, milk in pint cartons, or fresh strawberries). For example, Portland State University set the following goals for local purchasing: Maintain minimum annual levels of local foods procurement (local to be defined as products grown and processed in the Northwest (Oregon, Washington, Idaho and Northern California) with an emphasis on Oregon and Washington grown and processed products with a 150 mile radius of the campus. We strive to exceed these minimums to the fullest extent economically possible: I. 30% annual average of total cost of sales, increasing at 2% per year II. 30% annual average of fruits and vegetables purchased, increasing at 2 % per year III. 100% milk and dairy products IV. 100% eggs V. 50% flour purchased, increasing when economically viable VI. 50% beef purchased, increasing when economically viable VII. 15% poultry purchased, increasing when economically viable VIII. 30% pork purchased, increasing when economically viable IX. 100% salmon and tuna procured in accordance with the Monterrey Bay Aquarium "Seafood Watch" sustainable fisheries guide. Goals can also be tiered according to product characteristics, with purchasing preferences listed from most to least favored. For example, Yale University has established a hierarchy of preferences addressing geography, farm ownership and practices. HIGH Geography Farm Ownership Practices Desirability •Connecticut •Independent -Organic •Region •Cooperative •Integrated Pest Management (IPM) •United States •Corporate •Conventional LOW •International Yale's purchasing preferences are further specified to help purchasers make decisions across categories. First Tier (ranked in order of preference) Second Tier (ranked in order of preference) • Connecticut organic • Regional conventional — medium scale operation • Connecticut IPM • US organic — small / medium scale operation • Regional Organic • US IPM — small /medium scale operation • Regional IPM • Connecticut conventional — large scale operation • Connecticut conventional — small scale operation • US organic — large scale operation • Regional conventional — small scale operation • US IPM — Large scale operation • Connecticut conventional medium scale operation • International organic • US Conventional Think through whether there is any hierarchy to your goals and how they interrelate. Break out your goals to the degree possible in order to be able to measure performance on each goal separately (i.e. percentage of milk that is rBST -free, percentage of milk from local dairies, and percentage of milk from dairies that are Certified Humane). Avoid compound goals (i.e. percentage of rBST -free milk from local dairies that are Certified Humane), which can complicate verification, limit progress on individual measures, and make year -to -year comparisons and comparisons between categories and products difficult. A Guide to Developing a Sustainable Food Purchasing Policy • www.SustainableFoodPolicv.org Page 1 11 To further facilitate comparisons, goals are most effectively stated by percentage of dollars spent rather than by weight or other measures. Try to identify some goals that will make progress more immediately apparent and provide opportunities for celebration. Be certain to review the "buy lists" currently in use to find "low- hanging fruit" where dramatic progress can be made cost - effectively on a short timeline. If the institution or its contractors can make an easy substitution for one or more products — for example, buying 100% of strawberries fresh in- season from a local grower or 100% Fair Trade certified coffee — it's a victory worth claiming. Use these victories, small and large, as a means to educate and inspire the institution's constituents, and to build leverage for greater change. Create an Action Plan Your action plan should establish clear expectations for the institution and its staff, as well as for service providers and wholesale vendors. Be clear about what the institution plans to accomplish independently and what it hopes to accomplish working with food service providers, wholesale vendors or GPOs. Be specific about who will do what when to ensure that the institution meets or exceeds its targets. Some questions to consider: • How will the institution communicate its intent to staff and external partners? • How will the institution demonstrate its commitment to the new policy? • What resources will be committed to develop and manage new policy initiatives? • How will staff be educated and motivated? • How will needs and expectations be conveyed to existing suppliers? • Who will draft and approve food service and vendor RFPs? • Who will negotiate and manage the contracts? • How will social and environmental performance be weighted against price or quality concerns? • Will there be any performance bonuses or penalties associated with contracts? • If necessary, how will new suppliers or service providers be identified and recruited? In a competitive bid situation, where social and /or environmental performance is clearly assigned weight in bid evaluation, there is a chance for food service and wholesale contractors to propose targets beyond the institution's minimum requirements. This should be encouraged and, if possible, supported with financial or other incentives (eg. longer contract terms). Given the complexity of issues in the agricultural and food arenas, purchasers must have clear direction for product priorities and specifications, any preferences or requirements related to selection of suppliers, and any negotiable or fixed terms for contracts. Whatever the organization's goals, purchasers must also be given leeway and appropriate budgetary discretion to make strategic decisions in service of the organization's goals. Ideally, incentive programs should be put in place to reward staff who find creative ways to improve the institution's social and environmental performance within budget limits. Create an Evaluation Plan A good sustainable food purchasing policy will also specify means and a process for evaluating its effectiveness. Be sure to consider both internal benefits for the institution and, to the degree this can be measured, external benefits for farmers, farm laborers, farm animals and the environment. You should already have identified some key measures of success. What are they? • Percentage of employees receiving education or training relevant to the new policy? • Percentages of purchases of specified products or categories that meet certain criteria? • Improvements in the nutritional value of meal and snack offerings? • Reductions in food miles? • Dollars directed to the local economy? Think carefully about expectations for monitoring and evaluation. Don't underestimate the work that may be involved, particularly work for service providers or suppliers that may be involved in collecting and analyzing the data. A Guide to Developing a Sustainable Food Purchasing Policy • www.SustainableFoodPolicy.org Page 1 12 Questions to consider in developing a plan for evaluation include: • How will purchase data be tracked and in what detail? • How will performance data be compiled and evaluated? • Who will have responsibility for assessing and reporting compliance with the policy? • How frequently will reviews be conducted? • How will lessons learned be documented and shared? • How will new ideas and opportunities be brought forward? • How will performance affect employees charged with implementation of the policy? • How will performance affect continuation of existing supply contracts and relationships? • Who will make those decisions and how will decisions be weighted against other factors? • How and when will the institution make adjustments to its policy and goals? • Who will have final authority on changes to the policy or goals? Recognize from the start that there will be learning curves for dining services staff, purchasers, and vendors. (Yale University saw their costs increase in the first year of their program and then subsequently decrease as they learned how to make their system more efficient.) Accept that there will be challenges and lessons learned. Some things just won't work out. Know that there will also be successes to celebrate. Your review process should be as much about moving forward as it is about looking back. Embrace the review process as a chance to learn, to bring forward new ideas, to refine your strategies, and to set new goals. Communicate Your Effort and Your Accomplishments Ultimately, the success of your institution's sustainable food purchasing policy rests on the enthusiasm, commitment and creativity of the people who will implement it. This may in turn rest on the progress they see and the feedback they receive from audiences important to them. Be proactive in communicating your institution's goals, efforts and progress through signage, brochures, a website, newsletters, through the media and through celebratory events. Collect stories you can share with employees, students or patients, and other constituents to inspire greater support for your institution's initiatives. Sharing those stories will increase internal buy -in and will help leverage marketing and public relations benefits. CONCLUSION In the course of research for this guide it has become clear that there are people in institutions in every US state and many other countries working to address the social and environmental impacts of food procurement and to develop sustainable food purchasing policies. It's also very clear that no one person or organization has all the answers or the perfect model. We are all pioneers and we are all learning. As part of the Sustainable Food Policy Project, we encourage all institutions to share their policies and related documents, as well as their successes and lessons learned, to help accelerate the pace of change towards a more sustainable food system. Join the conversation at www.SustainableFoodPolicy.org and find more information and sample sustainable food purchasing policies. We want to hear from you A Guide to Developing a Sustainable Food Purchasing Policy • www.SustainableFoodPolicy.org Page 1 13 APPENDIX: COMMON FOOD - RELATED CLAIMS AND CERTIFICATIONS Antibiotic Claims The USDA has prohibited use of the term "Antibiotic Free" as a label claim for meats and poultry, but allows "Raised Without Antibiotics" or "No Antibiotics Administered." These claims imply that no antibiotics were administered to the animal at any point during its life. If an animal becomes sick and requires treatment, it should be segregated from other animals and sold as a conventional meat product. There is often no independent verification of these antibiotic claims. Beyond Organic This term is used informally to describe farms with management practices that go beyond the minimum requirements of the USDA organic standards. The term is not regulated and has no standard industry definition, making it very difficult to evaluate as a claim. Ask suppliers using the term to describe in more detail what they mean by it. There is no independent verification of this claim. Cage Free This is a first party claim that poultry were raised without cages. This does not guarantee that birds were raised with access to the outdoors or on pasture. Birds may have been raised in large flocks in commercial confinement facilities with open floor plans. There is often no independent verification of "Cage Free" claims. Certified Humane The Certified Humane Raised & Handled Label is a consumer certification and labeling program which indicates that egg, dairy, meat or poultry products have been produced with the welfare of the farm animal in mind. Farm animal treatment standards include: Allow animals to engage in their natural behaviors; Raise animals with sufficient space, shelter and gentle handling to limit stress; Make sure they have ample fresh water and a healthy diet without added antibiotics or hormones. Producers also must comply with local, state and federal environmental standards. Processors must comply with the American Meat Institute Standards, a higher standard for slaughtering farm animals than the Federal Humane Slaughter Act. www.certifiedhumane.com Fair Trade Certified Fair Trade standards aim to ensure that farmers in developing nations receive a fair price for their product, and have direct trade relations with buyers and access to credit. They encourage sustainable farming practices, and discourage the use of child labor and certain pesticides. To bear the label, products must be grown by small - scale, democratically organized producers. Fair Trade Certified products include coffee, hot chocolate, tea, candy, chocolate, sweeteners, fruit, rice and grains. TransFair USA is the third -party certifier of Fair Trade goods in the US. It is one of twenty members of Fairtrade Labeling Organizations International, the umbrella organization that sets the certification standards. www.transfairusa.org Food Alliance Certified Food Alliance is a nonprofit organization that operates a third -party certification program for socially and environmentally responsible agricultural practices. Food Alliance certification distinguishes farmers and ranchers who: Provide safe and fair working conditions; Ensure healthy and humane care for livestock; Do not use hormones or non - therapeutic antibiotics; Do not produce genetically modified crops or livestock; Reduce pesticide use and toxicity; Conserve soil and water resources; Protect and enhance wildlife habitat; and, Demonstrate continuous improvement. Food Alliance certification distinguishes food processors, manufacturers and distributors who: Source Food Alliance Certified ingredients; Ensure quality control and food safety; Do not use artificial flavors, colors or preservatives; Provide safe and fair working conditions; Reduce use of toxic and hazardous materials; Conserve energy and water; Manage solid waste responsibly; and, Demonstrate continuous improvement. www.foodalliance.org Free Range Free Range and related terms are popular label claims for poultry and eggs, and sometimes seen on other meats. Free range is regulated by the USDA for use on poultry only (not eggs), which requires that birds be given access to the outdoors for an undetermined period each day. In practice, the "Free Range" claim does not guarantee that the animal actually spent any period of time outdoors, only that access was available. Birds may have been raised in large flocks in commercial confinement facilities with open floor plans. There is often no independent verification of "Free Range" claims. A Guide to Developing a Sustainable Food Purchasing Policy • www.SustainableFoodPolicy.org Page 1 14 Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) Claims With growing consumer concern for genetically modified crops and livestock entering the food supply chain, a number of companies have begun to assert "GMO- Free" and related claims. In many cases, there is no independent verification of "GMO- Free" claims. Some certification programs, such as Organic and Food Alliance, prohibit genetically modified ingredients in certified foods and have corresponding inspection protocols. However, laboratory test may be necessary to provide maximum surety there has been no cross - contamination of products. Grassfed - As defined by the American Grassfed Association, this claims means that animals live on pasture, consume a natural forage diet, and do not receive hormone or antibiotic treatments. However, the USDA, in a standard published for comment in 2006, has defined "grassfed" to only mean animals that consume a diet of grasses and silage. The USDA standard does not prohibit confinement or hormone and antibiotic treatments. Suppliers should be clear which standard they claim to meet. There is currently no independent verification of this claim under either standard. Note that "Grassfed" claims are sometimes qualified with supplemental "Grain Finished" claims. This combination describes the conventional industrial livestock feeding model, and invalidates the "Grassfed" claim. Hormone Claims The USDA has prohibited use of the term "Hormone Free," but meats can be labeled "No Hormones Administered" meaning that the animals in question did not receive hormone injections or feed supplements. Claims are also frequently asserted that milk products are "rBGH- Free" and /or "rBST- Free." (rBGH and rBST are hormone supplements given todairy cows to increase milk production.) Federal law prohibits the use of hormones in hogs and poultry, so hormone claims for chicken or pork should be considered misleading. There is often no independent verification of hormone claims. Integrated Pest Management Integrated Pest Management (IPM) is an approach to pest management that employs a variety of farming practices (such as encouraging beneficial insects) to avoid and mitigate pest problems. IPM programs use information on the life cycles of pests and their interaction with the environment, in combination with available pest control strategies, to manage pest damage by the most economical means, and with the least possible hazard to people, property, and the environment. IPM rarely appears independently in product related claims, but is a basis for pest management standards under certification programs such as Food Alliance and Protected Harvest. Local Claims Local is most often defined as food grown within a particular geographic area or within a specific distance from the point of consumer purchase. Defined this way, the claim is frequently linked to "food miles" as a proximate measure for environmental impact. Another way to consider `local," however, is food which comes from an identifiable community, which is grown and marketed by mid -sized and smaller producers, producer cooperatives, and producer -owned businesses. This definition speaks more to public interest in preserving family -scale agriculture, and in strengthening local and regional economies. Regardless of emphasis, local claims are most often asserted in direct marketing contexts. Local by itself does not guarantee that the food was produced to any social or environmental standard, or under any particular ownership structure. There is often no independent verification of local claims. Marine Stewardship Council The Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) is a non - profit organization that promotes responsible fishing practices. The MSC label assures buyers that products come from a well managed fishery and have not contributed to overfishing. The three principles of the MSC certification standard are: 1) The condition of the fish stocks (examines if there are enough fish to ensure that the fishery is sustainable); The impact of the fishery on the marine environment (examines the effect that fishing has on the immediate marine environment including other non - target fish species, marine mammals and seabirds); 3) The fishery management systems (evaluates the rules and procedures that are in place, as well as how they are implemented, to maintain a sustainable fishery and to ensure that the impact on the marine environment is minimized). www.msc.org Monterey Bay Aquarium Seafood Watch Guide - The Seafood Watch guide is designed to raise consumer awareness about the importance of buying seafood from sustainable sources. The guide recommends which seafood to buy or avoid, helping consumers to become advocates for environmentally friendly seafood. Recommendations are based on peer- reviewed research and government agency reports. Seafood Watch is associated with the Seafood Choices Alliance which, along with other seafood awareness campaigns, provides seafood purveyors with recommendations on seafood choices. www .mbayaq.org /cr /seafoodwatch.asp A Guide to Developing a Sustainable Food Purchasing Policy • www.SustainableFoodPolicy.org Page 1 15 Natural USDA guidelines state that "Natural" meat and poultry products can only undergo minimal processing and cannot contain artificial colors, artificial flavors, preservatives, or other artificial ingredients. "Natural" is used with similar meaning with other food products as well. Beyond this limited definition, "natural" should be considered a meaningless claim. The term does not offer any information about the social or environmental impact of the product. It does not guarantee that livestock were humanely raised, or not treated with hormones and antibiotics. It does not guarantee that crops were raised according to any standard. There is typically no independent verification of "natural" claims. Organic In order to be labeled "organic" products must meet the federal organic standards as determined by a USDA - approved certifying agency. Organic foods cannot be grown using synthetic fertilizers, chemicals, or sewage sludge; cannot be genetically modified; and cannot be irradiated. Organic meat and poultry must be fed only organically -grown feed (without any animal byproducts) and cannot be treated with hormones or antibiotics. In order to bear the USDA "Certified Organic" seal, a product must contain 95 to 100 percent organic ingredients. Products that contain more than 70 percent, but less than 94 percent organic ingredients can be labeled "Made with Organic Ingredients," but cannot use the USDA "Certified- Organic" seal. Organic ingredients can be listed on the packaging of products that are not entirely organic. www .ams.usda.gov /NOP /indexNet.htm Pastured or Pasture-Raised This claim indicates the animal was raised outdoors on a pasture, and implies that it ate primarily grasses and other naturally occurring foods commonly found in pastures. In fact, feeding practices may vary. There is typically no independent verification of "pastured" claims. (See also "Grassfed" above.) Protected Harvest certified Protected Harvest is a non - profit organization that independently certifies farmers for ecologically based practices in nine different management categories: Field scouting, Information sources, Pest management decisions, Field management decisions, Weed management, Insect management, Disease management, Soil and water quality, and Storage management. In order to qualify for certification, growers must stay below an established total number of "Toxicity Units" per acre and avoid use of certain high -risk pesticides. Chain -of- custody audits are implemented to ensure the integrity of Protected Harvest's certification. www.protectedharvest.org Rainforest Alliance Certified The Rainforest Alliance works to conserve biodiversity and ensure sustainable livelihoods by transforming land -use practices, business practices and consumer behavior. The Rainforest Alliance Certified seal is found on coffee, cocoa, chocolate, bananas, orange juice, guava, pineapple, passion fruit, plantains, macademia nuts and other tropical products. On certified farms, rainforest is conserved, workers are treated fairly, soil and water quality are not compromised, waste is managed efficiently, chemical use is dramatically reduced and relations with surrounding communities are strong. www. rainforest- alliance.org /index.cfm Transitional Organic Currently, the USDA does not allow a "transitional organic" label claim. However, suppliers may informally assert a "transitional organic" claim to describe food produced using organic methods on farms that are in the 3 -year transition period required for organic certification. There is no independent verification of "transitional organic" claims, and no guarantee that these farms will ultimately qualify for organic certification. Vegetarian Diet This is a first -party claim that livestock were not fed any animal by- products. With the appearance of "mad cow disease," which is transmitted through animal by- products added to cattle feed, vegetarian diet are increasing. The claim does not indicate that animals were fed a natural forage diet. Animals may have been fed corn or other grains, agricultural by- products or food processing wastes (such as potato peels). Animals may also have received antibiotics or other feed supplements. There is often no independent verification of vegetarian diet claims. Additional information on these and other labeling claims can be found at: • Consumers Union Guide to Environmental Claims: www.eco - labels.org • Sustainable Table: www.sustainabletable.org /shop /understanding/ A Guide to Developing a Sustainable Food Purchasing Policy • www.SustainableFoodPolicy.org Page 116 Farm -to- School in Central Minnesota — Applied Economic Analysis By Monica Haynes Region Five Development Commission CURA Community-Based Research Programs U of M Central Regional Sustainable Development Partnership University of Minnesota -Twin Cities Applied Economics Department Introduction The farm -to- school model was created in the 1990s, as a result of two seemingly unrelated public programs. The first was an initiative started by the USDA in Florida, designed to help local farmers by establishing schools as a potential market for certain crops. The second was a pilot program at a low- income school in California which focused on school food issues (Valliantos, et al, 2004). Since then, the farm -to- school movement has spread throughout the country. Today, forty -one states have operational farm -to- school programs, and over two thousand such programs exist in the United States (National farm -to- school website). Farm -to- school advocates cite several types of positive effects from these programs. Healthier meals in schools can positively impact students' weight, improve behavior, and reduce food insecurity. Farm -to- school programs also teach students about where their food comes from, local agriculture, and healthy diets. Advocates note that, by concentrating school food expenditures in the local economy, farm -to- school programs may have broader economic impacts that go beyond these more direct effects. While there is a growing body of literature that measures impacts of farm -to- school programs on student health and student learning, very little research has been done to measure the economic impact that farm -to- school has had on surrounding communities. This study collects data required for a formal analysis of the these broader community economic impacts of farm -to- school programs in the Region Five Development District located in Central Minnesota. More specifically, we estimate the potential demand for locally produced food products from farm -to- school programs, and we assess the ability of local farmers to meet that demand. We also investigate the prices schools currently pay for products that could be supplied locally and the prices farmers would require to supply those products. Finally, we develop new sector descriptions and modeling assumptions that will be needed to conduct a formal economic impact assessment with an input - output model. Region Five The Region Five District, located in North Central Minnesota, is home to Cass, Crow Wing, Morrison, Todd, and Wadena counties. The Region Five Development Commission is a political subdivision devoted to assisting local governments, development organizations and community leaders in Central Minnesota who are working to build and improve their communities. The mission of the Region Five Development Commission is to provide high quality, professional planning and development services through collaboration, assistance and coordination with local units of government, organizations, and citizens (Region Five website). The results of this study will be of interest to public officials and citizens in the Region Five District as they consider policies to promote farm -to- school programs. If farm -to- school projects provide a positive economic impact to the region, they might lead the way for other endeavors such as sales to local restaurants, hospitals, or resorts. We also believe this report will be of more general interest, since it will demonstrate the data needs and analytical methods required to analyze the economic impacts of farm -to- school programs in other settings. Previous Research In recent years, much research has been devoted to the farm -to- school phenomenon. As more and more schools have taken the plunge to buy from local farms, interest in the effects this trend is having on students, schools, farmers and communities has increased. Various surveys and studies around the country have examined different aspects of farm -to- school projects. We will first look at the available research on farm -to- school programs throughout the United States, from the impacts it has had on students to the policy effects both regionally and nationally. In addition, we will examine some economic studies related to the farm -to- school issue. We will discuss strengths and weaknesses, as well as lessons that can be applied to our own research and areas of research that warrant future examination. Student Impacts The amount of research devoted to the impact that farm -to- school programs have had on students is extensive. In their recent report, "Bearing Fruit", Joshi and Azuma summarize much of the research on student impacts, and organize the findings into the following categories: changes in student knowledge, changes in student attitude, and changes in student behavior. The results, in general, are overwhelmingly positive. Three of the studies in their report (Croom and Kolodinsky, Triant and Ryan, and Joshi and Beery) show marked improvements in students' attitudes about new foods and their willingness to try such foods. They list four studies (The Edible Schoolyard, Joshi and Azuma, The Food Trust, and Triant and Ryan) which show an increase in student knowledge of gardening and agriculture, healthy eating habits, different food sources, and foods grown in the region. Most impressive are their findings on changes in student behavior. Seven studies show that students participating in a farm -to- school program are more likely to choose the fresh fruits and vegetables over the hot lunch option. What's more, some of these studies actually show an increase in school lunch participation rates due to the farm -to- school program. Teacher Impacts Many farm -to- school programs have shown success incorporating the project outside of the lunchroom. The majority of teachers who integrate lessons complementing the farm -to- school mission (i.e. food, farm, and nutrition issues) find the curriculum useful, and say that they would participate again if offered the chance Qoshi and Azuma). These teachers see an increase in students' awareness of food and nutrition issues, and many feel that the lessons will impact the students' long -term choices regarding food and nutrition. What's more, many teachers involved in the program actually see an improvement in their own diets as well. Some difficulties can arise, however, when enthusiastic teachers face active or passive resistance on the part of their leadership. One study in Wisconsin faced with this problem makes the following recommendation: "In retrospect, it would have been useful to have arranged for external allies — parents, PTOs, school board members — to more forcefully express a set of goals and expectations complementary to those of WHL staff. Such reinforcement might have been sufficient to induce the food service to have pursued proposed changes more vigorously." (Kloppenburg, et al, 2008) Food Service Impacts The greatest impacts of a farm -to- school program are felt within the lunchroom. This is where the success or failure of the project is felt most acutely. Consequently, much research has been done on the effects that farm -to- school programs have had on food service costs, participation rates, and employees. Some of the positive effects include a greater variety and quantity of fruits and vegetables and an increase in the percent of recommended daily servings for fruits and vegetables. One California study shows that students participating in the farm -to- school program are served between 107% and 177% of the recommended daily servings of fruits and vegetables (Feenstra and Ohmart, 2005). However, some of the impacts on school food service operations are more mixed. Overall, the price for farm -to- school products has been found to be higher than products purchased from local distributors. While the comparison between the wholesale and retail prices of specific ingredients is not overwhelming, the higher labor costs necessary to prepare the fresh ingredients are significant (Joshi and Azuma). This poses a difficult problem because typically, school food service operations are not supported by school district general funds, and are required to generate their own funds. Some schools require an initial investment to cover the cost of processing equipment necessary for the fresh produce (Christensen, 2003). Other schools, however, are able to cover the additional costs through increased participation rates Qoshi and Azuma). Surely, the food service impacts will continue to be a major focus of future research, as the greatest benefits and most difficult challenges are found here. Farmer Impacts Little research has been done on farm -to- school's impact on farmers. The few studies that have looked at farmer impacts have found mixed results. Although most of the farmers involved with farm -to- school programs are "dedicated to the idea of the farm to school approach and were passionate about the philosophical underpinnings of the program" (Ohmart, 2002), the total revenue that farmers gain from their involvement with farm -to- school is small. One study finds that for most growers, the school account represents less than 5% of total income (Feenstra and Ohmart, 2005). As a whole, most farmers typically report that the sales for the farm -to- school programs rarely exceed 10 percent of their income (Joshi and Azuma). Much more research is needed before we can determine the potential benefits that farm -to- school might have on small farmers. Feasibility Studies A number of feasibility studies have been done prior to implementing farm -to- school projects in order to assess the viability of the project and the level of interest among potential participants in the program. Joshi and Azuma examine nine such studies, and found several common themes. Overall, there is a very high interest in purchasing local ingredients. Schools and other institutions everywhere from Michigan to San Francisco cite numerous reasons for their interest, including wanting to support the local economy, better access to high quality foods, and increasing students' fruit and vegetable consumption. However, these same studies find some common concerns among potential participants as well. Some of these concerns include price, food safety, adequate supply, reliability of products, lack of available producers, changes in delivery patterns, and the availability of seasonal products. Hence, the overall consensus among potential participants is one of great interest, as long as price and quality are comparable to the product they currently receive from local distributors. Policy Impacts Little research has been done regarding the policy impacts of farm -to- school programs, but certain policy changes have been made in response to farm -to- school. Some of the school district policy changes include the preferential purchasing of local foods when possible, support for nutritional education and /or school gardens, and stricter standards for foods offered in schools. On a broader scale, seventeen states around the country have enacted policies related to either local foods or farm -to- school programs, encouraging the use of healthy local alternatives through grants, mandates, and other similar policies Qoshi and Azuma). Research in Minnesota Recently, the Minnesota School Nutrition Association (MSNA) and the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy's (IATP) funded a study called "MN School Food Service Director Survey: Farm to School ". This project assesses the interest in farm -to- school among Minnesota's food service directors, and examines the feasibility of implementing a farm -to- school program in the state of Minnesota. The survey asks various questions about the capability of food service operations to prepare and store fresh produce on site, the ability of food service staff to handle and prepare fresh ingredients, information about vendors and distributors, and the food service directors' experiences with local foods in general. The findings from this study proved to be very useful for our research. In particular, information on the availability of on -site kitchens throughout the state, numbers on the amount of students enrolled in school lunch programs on a school by school basis, and pricing information proved to be very useful for our analysis. We will discuss these findings in more detail later in the report. Local Economic Impacts Little research has focused on farm -to- school's impact on the surrounding community, and the economic effects that it has on the local economy. While not entirely related to the farm -to- school issue, two studies attempt to quantify the economic impacts that increased local fruit and vegetable production would have on a state's economy. The information gathered from these studies can be beneficial for farm -to- school advocates looking for examples of positive economic benefits from increased local production. In his 2006 study, Swenson looks at four hypothetical scenarios for the state of Iowa. Each scenario assumes increased production on the part of local Iowa farmers, in order to meet the demands of the state. Different marketing techniques are tested, and one scenario requires that all Iowa residents consume the recommended daily intake of fruits and vegetables. The total economic output of such a policy would range from $139.9 million (for the most modest scenario) to well over $450 million (for the most ambitious), and employment impacts range from 2,032 new jobs to over 6,000. In 2008, Conner and colleagues conducted a similar study, this time in Michigan. Like the Iowa study, Conner examines what the economic impacts of increased fruit and vegetable production in Michigan would be, if all the state's residents met their daily requirements for fruits and vegetables based on USDA guidelines. Using input - output analysis, he finds that the changes discussed above would result in a net of increase of 1780 jobs and a total net increase of $211 million in income within the state. Increased sales in fruit would result in 529 jobs and $42.4 million in income; vegetables sales account for 1251 jobs and $169.1 million. Both studies show how great the potential for increased fruit and vegetable sales is, and how local food systems can potentially be great economic drivers. However, some flaws should be addressed if they are to be used as models for further research. For instance, Conner reports all outputs in "income within the state ". In other words, he is measuring total sales rather than income to the farmer. These total sales figures can be misleading. While vegetables generate greater revenue than corn or soybeans (Conner assumes much of the new vegetable production comes from land currently used for these crops), they also cost much more to produce. Total output measured in income to the producer is much more meaningful, because it takes these additional costs into consideration (Crompton, et al.). Hypothetical economic impact scenarios such as Swenson and Conner's can help from a technical standpoint, but it is also important to consider the real difficulties that face farmers and consumers when buying and selling local products, and how these difficulties can affect potential economic impacts. Much more research is needed on the economic effects of farm -to- school programs, however. In their 2008 study, Carlsson and Williams recommend further research on the following issues: the full economic potential of purchasing locally, a full cost /benefit analysis of food transportation, and the implications of a regional buy local policy on supply and demand, among others. We hope that our study on farm -to- school's potential economic impacts will be of use to both policymakers and future researchers, and will partially fill the gap that remains in the current literature. Barriers to Farm -to- School While farm -to- school's potential benefits are great, it is important to mention some of the barriers that face these projects. Without an honest look at the difficulties farm -to- school programs face, as well as measures that can be taken to overcome these barriers, it is impossible to improve future farm -to- school projects. One of the most common barriers in farm -to- school projects is pricing. Due to strict budgetary constraints, most schools surveyed say that they would be willing to purchase local products only if price was comparable (Vallianatos, et al, 2004, Kloppenburg et al 2008). However, Joshi and Azuma find that in most cases, the farm -to- school lunches cost significantly more than the traditional hot lunch option, ranging from $0.13 to $0.80 more per meal. There are ways to combat this problem, however. Some schools see increased participation in the school lunch program, especially among teachers and administrators, due to the farm -to- school project. This combined with the fact that the adults pay a higher price for their meals, helps cover the higher cost of ingredients Qoshi and Azuma). Another barrier that has come up again and again during our research has been that of distribution. Food service directors currently enjoy the convenience of working with a small number of distributors, and are hesitant to move toward a less structured system. Working with many growers requires more work on the part of the food service employees, from coordinating delivery schedules to paying multiple invoices. A possible option for removing this barrier is incorporating local foods into the traditional distribution channels; either by having growers sell their product to distributors, or by incorporating some sort of farmer cooperative. One benefit of distributing via a cooperative rather than selling to local distributors is cost. A cooperative allows farmers to retain a competitive price while still giving the schools the convenience of consolidated deliveries and billing. In addition, Kloppenberg finds a variety of obstacles that have not so far been raised in the FTS literature. In their 2008 study, Kloppenburg and colleagues examine the Wisconsin Homegrown Lunch program, located in the Madison area. While the WHL staff expected the primary problems of local sourcing would be pricing, brokering, and seasonality, they instead found that almost every aspect of incorporating locally sourced foods into school meals required some deviation from the food service's established practices. Though the WHL staff identified a range of impediments, they cluster around three central concerns: cost (schools are under strict budgets, while prices of sustainable /organic produce are high), procurement (institutional buyers prefer to deal with few vendors to maximize the efficiency of ordering and delivery), and supply (farmers need to provide sufficient volumes of product consistently over the seasons in ready -to -use form). Much can be learned from the WHL study. First, it may be beneficial to implement future farm -to- school programs in smaller rather than larger school districts or in districts whose production facilities are more decentralized. Kloppenburg and colleagues also find that if locally purchased produce is to be used in school meals, it must arrive ready to use. This is likely to be the case for most school food services across the country and overcoming this barrier will be a requirement for most FTS programs. Like the Kloppenburg study, the issue of processing came up time and time again throughout our research. Typically, school food service operations receive the majority of their produce in ready -to -use form. Even for those schools with on -site kitchens, constraints such as limited time and small staffs make the option of processing whole, fresh ingredients impossible. If local ingredients are ever going to represent a large portion of school meals, they need to arrive in processed form. To address this issue, one option we have considered is that of a central processing kitchen — a place where growers could bring their product to slice, freeze, and package. This option is one that could potentially help alleviate many of the other obstacles that face the farm -to- school movement, as well. The problem of seasonality could be partly eliminated if cold storage and freezers were available to growers with excess produce. Distribution issues could be alleviated if a processing facility had some method of delivery. A central processing facility could also help with the issue of supply — while one farmer alone might not be able to provide enough of an item to supply a school district, this could be easily accomplished through a cooperative effort. The issue of price still remains, however. The added cost of processing would likely be added on to the consumer, or in our case the food service operations; at least for the time being. Over time, however, a central processing kitchen would allow farmers to process produce that might otherwise go to waste — produce they aren't able to sell at farmers markets, for example. If growers were able to significantly increase the amount of food they could sell due to the processing kitchen, they might be able to charge a more competitive price for those products. In order for a processing facility to be successful, however, certain challenges must be met. A successful facility requires some level of management. A manager is necessary not only to coordinate producers, but also to ensure the proper use of equipment and to enforce certain safety and health standards. Of course, much of the success of a processing facility depends on the level of utilization. Only if enough producers utilize the facility will it remain operational. Later, we will discuss one such facility located in Wadena, MN, and its potential impact on farm -to- school projects in Region Five. Methods In light of our study objective and findings from previous research, the methods developed for this study address the following questions: • What products are schools currently purchasing (and at what price)? • What products are being grown by local producers (and in what quantities)? • What products have the greatest potential for use in farm -to- school programs? • What impact will increased sales to school districts have on farm production and marketing decisions? • What are the economic inputs and outputs of agricultural production? • What challenges face Farm -to- School programs in Region Five? The answers to these questions, among others, will provide us with a more complete picture of farm -to- school programs and their value for the local economy. Data Methods We collected information from food service directors, growers, and community kitchen directors through the use of surveys and one -on -one interviews. We also spoke with a number of farm -to- school experts, including Lynn Mader (Farm -to- School Consultant for the Regional Sustainable Development Partnerships), Ryan Pesch (University of Minnesota Extension Educator), JoAnne Berkenkamp (Local Foods Program Director at the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy), and Cindy Tong (Post- Harvest Physiology expert from the University of Minnesota's Department of Horticulture). Food service directors were asked about purchasing patterns, current distributors, pricing, lunch participation rates, serving sizes, and processing capabilities, as well as the directors' opinions on farm -to- school's potential benefits and their perceptions about local foods. Growers were asked about the current size of their operation, whether they would increase production to meet additional demand for local schools, about pricing for school sales versus direct market sales, and about their processing capabilities. Responses were collected and the average price per pound of each item was calculated. Participants In order to estimate the potential demand for all school districts in Region Five, we surveyed three school districts, with varying degrees of farm - to-school interest and experience. These schools represent a cross - section of the region, as they range in size from five hundred students to over three thousand. Although one of the schools is not located directly in Region Five, we included this district in the study because of their wealth of experience in the farm -to- school program. Their food service operation has been purchasing locally grown products since 2005, the longest of any school in the area, and we felt that their feedback would be beneficial to our study. The other schools have had varying degrees of involvement in farm -to- school programs. One of the food service directors we interviewed has showed interest in a farm -to- school program but has not yet begun purchasing local ingredients. The other is interested in the benefits that farm -to- school programs provide but unsure whether the program would be feasible at her school. Working with a small number of schools also gave us the ability to speak with food service directors and learn more about opportunities and challenges associated with farm -to- school programs. To find interested growers in the region, we contacted a group of about thirty farmers who had participated in a survey earlier in the year. The purpose of that survey, administered by the Pine and Lake Country local foods program, was to identify existing and potential growers in the Central Minnesota region, and to find producer needs and interests (PLC Grower Survey). The growers we contacted had stated that they were either currently selling to schools directly or through a wholesaler, or were interested in expanding their market to include institutions (schools, hospitals, etc). We got feedback from eleven producers'. Their feedback will be discussed later in the report. Products Many factors need to be considered when determining which products are potential candidates for a place in the farm -to- school repertoire. We must not only consider what the schools would like to buy, but also what the farmers are willing (and able) to sell. Obviously, Minnesota enjoys the full extent of the four seasons. Unfortunately, this means that when many products are available to purchase from local growers, schools are not in session. Conversely, certain products (such as spring greens) might be available before schools adjourn in the spring, but the price that farmers could receive by selling direct is so much higher than what the schools could afford to pay, that it isn't realistic to expect these items to be popular among farm -to- school programs. Our best option is to focus on those products that are available late into the fall and throughout the winter, and that are still reasonably priced. We began with a list of items currently used by the St. Paul Public Schools, one of the leaders in the state for farm -to- school in Minnesota. This initial list included sweet corn, potatoes, tomatoes, squash, carrots, cabbage, onions, apples, melons, oatmeal, wild rice, beef hot dogs, and bison. We included all of these items in the survey we sent to the food service directors. They returned with a much smaller list: potatoes, carrots, sweet corn, cabbage, apples, oatmeal, wild rice, and beef hot dogs. As our study was conducted during the summer months, it was quite difficult to get in touch with both producers and food service directors. A study conducted during the winter months might benefit from a greater pool of participants. For various reasons, including students' distaste for certain foods, or the amount of processing necessary, the other items were eliminated. Feedback from Food Service Directors Some interesting themes emerged throughout our interviews with the participating food service directors. Overall, the directors seem excited about the idea of a farm -to- school program. Some see farm -to- school participation as a way to support their local economy, while others are motivated by its perceived health benefits. Everyone we interviewed considered "local" farms to be within fifty miles of their school. We were surprised by the limited amount of fresh produce the schools currently purchase. While potatoes and apples are commonly used in whole, fresh form, other products such as carrots, cabbage, and sweet corn are used fresh occasionally, but all come processed (carrots were in "baby" form, cabbage was shredded, and sweet corn was pre- shucked). Other items, such as squash and melons were deemed too difficult to prepare. And some items are simply not purchased because of the students' distaste for them, such as raw onions and tomatoes. Instead, these are mostly purchased dehydrated or canned, or purchased in very small quantities raw. Interviews with different schools may provide different results, but overall our participants stressed the importance of speed and convenience when determining their menus. Among the schools we surveyed, all of them have on -site kitchens, an adequate supply of processing equipment (knives, peelers, slicers) and a staff that is sufficiently trained to prepare whole fruits and vegetables. Therefore, the difficulty with processing fresh produce is not that of capacity, but of time and money. One common complaint in our conversations is that of fewer staff members and less available labor hours than in previous years. When asked about the possibility of cutting produce on -site, one participant stated that she and her staff used to chop carrots for carrot sticks, but due to budget cuts, she now purchases baby carrots instead. While all of the women interviewed said that they could process whole, fresh produce occasionally (for a special "local" meal, perhaps), they would not be able to dramatically alter their purchasing habits without an increase in the size of their staff. These findings present us with a clearer picture of the opportunities and challenges that face food service operations throughout the region. If more money was made available to these operations, either through better participation, some sort of household tax, or simply an increase in the price of school meals, farm -to- school participation could take off, as the interest and the capability is there. One of our participants is in the process of beginning her fifth year of farm -to- school participation. The feedback we received from her was very beneficial. Throughout these past few years she has tried a wide variety of products. All of the items in our study, as well as a few others, have been purchased. Some have been great successes. Others, she says, she would not try again. Some products that we did not incorporate in our study but that she recommends to schools participating in a farm -to- school project include bison hot dogs, dried beans, bulgur or other similar grains, and red potatoes, just to name a few. She also mentioned that due to the success of her school's farm - to-school project, other food service directors in the area have begun to contact her to "talk farm -to- school ". Her advice to them: "Start small. Start with one ingredient that the kids are sure to like, such as apples. Use recipes that are simple and the students will enjoy. Use unusual ingredients as a side dish rather than a main course. And don't be afraid to do a little extra preparation for a special local meal." This kind of feedback, from directors experienced in farm - to-school issues, is invaluable to those schools just starting out. As more schools consider farm -to- school as an option, it is important that information like this be available to both advise and encourage them. Feedback from Growers A number of themes emerged from our interviews with growers. As we discussed earlier, the eleven farmers and farmer businesses we interviewed were selected based on their response in a previous survey — either that they were currently selling to schools or wholesale distributors, or that they were interested in expanding production to institutions. Therefore, all of the growers we spoke to were excited about the opportunity to participate in a farm -to- school project. All but a few growers stated that they would expand their current production in order to meet demand for farm -to- school products. Predictions for potential expansion ranged from as little as twenty percent to upwards of seventy five percent. One grower stated that their increased production would be based simply on what the schools demanded. "If they ordered a thousand pounds of carrots, that's what we would plant." The only growers who said that they would not increase production were apple producers. One apple producer responded: "No, we would not increase our orchard. [It] takes nine years to produce a good quality apple. This program could be gone in that time." In our interviews, we asked growers about their processing capabilities and whether they would use a processing facility if it was available to them. All of the growers we talked to understood the importance of processing when selling to schools and institutions. Some have methods of processing currently available on- site, such as sorting and packing space or a walk in cooler. A few mentioned that they were in the process of developing a commercial kitchen, but none gave specifics on the size or capabilities of such a kitchen. When asked if they would use a cooperatively -owned commercial kitchen for post - harvest processing, answers were mixed. A few answered yes without hesitation. Others said that they would use a processing facility, but that they would not want to do the processing themselves. "Farmers don't have the time to process. Or the money to hire someone to do it for them." Some weren't interested in using a central facility, because of their plans for developing a facility of their own. Some of our respondents had concerns about the compatibility of Minnesota's short growing season and farm -to- school sales. One grower complained "the growing window is just too small to justify sales to schools." Another respondent suggested additional growing techniques such as a second planting of brassicas (broccoli, cabbage, cauliflower, etc...) later in the year, which would then be available to harvest during the first few months of school. But he also acknowledged that the price he could receive selling directly to consumers for such a product would probably be higher than what the schools would be able to pay. The grower's perspective is often overlooked in farm -to- school research. Therefore, we were grateful to hear about what excites growers about the project, as well as what concerns them. With plenty of feedback from both sides of the farm -to- school issue, projects such as these have a much greater chance for success. Feedback from Community Kitchen Directors For the purpose of our study, we looked at a community kitchen facility in Wadena, MN, which will begin operation within the next few months. The founders of the facility (a small non -profit called STEP — Stimulating Economic Progress) started it as a resource for small growers in the region, but the space will be available for both farmers and community members to rent on an hourly basis, for a small fee. STEP's goal is to help growers sell more product, with less waste. The facility will serve not only as a processing kitchen, but also as a marketing entity, so growers can connect with consumers more easily. The facility will begin production with a handful of products, including root vegetables, local fruit, and gluten -free bread, with the intention of expanding to a wider variety of items as demand and revenue increase.. STEP's facility could be a great resource for growers interested in selling to schools and institutions, as it will have a cold storage facility, slicing and packaging equipment, freezers, and refrigerators. We will use STEP's facility as a model in our economic impact scenarios, which we will mention later in the report. Another facility available to Region Five growers and school districts is the Whole Farm Co -op, located in Long Prairie, MN. Whole Farm is comprised of family farmers committed to the production of clean, nutritious food products and environmentally sound farming practices (Whole Farm website). While technically not a processing facility, it has been in the business of gathering and distributing a wide variety of local products for the past 12 years. Because of its large collection of growers, Whole Farm has the advantage of being able to fill orders from all over the state, and in recent years it has begun selling to a local school district. Schools prefer purchasing from a cooperative such as Whole Farm because it eliminates the need for multiple invoices and deliveries. Cooperatives considering sales to local school districts would benefit from using Whole Farm as a model for farm - to-school sales. Analysis Input - output accounting, such as the popular IMPLAN modeling system, describes commodity flows from producers to intermediate and final consumers. All purchases, including commodities, services, and wages are taken into account, and the model produces a set of direct and indirect multipliers that describe the change in all regional industries due to a one dollar change in demand for the industry in question (Lindall and Olson, 1996 — Implan). Commodity flows are based on current data describing economic activities in regions all over the country. The IMPLAN database contains federal, county, state, and zip code economic statistics which are estimated by region, not from national averages and can be used to measure the effect on a regional or local economy of a given change or event in the economy's activity (Pearce, 1989). While Input - Output modeling can be an invaluable tool for researchers, it is important to understand its weaknesses. A number of studies have looked at IMPLAN's strengths and weaknesses, and the most common errors to avoid. In their 2001 study, Crompton and colleagues discuss the common misuse of IMPLAN's three types of economic impact measures: sales (or output), personal income, and employment. Both sales and personal income are measured in dollars, and are often confused. While many studies use the total sales multiplier as a measure of the success of a project, it actually has very little practical value. The personal income multiplier is a much better measure of a project's benefit to the community, as it reports the effect of an extra unit of spending on the changes that result in level of residents' personal incomes. The employment multiplier is commonly used to measure the number of new jobs created by a project, but it can be exaggerated to include part -time or temporary jobs, or jobs filled by residents from outside the community. In a similar study, Swenson highlights some common mistakes among input- output users. According to him, the most common error researchers make is assuming a cause and effect relationship. While the input - output models are designed carefully to be a predictor of what should happen given specific circumstances, they are not error - proof. The economy does not always act in a predictable manner, and researchers should not assume that it does. Used properly, with careful consideration of the complex relationship between producers and intermediate and final consumers, input- output modeling can be a very valuable tool to help predict economic effects regionally. IMPLAN contains information on 440 industrial sectors, from oilseed farming to performing arts companies. Information is also available on the relationships between each industry. An industry balance sheet measures what percentage of each dollar spent in one industry goes to all other related industries. For example, for every dollar currently spent on vegetable and melon farming in Region Five, just over fifty cents of it goes toward "Value Added ", which includes Employee Compensation, Proprietary Income, Other Property Type Income, and Indirect Business Taxes. The remaining forty eight cents is spent on inputs; from tire manufacturing to legal services and everything in between. For the purpose of our study, we will create four new farm -to- school (FTS) industrial sectors: Vegetable FTS, Fruit FTS, Meat FTS, and Grain FTS. These new sectors are introduced by altering four sectors that would otherwise be unused in the region. The unused sectors include cotton, tobacco, tree nut, and sugarcane farming. By introducing some basic assumptions about the industry, and adding expected technical coefficients for purchases in the local economy and for payments to production factors, we can measure the economic effects a regional farm -to- school industry would have on all of Region Five. We will model our technical coefficients on current, corresponding IMPLAN sectors (Vegetable FTS will be based on the Vegetable and Melon Farming sector; Fruit FTS on Fruit farming; Meat FTS on a combination of Cattle Ranching and Farming, Meat Processing, and Wholesale Trade; Grain FTS on Grain farming). Typically, the five largest technical coefficients encompass the majority of the inputs for any given industry, so by using the five largest coefficients from each of our corresponding IMPLAN sectors, we will capture the essence of the four farming industries. Then, we will modify the technical coefficients slightly, to match what farm -to- school farmers are doing in the field, as compared to the farmers in the corresponding sectors In order to modify the technical coefficients, we first need to understand what is different about our new FTS sectors as opposed to IMPLAN's original farming sectors. As we mentioned earlier, IMPLAN data is based on a combination of regional, state, and national government statistics. In regions where available data isn't adequate, state (and sometimes national) data will supplement what is available to create a more complete picture of the activities in the region. Using information from Minnesota's agricultural statistics, we can determine the amount of fresh market produce that is sold direct versus wholesale throughout the state. 2 The exact estimates for the technical coefficients will not be provided here, but will be estimated during IMPLAN analysis and included in the final report. While many farmers in Region Five, as well as the state of Minnesota, are small and sell mostly direct to consumers, the bulk of the sales volume in the state is actually wholesale. Therefore, we can assume that the estimates used in the original IMPLAN sectors will be more similar to wholesale. The two main differences, then, between our FTS farmers and the farmers in IMPLAN will be transportation and processing. FTS farmers will require more transportation than a typical wholesale farmer, as they will make more deliveries, more frequently. FTS farmers will also do more processing than wholesale producers. These two differences mean that FTS farmers will use more labor and more processing costs, resulting in reduced proprietor income. Demand Assumptions Earlier, we mentioned the MNSA study, which surveyed food service directors throughout the state of Minnesota. Based on the results of that study (of the schools surveyed, 73.8 percent had an on -site kitchen, 3.1 percent had a central production kitchen, 1.5 percent had a satellite kitchen, and 21.5 percent some combination of the three), we can safely assume that nearly all of the schools in our study area have the capability to prepare meals from scratch. In addition to the information on on -site kitchens, the MNSA study had important data on the number of breakfasts and lunches served per day for each of the schools in their study. Using this data, collected from over sixty schools throughout the state, as well as information on the number of students eligible for free and reduced price meals and the total number of students enrolled in the Region Five counties (Minnesota Department of Education), we were able to model two regressions: one with the percentage of students eating lunch each day as the dependent variable, and one with the percentage of students eating breakfast each day as the dependent variable. Both models used the percentage of students eligible for free or reduced price meals as the independent variable. We were then able to use these models to estimate the percentage of school meals served per day for the entire Region Five district. The results of that regression are below. 3 According to the Minnesota Department of Education's website, 25,840 students were enrolled in Region Five in the 2008 -2009 school year. This number includes all grades, pre -K through 12. Percentage of students eating breakfast Y = - 0.032143726 + 0.006467437X R- square = 0.482720551 Standard Error = 0.114517436 Estimated total number of Region Five students eating breakfast daily = 7,417 Percentage of students eating lunch Y = 0.694769812 + 0.001315075X R- square = 0.042235979 Standard Error = 0.106175957 Estimated total number of Region Five students eating lunch daily = 19,294 The annual budget for the region was estimated using information from a 2006 study on the feasibility of using more local foods in Minnesota's schools (Berkenkamp), and from personal communication with the author. She found that approximately 40 percent of the cost of a school lunch goes toward food. The remaining 60 percent goes toward labor costs and overhead. According to Berkenkamp, the average food component cost is $1.15 -$1.25 per lunch nationally. Taking into consideration the influence of the lower cost for free meals and for elementary lunches ($0.90 per lunch), this average drops to approximately $1.00 per meal. For breakfast, the price is closer to $0.70. Multiplying the number of students eating lunch daily in the region (19294) by the average number of school days per year (171) and the cost of the food component of each meal ($1.00), we get a predicted annual lunch budget of $3,299,445. For breakfast costs, we multiply the number of students eating breakfast daily in the region (7417) by the average number of school days per year (171) and the cost of the food component ($0.70) to get an annual budget of $886,977. The two combined give us a total annual food budget of $4,186,422. In order to quantify the issue of processing, we used USDA conversion factors to estimate the difference in weight between the growers' whole fresh product and the finished product, post - processing. These estimates, 'Standard errors for the breakfast parameter estimates: 13 0.030652015, (3,= 0.000836868 5 Standard errors for the lunch parameter estimates: 13 0.028676412, 131= 0.000782796 combined with information on typical distributor mark -up values (we used a 25% mark -up for our calculations) allowed us to estimate the price growers might charge if they were required to process certain items before delivering them to schools. As a final point, based on information gathered throughout our research, we will make two additional assumptions. First, we will assume that all production for the farm -to- school sector will be new production, on currently unused land. While this assumption would not hold if the sales volume were to reach a very high level, the total new production for our new farm -to- school industries is still small enough that it is a reasonable assumption to make for our study. The only exception is apples. The apple farmers we interviewed responded that they would not increase production but rather would take from other sales to sell to schools. Therefore, we will assume a positive shock to FTS fruit, but an equal negative shock for fruit farmers, resulting in no net change in the case of apple sales. Second, we will assume that there is no loss to current wholesalers, as they are not located in the region. If we were to expand our study to include a larger area, this would have to be altered. But because all of the distributors our schools currently purchase products from are located outside of Region Five, it is safe to assume that the loss of sales they would see will not have a negative effect on Region Five wholesalers. Later, during our IMPLAN analysis, we'll test what the negative impact might be if a distributor was located within the region or nearby, and what that could mean for our results. IMPLAN Scenarios — Utilization and Pricing Earlier, we mentioned some of the barriers that face farm -to- school projects. Among these, we found processing and price to be the most overwhelming. Therefore, we have specified three utilization scenarios and three pricing options to analyze using IMPLAN. Each utilization scenario incorporates a different level of demand for local products, and the three pricing options reflect the potential spending levels, as well as areas where taxes might be required. Using each of the three utilization scenarios in combination with the pricing options, we can see which combination has the greatest economic impact, which is the most feasible for schools just beginning a farm -to- school project, and which has the best chance for the long -term viability of the farm -to- school program in Region Five. Through our interviews with participating food service directors and growers, we were able to estimate the following: the average price paid by the schools for each item (carrots, sweet corn, cabbage, potatoes, apples, wild rice, oatmeal, and beef hot dogs), the median wholesale price charged by the growers for each item, the average number of servings per pound for each item, and the average number of times each item is served during the school year. These values were the basis for our utilization and pricing estimates. Utilization Scenario One (Special Meal) In this scenario, we will assume that each school in Region Five participates in one special event lunch per ingredient per school year (called "SM" in Table 1), each featuring one of our highlighted ingredients (for a total of eight special lunches throughout the year). Here we are assuming farmers provide all ingredients in their whole, fresh form, and that the schools are responsible for all processing. Therefore, all pounds reported for this scenario are given in unprocessed farm weight. For most ingredients (apples, potatoes, wild rice, oats, and hot dogs), the unprocessed weight and the weight the schools demand is equal. However, for carrots, sweet corn, and cabbage, some conversion is necessary to determine the amount of unprocessed product necessary to supply schools with enough food for all students. We used USDA conversion information to determine the amount required for these items. The processed weight for cabbage (shredded) is 80 percent of the whole head. A shucked ear of sweet corn weighs 88 percent of an unshucked ear. Peeled and trimmed carrots are 81% of their unprocessed weight Using this information we were able to alter the number of servings per pound for each of these items to provide a more accurate amount demanded for the unprocessed items. Then, we simply divide the number of students eating lunch (or breakfast) daily in the region by the number of servings per pound (farm weight) to estimate the amount required for one special meal per item. 6 Because schools do not currently purchase unprocessed versions of these products, we used the processed equivalent to estimate the number of servings per pound (farm weight). For the case of carrots, we used "carrots /processed" (or baby carrots) as they are closest to the whole fresh form. Utilization Scenario Two (Unprocessed Substitution) In the second scenario (Un -S), we will assume that each school in Region Five substitutes a certain percent of their current purchases for local product. To determine the volume necessary for this scenario, we assume full substitution for the entire school year for all items that do not require any processing (apples, potatoes, wild rice, oatmeal, and hot dogs). Then, to estimate the total pounds required for each item, we divide the number of students eating lunch daily by the number of servings per pound, and multiply this amount by the average number of times each item is served per year. Utilization Scenario Three (Substitute All) In our final scenario, we will assume that the growers in Region Five have access to a central community kitchen, where they are able to do post - harvest processing of their product. This scenario allows for greater viability of the farm -to- school project, as many schools cannot do the necessary processing on -site due to small staffs and time constraints. Like the previous scenario, we are assuming full substitution for all items for one year. The method used to calculate total demand is identical to the one used in the Unprocessed Substitution scenario, with one minor exception. Because we are assuming that farmers will be doing processing for the schools, for those items that require processing (sweet corn, cabbage, and carrots), we divide the total number of students eating lunch daily by the number of servings per pound farm weight. This ensures that farmers are producing enough pre - processed product to supply schools with an adequate amount after processing. Therefore, the final column lists the total pounds of raw unprocessed product necessary to produce the equivalent amount of each item. Table 1 - Pounds Demanded for Region Five schools (19294 lunches and 7417 breakfasts daily) ' si ._ . , FIN s /lb __ i :� Carrots /Whole 11.74 1642.93 Carrots /Processed 14.44 11.74 13.50 18032.00 Carrots /Canned 5.80 4.36 6.00 19951.23 Carrots /Frozen 5.78 3.17 10.50 35062.23 Sweet Corn /Shucked 8.53 7.54 2.33 5972.75 Sweet Corn /Unshucked 7.54 0.33 2559.75 Potatoes /Russet 1.93 1.93 19.00 9979.40 189608.53 189608.53 Apples 4.12 4.12 31.50 4681.94 147481.15 147481.15 Cabbage /Whole 6.86 2250.91 Cabbage /Shredded 8.57 6.86 37.50 105511.33 Beef Hot Dogs 8.00 8.00 5.33 2411.69 12862.33 12862.33 Oatmeal 4.24 4.24 6.67 1751.33 11675.54 11675.54 Wild Rice 104.84 104.84 2.33 184.03 429.40 429.40 Table 1 shows the number of pounds necessary for each product under each of the three utilization scenarios. Column two lists the average number of servings per pound schools use for each product, and column three lists the equivalent number of servings per pound using the "farm ", or unprocessed, weight for each product. One can see that the only items affected are those that require some level of processing. Column four lists the average number of times each item is served during the school year. The final three columns list the number of pounds required for each of the three utilization scenarios. Many of the items are not demanded in each scenario. In these cases, the amount demanded is left blank. For example, in the second scenario (Unprocessed Substitution), only those items that do not require any processing are included in the total volume. In the third scenario (Substitute All), all items are included. For those items that require processing, the farm weight (or unprocessed weight) is included, but farmers are assumed to do the processing necessary to supply each of the items listed. We were curious to see if the growers in the region would be able to supply the amount of product necessary to meet the schools' demands. For certain items, such as wild rice and sweet corn, it seems as though there would be no issue whatsoever. The eleven growers we interviewed (only a small percentage of the growers in the region) already produce more than the amount necessary to feed all the students in the region for the entire school year. For other items, such as potatoes and carrots, which are used quite often throughout the school year, the volume demanded is quite high. It might be more difficult for the growers in the region to increase production by the amount required to meet demand. However, using available information on typical yields for the state of Minnesota (USDA), we can estimate the total number of acres required to produce the volume demanded for any item. Even for potatoes, which are by far the product with the highest volume demanded, only 4.8 acres would be required to meet the entire farm -to- school demand for all of Region Five's schools for the year. Considering that nearly 2,000 acres of potatoes were harvested in Region Five in the year 2007 (Minnesota Department of Agricultural Statistics, 2009), it seems likely that this demand could be met. Pricing Option One (School Price) In the first pricing option, we will assume that all products are sold at current, wholesale prices. The schools devote the same amount to their food budget, and the farmers typically receive less for their product. Occasionally, farmer's prices might be lower than the prices schools currently pay, in which case the schools pay what the farmers charge (this holds true for each pricing scenario). With the first pricing option, we adjust the production function to reflect lower proprietary and property income (farmers lose some profits). Since school spending doesn't change, there is no additional spending on the part of the households. Pricing Option Two (Farm Price) In pricing option two, we will assume that the schools in Region Five purchase the local product at the growers' asking price. In this case, we adjust the production function to reflect higher income to the farmer. We will also impose a "tax" on households — accomplished by decreasing household spending by some factor. This tax can be determined by calculating the difference between the total amount schools currently pay for our selected products and the total amount paid using the new "grower's price ", and dividing by the number of households in the region. The tax could either be in the form of an increase in property tax on citizens of Region Five, or through an increase in school lunch prices, which would be passed on to the students' parents. The method of "taxation" will not affect the results of the analysis.? Pricing Option Three (Intermediate Price) For the third pricing option, the prices paid for the local products will be halfway between the schools' average price paid and the growers' median cost. In cases where the farm price is lower than the school price, the intermediate price has been changed to match the farm price. For the Intermediate pricing option, we will assume a moderate decrease in current income to farmers (thus assuming the farm -to- school sectors would return on average, profits slightly less than what they get now) and a moderate tax to households, in the form of an increase in property taxes or an increase in the price of school lunches. Table 2- Prices Srvgs/ib $ /Ib $ /srvg $ /srvg Sry sIIb fib farm farm Mid Carrots /Whole 11.74 $0.86 $0.073 $0.073 Carrots /Processed 14.44 11.74 $1.69 $0.117 $0.091 $0.091 Carrots /Canned 5.80 4.36 $0.60 $0.104 $0.246 $0.175 Carrots /Frozen 5.78 3.17 $0.61 $0.106 $0.338 $0.222 Sweet Corn /Shucked 8.53 7.54 $1.20 $0.141 $0.086 $0.086 Sweet Corn /Unshucked 7.54 $0.52 $0.068 $0.068 Potatoes /Russet 1.93 1.93 $0.30 $0.68 $0.154 $0.350 $0.252 Apples 4.12 4.12 $0.70 $0.69 $0.171 $0.167 $0.167 Cabbage /Whole 6.86 $0.50 $0.073 $0.073 Cabbage /Shredded 8.57 6.86 $0.61 $0.072 $0.091 $0.081 Beef Hot Dogs 8.00 8.00 $2.08 $3.48 $0.260 $0.435 $0.347 Oatmeal 4.24 4.24 $0.60 $0.71 $0.143 $0.167 $0.155 Wild Rice 104.84 104.84 $4.87 $6.50 $0.046 $0.062 $0.054 The method of taxation would affect the distribution of impacts, but this is outside the scope of the IMPLAN model. Table 2 has information on the average price schools currently pay and the median wholesale price farmers would charge for each product in our study (columns four and five). The final three columns represent the three pricing options discussed above. SP represents the price per serving the schools currently pay, FP the price per serving charged by the farmers, and IP the intermediate price per serving. In this table, the farmers' price per serving and the schools' price per serving are shown side by side for each item. For items where only one price is shown, the corresponding item is not currently purchased by schools. You can see that for some items, such as oatmeal and apples, the prices are quite comparable. In some cases, such as processed carrots and shucked sweet corn, the estimated farmer price is actually lower than what schools currently pay from distributors. For others, such as wild rice and beef hot dogs, the price farmers charge is almost double what the schools currently pay. The issue of processing becomes quite clear when looking at this chart. While some items are quite competitive in price when comparing the whole ingredient with its processed alternative, others are not even close. Pre - shucked sweet corn, for example, appears to be less expensive purchased straight from the grower than from a distributor, even when including processing costs, while canned and frozen vegetables don't seem to be very cost - effective when compared with distributors' prices. Results Using the information we gathered from our interviews with participating food service directors and growers, along with the information on school lunch participation derived from the MNSA study, we were able to estimate a total annual expenditure for each item for the entire region under each utilization and pricing scenario. Table 3, below, shows the nine combinations of utilization and pricing scenarios, and the total dollar value each would have annually. In the Special Meals scenario, we're assuming each school district in Region Five is hosting one special event lunch per ingredient throughout the school year. The three pricing scenarios represent the expenditure for each item. In the case of the special event lunch, we are also assuming that the schools would assume all processing responsibilities, and the farmers would sell the products in fresh, whole form. The Unprocessed Substitution scenario assumes that schools substitute a certain percentage of their purchases from local farmers (in this table we're assuming full substitution for one year). Under this scenario, we assume that farmers have no processing capabilities. Therefore, only items that don't require processing are shown. Again, the three pricing scenarios show expenditures based on the three different prices paid for each item. The Substitute All scenario assumes that schools in Region Five substitute a certain percentage of their purchases from local farmers (again, the graph shows full substitution for one year). However, under this scenario, we assume that the growers in the region have access to a central processing kitchen and are willing to use it. Therefore, all items are included, as farmers would be able to provide processed, ready -to -use ingredients. At the bottom of Table 3, the percentage of the annual budget for the region is listed for each utilization -price combination. Discussion The Special Meals (SM) scenario has a number of benefits over the others. Because it requires no processing on the part of the farmers and only requires food service directors to plan one special event meal per ingredient per year (eight special meals total), it is by far the easiest of the three to carry out. It is also a great starting point for food service directors who are interested in starting a farm -to- school program but are unsure of where to begin. However, the volume of local product necessary to serve one special meal per ingredient per year is so small that the amount of money introduced into the local economy is not particularly significant. Even the Special Meal scenario where schools pay the farmer's price only represents about 0.58 percent of the region's annual food budget. Like the SM scenario, the Unprocessed Substitution (Un -S) scenario has the benefit of no processing on the part of local farmers. Also, the dollar amount introduced into the economy from substituting local products for ones normally purchased through a distributor is much greater than from merely serving one special event meal per item per year. In fact, in the case of certain ingredients, the difference can be enormous. For CO 0) In CO N .7 03 d' e- e- N In CO r T r Co 0 " 1 ' L() r- co o Lc) o co rn° e- N CO 0 N CO CO r co 1' O e- r- at ti O N N qo ti N N N O to af a; w - N N 1' EA 0) O In M EA - - CA O e- M CD O d Eft EA EA EA e- EA EA E/9- 1- EA EA CO 4 EA EA E9- O d- e- e- O co e- LO e 0 T In e O T co ° E u) co co N. U) 0o 00 .4- co co O r co Co CO CO co O r• �t CO CO 0) 1 CA r-- N r` CO O r- CO. co i M 00 00 M N e- If) OO N 0o e- e- to ,* :a N N CO EA N O CO EA -- N O e- r h• O E d ._ EA EA r e EA EA e- e- EA EA I LL EA EA EA EA- 73 Z .r O) CO CO O r` '' CO In O e- f` f) co of O I ft3 0 N In O 1' O N O e- 1' O O N CO 1- e- ° E. In 0 ' Cr) L() CO co r'- O O In CO e- r` CO co 47+ E O N r CO CO M r CO r` N CO M tT CO 00 ^ N rt , Il] M e- N EA U) 0 U) N EA -- (0 0 EA N r O. EA EA Eft EA N- EA EA EA r- EA CO t 0 0) ) M EA EA 49- +-+ 0 Cr) t , :r I CO 0) Tr Lo O co .N O N CO CO d N CO e- O ti 0) O M EA C- to OC C11 O O CO Ili CC ui t73 g CL EA e- EA EA e- EA EA N E 0 EA EA f9- ca O CO o 8 U co Tr; co h- co co co M N a) w 0 rz t` , 00 N ti e- e- 4 LA D C C y N O EA N O e- 1' 00 a) fa I LL EA • EA EA EA t9- E 3 -a .4 f` .1 In O r f` 1' O In CO ° — U O N e- a) O N CO r Ts In co ti O O co r r 13 o tT co CO M CO ti N CO M O CO C0 Q N d co O N EA In O EA N C) N fft EA EA 69 EA N- L 0) L CO Ts N LC) O) CO e- O CO O) CO e- 0 c U O To 0 1' LC) In in O ( In L) 0) 0 r N 0) r- O) CO OO N N , O N- N e- at co s_ EI 13. e- , 4 co , c. , e- CA co N CO r C +j - EA EA EA EA EA EA EA -- EA EA EA EA N O Y C tC to r` CO N In CO CO CO CO N 0 CO E CO M N N tT O r- N O N a N r r- N r CO N e- e- N 1 CO N co e r CO M e- 06 e- e- O M N CD O p, EA EA EA EA EA EA EA -- e- EA EA EA N LL EA E9- C as ~ O r- , r-- Co , O t` Co co co rn N N CO r N- 0) CO O U) O CO 0) to O CA ^ N N ti a) N CO O O 00 CO N O) O Lf) .. y r� N N N M e- In e - CA CO r In CD 6 0) T d EA EA EA EA EA Eft EA EA EA EA EA .> _ 0 .0 O o) v d E 4- N .., y v c , 0) Y 0) c a) _ 'O = O 0 N N-0 = O a l >, O p U N s" U c) -C L D) O m 0).E3 = 7 > t L CC i t Q' > Up 0 C6 +.+ ._ ++ C3 O C Z t > > 0 - 0 U - 0 to in N O r-+ co CV co c 0) O c r in in in in U CU O En o co C? O IL ° J 3 4' 3 CI) M c o 0 0 0 o ° a) _ °) Q Q ,. a) m o L L L L L • a .Q 13 0 L + � + + C Z + CZ H C i. ca ca ca ca 3 3 0 o a cc (0 a) cc - o o o o O ° m ca i - 000OO cn OaaO O O > I- HH - H - m tna) example, the potential dollar amount spent on potatoes in the SM scenario is just over $6000. In the Un -S scenario, that number jumps to over $120,000. While it is probably not possible for a school just beginning a farm -to- school project to substitute every potato with one from a local grower, it is important to note the striking difference between the two options. The portion of the region's food budget dedicated to local product in the Un -S scenarios is much larger than in any of the SM scenarios. For example, the Unprocessed Substitution scenario with the lowest dollar amount (where school spending doesn't change) represents 4.69 percent of the region's food budget, while the Special Meals scenario with the same pricing option represents only one half of a percent of the budget. Considering the fact that this scenario does not require any processing on the part of the schools, it is a good option for schools interested in increasing their local purchases. The Substitute All (SA) scenario has, by far, the greatest economic impact in terms of dollars spent locally. This scenario, combined with the pricing option where schools pay the current farmer wholesale price, could potentially increase the percentage spent on local product to over 11 percent of the region's annual budget. This scenario assumes the use of a central processing kitchen, which could provide additional economic activity in the region, through value -added agricultural products and more local jobs. However, because of the processing requirement, the third scenario is also the most difficult of the three to implement. Furthermore, the central processing kitchen has a number of potential drawbacks that could hinder its success. Significant cooperation between growers, schools, parents, and community leaders would be necessary for an ambitious project such as this. Future Areas of Research Although farm -to- school programs are being implemented in increasing numbers of school districts in Minnesota, there is no current research available on the potential economic impacts that farm -to- school programs can have for their school district, their county, and the state of Minnesota. The information in this study will help school food service directors and superintendants better understand the potential returns 30 associated with investments in farm -to- school programs within their school districts. Much more research is needed, however, on this issue. Throughout our research, we learned how important the issue of processing is when discussing farm -to- school success. More information is needed on existing processing facilities, so we can better understand what makes some succeed and others fail. More details about the costs, challenges, and capabilities of successful operations can help fill this critical gap in farm -to- school research. Finally, similar studies could benefit from an expanded scope. Including a larger region in the analysis, or perhaps the entire state of Minnesota would provide more meaningful results. Also, interviewing more schools could provide greater results as well. More feedback from schools might increase the list of products demanded, and would give a more accurate picture of average prices and serving sizes. Conclusion Many of farm -to- school's positive impacts are well- documented: healthier lunches, improvement in students' attitudes about food, increases in school lunch participation, and improvement in student behavior, just to name a few. This study provides much - needed information on a different subject farm -to- school's positive economic impacts. Through the use of surveys and one -on -one interviews, we were able to quantify the economic impact a large -scale farm -to- school project would have on Minnesota's Region Five. The results were mixed. There are a number of barriers facing the farm -to- school movement that must be addressed if it is to gain widespread success. But there is also potential for genuine economic growth. Effort must be made on the part of school districts, parents, farmers, and community leaders in order for farm -to- school projects to succeed. Increased knowledge about all of farm -to- school's benefits (social, health and economic) must be promoted. Only then will all of farm -to- school's potential impacts be realized. 31 Bibliography Berkenkamp, JoAnne, and Dayna Burtness. "MN School Food Service Director Survey: Farm to School" Minnesota School Nutrition Association (MSNA) and the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy's (IATP) Berkenkamp, JoAnne. "Making the Farm / School Connection: Opportunities and Barriers to Greater Use of Locally -grown Produce in Public Schools ", Prepared for the Department of Applied Economics, University of Minnesota (January 2006). Berkenkamp, JoAnne. (Personal communication, August, 2009). Brittany Borck, "Result Summary Local Grower Survey" Pine and Lake Country Local Foods (2009) Carlsson, Liesel and Patricia L. Williams "New Approaches to the Health Promoting School: Participation in Sustainable Food Systems" Journal of Hunger & Environmental Nutrition (2008) 3:4, 400 — 417 Christensen, Heidi Juanamaria. "Healthy Schools Project Final Evaluation Report" Ventura County Superintendent's Office. (2003) Conner, David S., William A. Knudson, Michael W. Hamm, and H. Christopher Peterson. "The Food System as an Economic Driver: Strategies and Applications for Michigan" Journal of Hunger & Environmental Nutrition (2008) 3:4, 371 — 383 Crompton, John L., Seokho Lee, Thomas J. Shuster, "A Guide for Undertaking Economic Impact Studies: The Springfest Example." Journal of Travel Research (2001) Croom E, Nasrana R and Kolodinsky J. Growing Farms, Growing Minds: BurlingtonSchool Food Project, Year One Evaluation 2003 -04, Center for Rural Studies. (cited in Joshi and Azuma) Education for Sustainability. Findings from the Evaluation Study of the Edible Schoolyard, April 2003, available at http: / /www.ecoliteracy.org /publications /pdf /ESYFindings- DrMurphy.pdf (cited in Joshi and Azuma) Farm To School website. < http: / /www.farmtoschool.org /> Feenstra, Gail and Jeri Ohmart, "Yolo County Farm to School Evaluation Report" UC Sustainable Agriculture Research & Education Program (2005) Food Trust, Kindergarten Initiative Evaluation Report February 2007. (cited in Joshi and Azuma) Joshi A, Kalb M, Beery M, Going Local: Paths to success for farm to school programs. Case study "Illinois: Fresh from the Farm -and into the Classroom ", December 2006, available at: http : / /departments.oxy.edu /uepi /c> /publications /goinglocal.pdf. (cited in Joshi and Azuma) Joshi, Anupama and Andrea Misako Azuma, "Bearing Fruit: Farm to School Program Evaluation Resources and Recommendations" Center for Food & Justice Urban & Environmental Policy Institute Occidental College Kloppenburg Jr., Jack and Neva Hassanein, "From old school to reform school ?" Agriculture and Human Values (2006) 23:417 -421 Lindall, Scott A., Douglas C. Olson. "The Implan Input - Output System" Minnesota IMPLAN Group (1996) 32 Mader, Lynn. (Personal communication, June 16, 2009). Minnesota Department of Education website, "School and District Statistics" available at: < http : / /education.state.mn.us /MDE /Data /Data Downloads /School and District /School and District S tatistics/index.html> Ohmart, Jeri. "Direct Marketing to Schools - A New Opportunity for Family Farmers, UC Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program" Quly 2002) <http://www.sarep.ucdavis.edu/cdpp/directmarketingtoschool.htm> Pearce, David "Modern Economics, Third Edition" The Mackmillian Press LTD (1989) pg 189 Region Five Development Commission website. < http: / /www.regionfive.org /> Swenson, Dave. "The Economic Impacts of Increased Fruit and Vegetable Production and Consumption in Iowa: Phase II" Prepared for the Regional Food Systems Working Group Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture (2006) Tong, Cindy. (Personal communication, August 6, 2009). Triant Sally Laughter, Ryan Ashley, Mixed Greens: City of Wyoming Parks and Recreation Summer 2005 Programming Evaluation. (cited in Joshi and Azuma) Tuck, Brigid. (Personal communication, August 27, 2009). United States Department of Agriculture, 'Weights, Measures, and Conversion Factors for Agricultural Commodities and Their Products." Economic Research Service, Agricultural Handbook Number 697 (1992), 1 -71. USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service, "Market Value of Agricultural Products Sold Including Direct Sales: 2007 and 2002" (2009) 268 -289. <http: / /www.agcensus.usda.gov /Publications /2007 /Full_Report /Volume_1,_Chapter 2_County_Level /Mi nnesota/ st27_2_002_002.pdf> Vallianatos, Mark, Robert Gottlieb and Margaret Ann Haase, "Farm -to- School: Strategies for Urban Health, Combating Sprawl, and Establishing a Community Food Systems Approach" Journal of Planning Education and Research (2004) 23.414, 414 -423. Whole Farm Coop < http: / /www.wholefarmcoop.com /> 33