2008 Toward a Sustainable Considerations for the University of Oregon

A report prepared by the University of Oregon Environmental Studies Graduate Students Table of Contents

I: What is a Sustainable Food System?...... 2

II: The Elements of Sustainable Food Systems...... 4

III: Sustainable Food & Institutions...... 8

Highlight: Profile of the University of Oregon’s Dining Services...... 10

IV: Our Foodshed: Regional & Seasonal Availability of Food...... 12

V: Purchasing Considerations...... 15

VI: Recommendations...... 20

Appendix...... 26

Acknowledgments...... 39

Report Prepared By: Nicole Menard Will Truce Shannon Tyman Stacy Vynne

Steve Mital, UO Director of

Design by: Janessa Grotefend Introduction

Photograph by Megan Kemple

This report was prepared by the difficulty in buying sea- that there is no prescriptive four second-year graduate stu- sonal, local, , we means by which to achieve, dents in Environmental Stud- learned, is that these terms are let alone define, a sustainable ies at the University of Oregon not easily defined and food sys- food system. Rather, guiding to aid Dining Services in its tems are vastly more complex principles and key relation- on-going transition to a more than can be encompassed in ships can be identified to create sustainable food system. three seemingly simple words. the “web” of a food system that When we began this project, We attended a “ strives to be more sustainable. our impulse was to suggest that Connection” conference, met We have, therefore, compiled Dining Services focus its en- with food distributors in the our research into this report ergy on buying seasonal, local, area, interviewed individuals to serve as an educational re- organic food. We soon real- involved with sustainable food source and a guide to action ized that this is not an easy-to- policies at other educational for the University of Oregon. achieve directive. Furthermore, institutions, and learned first- Hopefully, other institutions the University was already mak- hand about the Dining Servic- will learn from our example ing great strides in purchasing es operations at the University and research as we have learned these types of items. Much of of Oregon. Our conclusion is from others before us.

1 What is a Sustainable Food System Defining a sustainable food system... is a process that engages ethical, social, environmental, economic, and health concerns. Simply put, it is a food system that can be maintained indefinitely while nourishing the ecological well-being of individuals and . Growing produce and raising standards that all domestically It is important to note that not farm animals with the health sold food must meet in order all farmers who use sustainable of the in mind is at to be labeled organic. ‘Or- practices are labeled ‘organic’. the heart of a sustainable food ganic food’ is defined by the The certification process is ex- system. ‘Ecologically-grown’ USDA as food produced by pensive and therefore prohibi- food, such as organically- farmers who emphasize the use tive for many smaller farmers grown, is considered more of renewable resources and the who still remain committed to sustainable because it does not conservation of soil and wa- sustainable practices. Also, not degrade the soil for future uses ter to enhance environmental all certified organic farms sup- or egregiously pollute the envi- quality for future generations. port the necessary components ronment. Since 2002, the U.S. Organic meat, poultry, eggs, of such Department of Agriculture and dairy products come from as crop diversity. Food Alliance, (USDA) has created a set of animals that are given no anti- a Portland-based organization, biotics or growth certifies food as ‘sustainable’. hormones. Organic Their criteria for sustain- food is produced ably-grown food are guided without using most by the following principles: conventional pestici- • providing safe and fair work- des; made ing conditions; with synthetic ingre- • consideration for the treat- dients or sewage slu- ment of animals; dge; bio engineering; • reducing pesticide, hor- or ionizing radia- mone, and antibiotic use; tion.1 • avoiding the use of GMO’s; protecting water and soil re- sources; • protecting wildlife habitat; and • continually improving prac- tices to better meet the defi- nition of sustainable.2 2 Photograph by Megan Kemple A sustainable food system also takes into account the rights of the people who grow food, including a fair wage and safe working conditions, along with the treatment of the animals involved in its production. It also prioritizes the health of the consumer. Furthermore, it is concerned with reducing “food miles”, or how far food travels from farm to plate. In addi- tion, all inputs in a sustainable YaleYale UniversityUniversity food system should be non- toxic and reusable or recyclable The Yale Sustainable Food Project was estab- so as to minimize unnecessary lished in 2001 to gather people around shared waste. The following section food, work, and inquiry with the intent of fos- discusses these elements and tering a culture that draws meaning and pleasure their impacts in more detail. from the sustainable connections among people, land, and food. Their efforts in promoting and establishing a more sustainable food system has involved: ...Produce travels an av- • directing Yale’s sustainable dining program, which includes a sustainable menu for all of the erage of 1300 to 2000 college’s dining halls; • working closely with local farmers to support miles from farm to con- and increase the sustainable farming practices; • developing detailed sustainable food purchas- sumer... ing guidelines that incorporate prioritizing the complexity and reality of the modern food sys- tem; • managing an organic farm on campus where the community can gather to eat, work, and learn, as well as be more involved with the local farmer’s market through selling the farm’s har- vest; • running diverse programs that support explo- ration and inquiry related to food and agricul- ture. For more information go to: http://www.yale.edu/sustainablefood/index.html 3 Photograph by Shannon Tyman Elements of Sustainable Food Systems Though the term “sustainable” has recently emerged as a trendy buzzword... the principles that drive efforts in sustainability are timeless. A sustainable food system has effects that resonate far and wide. Some of the main concerns that sustainable food systems address are highlighted below. Industrial industrial agricultural models, “sustainable foods” are pro- Food security, as defined by Agriculture duced organically or use oth- the Rome Declaration and Michael Pollan’s discussion er ecological techniques that World Food Summit Plan of of the American corn industry avoid these environmentally- Action, “exists when all people, in The Omnivore’s Dilemma destructive effects. at all times, have access to suffi- popularized the problems asso- Distribution cient, safe and nutritious food ciated with industrial agricul- to meet their dietary needs and ture. Industrial agriculture is According to the National food preferences for an active large-scaled agriculture primar- Sustainable Agriculture Infor- and healthy life.”3 The USDA ily concerned with profit. It is mation Service, produce trav- calculates that, at a minimum, els an average of 1300 - 2000 likened to a factory model and 6 food security includes: monocropping (single crop miles from farm to consumer. • The ready availability of nu- production) is common. Pol- Sourcing food closer to home tritionally adequate and safe lution associated with heavy is important to reduce pollu- foods. pesticide and use has tion associated with the use of • The assured ability to acquire been associated with this style . Researchers at the acceptable foods in socially ac- of agriculture. Reduction of University of Iowa found that ceptable ways (that is, without native in wildlife non-local foods in the grocery resorting to emergency food has also been supplies, scavenging, stealing, noted where or other coping strategies).4 large areas According to the USDA, of land are 11.9% of Oregon’s residents devoted to were considered ‘food insecure’ the produc- as of 2004.5 Sustainable food tion of only systems enable food security one crop. by promoting the conditions While some necessary to provide food for o r g a n i c the current and future popula- products are tions. grown using 4 Photograph by Stacy Vynne store can have 27 times the amount of ‘food-miles’ asso- ciated with them.7 Depend- ing upon where you live in the U.S., apples produced even within the country can require 1 cup of gasoline per apple to transport, while one bunch of grapes can use up to 4 cups.8 Interestingly, though, a recent study found that importing apples from New Zealand to New York can have a lower environmental impact than Portland State University apples grown just fifty miles Portland State University’s commitment to ex- away. Researchers demon- panding their efforts in sustainability through- strated that New Zealand has out their campus has enabled their food services a more conducive climate for to establish a contract with their food distribu- apple production, along with tor that includes detailed sustainability require- energy that largely is generated ments, including: by renewable resources.9 The • maintaining minimum annual levels of North- controversy associated with west food procurement, with an emphasis on buying local versus buying sus- foods sourced within 150 miles of the campus; tainably-grown foods will be • maintaining minimum annual levels of organ- ic food purchasing, along with increasing this further discussed in Purchas- purchasing by 1% each year; ing Considerations. Here, it • coordinating educational efforts on campus suffices to say that sustainable to promote understanding of sustainable food food systems attempt to take systems and health; all these factors into account • adhering to the food procurement, labeling, when sourcing food so as to and marketing standards developed by the Food make the most ecologically- Alliance and Monterey Bay Watch; friendly choice. • participating in all PSU and com- posting programs; Health • using compostable packaging materials and Farm worker and consumer non-toxic cleaning products; health is impacted by the pes- • providing annual and quarterly reports on lo- ticides and fertilizers used to cal and organic food purchasing. grow food. Though ‘conven- For more information go to: http://www.pdx.edu/sustainability/cs_co_food_ tional’ food items have not services.html been conclusively linked to 5 poorer health, there is ample alized producers and workers evidence hinting at such a link especially in the South.”11 (e.g. low-levels of pesticides and The USDA esti- cancer) and fairly solid findings which correlate soil health with mates that 25% plant nutritional quality.10 The of American’s United States mandates labor standards through the U.S. De- food waste, partment of Labor and health standards through the Occupa- about 25.9 mil- tional Safety & Health Admin- istration. Buying food from Photograph by Shannon Tyman lion tons, ends growers who do not use inputs that are unhealthy for human Animal Rights up in landfills or environmental health is im- Sustainable food systems con- every year. perative to sustainability. sider the rights of non-human Fair wages for farm workers animal life as well. Farm ani- are also a concern of sustainable mals are particularly vulnerable Food Waste food systems. Though there is to deplorable living conditions The USDA estimates that a minimum wage in the U.S., in Confined Animal Feeding 25% of American’s food waste, farm workers are often paid per Operations (CAFOs). Organi- about 25.9 million tons, ends pound or bushel rather than zations such as Food Alliance up in landfills every year. Not by the hour. Therefore, it is include concern for both farm only does this trash quickly once again important to know and wild animal welfare in their overflow landfills, but the rot- where food is sourced and how certification process. Transpar- ting food releases methane, laborers are treated. Fair trade ency regarding the living con- which is 20 times more dam- labels, especially relevant for ditions of the animals promotes aging to the environment than long-distance sourced goods ethical treatment. Farms can carbon dioxide (CO2), accord- such as coffee and bananas, also offer homes to migrating ing to the U.S. Environmental guarantee certain standards of and other native wildlife. In Protection Agency (EPA).12 farm worker rights. Fair trade is fact, 90% of threatened wild- This waste can be avoided by defined as: “a trading partner- life species are known to spend composting food scraps, do- ship on dialogue, transparency some part of their lifecycle on nating food to soup kitch- and respect, that seeks greater private agricultural land. Con- ens, and using biodegradable equity in international trade. sumers can make a difference utensils and to-go containers. It contributes to sustainable by supporting farms that treat Efficiently using food and- re development by offering better animals well and provide in- cycling waste contributes to trading conditions to, and se- creasingly rare habitat for other the cycle of a sustainable food curing the rights of, margin- wild creatures. system. 6 Community A strong movement is build- ing that promotes eating more locally grown foods. This movement has spawned a va- riety of approaches to doing so, such as the 250-mile diet, the 100-mile diet, and the ‘one-day’s-leisurely-drive’ diet, along with a new lifestyle la- bel in Webster’s dictionary, the University of Montana ‘locavore’.13 The local foods The Farm to College Program at the University of movement is based on the idea Montana will be celebrating its 5-year anniversary that eating foods that are lo- this May. Since inception in 2003, UM Univer- cally grown and processed has sity Dining Services has been quite successful in its less impact on the environ- mission to support agricultural economic develop- ment, greater freshness, bet- ment through the purchasing of local and regional ter taste, and supports the lo- food. Their efforts have resulted in the following: cal economy, community, and • hitting the $2 million mark of locally and re- culture. However, possibly the gionally sourced food purchased, redirecting that most important reason to eat money back into the local economy; • purchasing 18% of its budget from local vendors locally is the intimacy it can with a fiscal year-end goal of hitting 20%; provide between food, com- • working to change definitions of local foods to munity, season, and ecosys- feature only Montana food producers and regional tem. producers will be categorized as “University of Montana Sustainable” in relation to their proxim- ity to the UM and their business practices; • drafting the University Dining Services Sustain- able Future Initiative; • purchasing green cleaning products, fully com- postable to-go containers, coffee cups, napkins, toiletry products in addition to more recycling ac- cessibility; • starting the ‘Trayless’ pilot project in an all-you- can-eat venue to help curb food waste; • working to open a new building called ‘The Think Tank’ which aims to be the model for learn- ing and living sustainable. For more information go to: http://ordway.umt.edu/SA/UDS/index.cfm/page/917 Photograph by Stacy Vynne 7 Sustainable Food & Institutions

Environmental concerns are uments such as the American increasingly making front-page College & University Presi- news. With scientific research, dents Climate Commitment such as the IPCC (Inter-gov- and joining organizations such ernmental Panel on Climate as the Association for the Ad- Change) reports on global vancement of Sustainability in warming, increasingly point- Higher Education. Students at ing to anthropocentric causes these institutions play a pivotal of environmental changes, it role by initiating campaigns is apparent that the decisions and educating their peers. and subsequent actions of hu- Food, specifically, has played a mans have a profound impact central role in the shift towards on the ecosystem. Institutions sustainable lifestyles as more can play a significant role in people become aware that, as initiating positive environ- Brilliant-Savarin famously ob- mental change by directing served, we are what we eat. As their substantial buying power a result, universities around the towards sustainably-produced country have begun develop- Photograph by Shannon Tyman goods, educating their em- ing exemplary food programs, ployees and customers about a few of which are highlighted food systems, and encourag- ...as Brilliant in the right margin text boxes ing community involvement positioned throughout this in sustainability initiatives. -Savarin guide. These examples are but a few of the many university Universities and colleges have food systems that can inspire been among the first institu- famously ob- additional positive changes tions to adopt such practices. at the University of Oregon. Administrations have dem- served, we are onstrated commitment to As an educational com- sustainability by signing doc- what we eat. munity, the University of

8 Oregon has the responsibility not only expose students to classic texts and algebra, but also to teach them how to be responsible members of so- ciety. Just as the University educates students about gen- der, sex, and ethnic equality, it must incorporate a concern for our environment, health, and community into the gen- eral curriculum. It is indeed essential to inform students of the conscientious choices Din- ing Services makes when pur- Bowdoin College chasing and preparing food, and encourage them to get The Bowdoin Dining Services has aligned involved in their food commu- their purchasing decisions and menu prepa- nity. Students are then much ration to the College’s environmental mission more likely to think carefully statement. Their approaches to making their and critically about the food sys- food system more sustainable include: tem in their greater community • developing their own environmental mis- both throughout their college sion statement; years and after they graduate. • working closely with over 50 local farmers and producers; • helping to build the College’s organic gar- den project; • supporting pre- and post-consumer com- posting; • donating excess food to local nonprofits.

For more information go to: http://www.bowdoin.edu/dining/sustainable- dining.shtml

Photograph by Megan Kemple 9

UNIVERSITY OF

itutional setting is challenging, yet the potential is realistic and rewarding. Dining Services is a part of University Housing which is a self-sustaining, self-liquidating agency of the University that does not receive tuition or University Housing Dining tax support for its operating Services operates residential budget. With Dining Services dining, catering, and confer- spending over $5 million dol- ence services on campus. These lars annually on unprocessed include seven dining locations, food, the potential to be an a small grocery store, a catering important component of the kitchen and a central commis- regional econ- sary kitchen. Their staff con- omy and con- • Allann Brothers Coffee (Albany, OR) sists of three chefs, six manag- tribute to • De Casa Fine Foods (Eugene, OR) • Glory Bee Foods (Eugene, OR) ers, 90 full time classified staff students’ well • Golden Temple Granola (Eugene, OR) being through and over 300 part-time student • Hay Bayles Farm (Loraine, OR) staff. The University residence healthy and • Humble Bagel (Eugene, OR) halls house approximately sustanable food • Lockmead Dairy (Junction City, OR) 3,500 students and Dining purchasing is • Marsee Bakery (Portland, OR) Services prepares over 9,000 significant. • McKenzie Mist Water (Springfield, OR) meals daily, primarily for resi- • Northwest Natural Foods (Gresham, OR) dent students. Close to 90% of Dining Servic- • Shepherd’s Grain Flour and Whole Wheat students using Dining Services es currently uses Flour (Harrington, WA) use pre-purchased food plans. many locally • Springfield Creamery, Nancy’s Yogurt (Eugene, OR) With this volume of custom- and regionally • Strawberry Mountain Nancy’s Yogurt (Eugene, OR) • Strawberry Mountain Natural Beef (John Day, OR) ers, there is a clear need to sourced items. • Surata Soy Foods (Eugene, OR) These products provide quality food at afford- • The Muffin Mill (Eugene, OR) able prices. To integrate more include (but • Toby’s Family Foods (Springfield, OR) sustainable food policies and are not limited • Umpqua Dairy (Roseburg, OR) purchasing into this large inst- to): • Wild Time Foods (Eugene, OR) 10 • Williams Bakery (Eugene, OR)

OREGON PROFILE

In addition to buying locally and regionally, Dining Services has also made great efforts to provide healthy foods that are sustainably produced. Some highlights include: • Almost all of the beef purchased In addition to food purchas- is raised locally at Strawberry Moun- ing and preparation, the fol- tain Ranch in eastern Oregon. It is lowing projects improve the grass-fed with no hormones and no sustainability of Dining Servic- antibiotics. es operations. These include: • Milk and butter are purchased from • Using recycled content non- local dairies and is free of antibiotics bleached paper napkins in lieu of and Bovine Growth Hormones. bleached products. • Hydrogenated oils are not used for • Donating unused foods to frying; instead, the University uses Food for Lane County, the local 100% rice oil, which is trans fat free food bank for families in need. and high in anti-oxidants. • Sending unusable vegetable • Both vegan and vegetarian options scraps (“pre-consumer waste”) are offered daily and over 10,000 and coffee grounds to the Urban pounds of tofu are purchased annu- Farm where they are composted ally. in an “Earth Tub”. • Cage-free eggs are offered at break- • Collecting spent fryer oil for fast daily at the Fire and Spice Grill. conversion to Bio Diesel. • All baking flour comes from Shep- • Testing the use of compostable herd’s Grain and is locally grown plastic ware, plates, and cups, wheat that is direct tilled in Or- made from corn or other prod- egon. ucts to replace traditional paper • The coffee served by Dining Ser- and plastic goods with the goal vices is locally roasted, organic and of creating a fully compostable fair-trade certified from Allann waste stream in the future. Brothers Coffee. • Recycling of water in washing Photographs by Stacy Vynne dishes.14 11 Our Foodshed: Regional Availability of Food The location of the University of Oregon... in the Willamette River Basin places it squarely in an area that is often touted for its agricul- tural productivity. Dan Armstrong describes it in this idyllic light:

“The bioregion defined by the Services. The term ‘local’ is demand for products not lo- Willamette River watershed is frequently delineated by an cally available (like citrus). one of the most bountiful in often arbitrary 100-250 mile The map on page 13 depicts the United States. The Wil- circumference relative to a lo- the area from which the Uni- lamette Valley is a hundred cation. Yet, it is impossible versity of Oregon might expect mile long, two-million acre to sustainably grow all crops to regionally source food by stretch of prime cropland bor- locally during all times of the prioritizing proximity. Later dered by a dense, eco-rich co- year. Dining Services will we discuss other factors that niferous forest. The climate is need to source from a region may need to be considered to mild; wet in the winter, dry in larger than the Willamette maximize efforts towards sus- the summer. Valley to meet consumer tainability such as seasonality. It is excellent for raising live- stock and farming, with soil particularly suited for many types of grasses and . There is tremendous flexibility in what can be grown and the way that the various field crops can be rotated for the health of the land. Home to a variety of fish and other wildlife, the Wil- lamette River basin is essen- tially a garden valley, Oregon’s own little piece of Eden.”15 Eu- gene’s bioregion thus has the potential to provide a signifi- cant amount of the produce needs of Dining

Photograph by Shannon Tyman 12 Foodshed Approach Rather than having regional purchasing boundaries exclu- sively determined by proxim- ity we prefer to use the term ‘foodshed’ to conceptualize the local region in which Eugene, Oregon resides. The concept of a “foodshed” is analogous to a watershed by describing the flow of food from the area where it is grown into the place where it is consumed.16 Deter- mining appropriate boundaries of this regional purchasing sys- tem is influenced by a variety of considerations, including: soil type, climate, seasonality, accessibility, and local culture.

Taking a foodshed approach Photograph by Nick Koehler can facilitate opportunities to access a variety of products, support sustainable farming operations, and define a com- The Willamette Valley munity food network includ- ing growers, distributors, and consumers. ...prime cropland bordered by a dense, eco- rich coniferous forest. It is excellent for raising livestock and farming...

13 The following chart depicts sively in Oregon. The yellow different options for procur- the regional and seasonal segments show items that are ing food as locally as possible availability of the top produce mainly grown in Washington throughout the year. One can items sourced by UO Dining and California during those get tomatoes in Oregon from Services. It explains what is months. The green segments June through October, but available “locally” in several depict items that are produced must rely on sources from ways. The blue segments rep- in Washington, Oregon and Washington and/or California resent items that are available California at that time. There- for the extended season until for distribution almost exclu- fore, the chart illuminates the December through February when they are not available in Top 35 Seasonality Chart the region. Pacific Northwest (i.e. Northern California, Oregon, Washington) Product* J F M A M J J A S O N D Apples Beets Bell Pepper Cabbage Celery Cucumbers Grapes Green Beans Leaf Lettuce Mushrooms Onions Oranges Peppers Potatoes Spinach Oregon Only Summer Sqaush Outside Oregon Within and Outside Oregon Sweet Potatoes Tomatoes Winter Sqaush

14 Purchasing Consideration The modern food system is incredibly complex... Consumers attempt to balance convenience, affordability, taste, freshness, and in- timacy. This can lead to great confusion when trying to decide what foods tobuy.

In addition, the current super- human) and the environment. iency in food production and market mentality leaves many Yet, the limited practice of distribution, increased afford- people as far removed from the organic food production in ability and accessibility to the life-history of the fuel that goes combination with industrial- organic market, and ensure a in our body as the gas that goes ization has resulted in many considerable reduction in the into our cars. To further com- types of organic foods being impacts of conventional food plicate matters, many of us have transported long distances to production. started to engage ethical and reach widely dispersed con- Though much of local food is pragmatic concerns for the sus- sumers. This has led some to not certified organic, some ‘lo- tainability of our environment, accuse the organic food system cavores’ argue that the amount health, and local communities to be less sustainable than lo- of gas to get non-local organic in our food choices. These con- cally sourced foods in terms of foods from the farm to the plate cerns will always be difficult to the carbon dioxide emissions. is not trivial and results in them fully realize and often encour- However, this contention has being less sustainable than lo- age conflicting efforts, making been countered with the ratio- cally sourced food. Transport- consumer choices even more nale that associating sustain- ing foods long distances is also complex. The difficult choices ability solely with transporta- believed to reduce the quality faced by eaters are exemplified tion distance (i.e. ‘food miles’) and nutrition of the food. Fur- by the current debate over the is far too simplistic, because thermore, buying foods that sustainability of local versus it doesn’t take into account are locally-produced on small organic foods. land-use practices (e.g. water- farms supports the local econ- The Debate Over use, cultivation and harvesting omy and culture, which re- Organic vs. Local methods, quantity and type of sults in a stronger community. Earlier in this report we men- fertilizer), energy source, type Though many of these small tion that the organic food of transportation, climate, farms may not be organic, it movement is a reaction to the weather, or soil-type.17 Some is commonly arfued by the lo- use of synthetic chemicals in proponents of the organic food cal foods movement that small agriculture and livestock pro- movement also argue that the scale food production practices duction, which it considers a industrialization and central- are often much more sustain- detriment to the health of in- ization of organic food produc- able than industrial scale agri- dividuals (human and non- tion can allow for greater effic- culture (organic or 15 conventional) and that many ceived as necessarily conflict- is substantially more expensive of them are not certified or- ing, but exposing and transi- than conventionally-grown ganic primarily due to the fees tioning us to a more sustain- food. To a certain extent, this associated with the certification able lifestyle. is true. One of the most obvi- process. To locavores, a sus- The Price of Organic ous reasons for this price dif- tainable food system requires The ‘true’ cost of food is rarely ference is the cost associated more than just replacing syn- fully incorporated into the price with the certification process. thetic with organic chemicals, the consumer pays. It cannot To receive the USDA Organ- as often practiced in industrial be denied that conventional ic Label, the ingredients of a organic food production. It food production allows for product must be at least 95% requires a holistic approach greater efficiency at lower organic according to govern- to changing farming practices economic cost when mea- ment standards. The entire and food consumption. sured in food quantity and operation must qualify for or- This debate is not inclusive time expenditure, but these ganic certification by meeting of all the ‘conflicting’ practic- metrics do not fully encom- certain equipment, handling es that could be encountered pass the economic impacts of and storage requirements. Or- when striving for a more sus- a food system. When taking ganic growers and the com- tainable food system, nor does into account the panies that process organic there appear to be a conclusive of industrial agriculture that foods are subject to frequent practice that can be consid- result in the deg- ered definitively “sustainable”. radation of our Though the local vs. organic e n v i r o n m e n t , debate is considered important health, and local by some because it adds to crit- culture, Ameri- ical discussion of what sustain- cans are ultimate- ability is, author Samuel Fro- ly paying a higher martz says the debate provides price for food “false-choices”. He feels that than we see at the what is important is to just be checkout counter. conscious of how your actions The costs associ- affect your health, your com- ated with organic munity, and the environment; agriculture exem- he argues that it is essential to plify the enigma do anything to support sus- of food pric- tainable practices because the ing. It is com- “equation” that has been too monly thought long dominated by remarkably that organical- unsustainable considerations.18 ly-grown food These efforts shouldn’t be per- 16 Photograph by Shannon Tyman inspection by certifiers and must will be increasingly difficult continuously meet the strict for farmers to become USDA- ItIt cannotcannot bebe standards set by the USDA.19 certified organic.21 None-the- There is also a cost for applying less, the cost of buying organic denieddenied thatthat for certification. While these foods is decreasing and with costs are already inaccessible demand on the rise, organic conventionalconventional for many farmers, according to prices are expected to become the National Sustainable Ag- more competitive with conven- foodfood producproduc-- riculture Information Service: tional products.22 This price Certification costs can be ex- drop is attractive to the con- tiontion allowsallows pected to rise. Certifiers must sumer, but makes it even more now bear the added costs of challenging for organic farm- forfor greatergreater USDA accreditation. In some ers to profit from their work. instances, certifying bodies According to the USDA, efficiencyefficiency atat have had to undergo serious “in relation to total per capita reorganization to continue personal consumption ex- lowerlower ecoeco-- providing certification servic- penditures, Americans spend es. These costs will be passed the least on food” when com- nomicnomic costcost on to producers and handlers pared to other countries.23 in the form of higher fees. This suggests that people in whenwhen meamea-- The NOP [National Or- the United States could spend ganic Program] initially esti- more money on food in or- suredsured inin foodfood mated that certification costs der to account for the “true” would average approximately costs and to defray the costs quantityquantity andand $750 per farm. However, fees of certification associated with charged for certification vary ecologically-sound growing timetime expenexpen-- among agents. Fees also vary techniques, and the economic with the size and complexity of challenges faced by small, local diture,diture, butbut the farm operation, the costs of family farms. Transitioning to inspection, and other factors.20 a more sustainable food system thesethese metricsmetrics Cost-share programs have may require a financial com- been created in some states mitment to farmers. The Uni- dodo notnot fullyfully to offset the price tag of or- versity of Oregon can support ganic certification. None has this transition by choosing to encompassencompass yet been implemented in Or- buy more organic and locally egon, Washington or Cali- grown produce. The cost of thethe economiceconomic fornia, and there is concern produce varies dramatically that, due to the steep costs, it with variety, season, and yearly impactsimpacts ofof aa

foodfood system.system.17 weather conditions, making an organic distributor will a local distributor is expected it difficult to offer definitive cost an average of 41 cents to increase costs by approxi- price comparisons between more per pound. Organic mately 14 cents per pound. conventional, organic, and prices range widely from If the University were to ar- local produce. None-the-less, 8-80% higher than conven- range to pre-order or for- using sample produce prices tional produce prices, but ward contract with farmers from past years we have made we estimate that the Univer- or distributors, buy in bulk or rough estimates of expected sity can expect to pay ap- purchase only when certain price changes. We calculate proximately 33% more for produce is in season, these that purchasing produce from organics. Purchasing from prices may drop dramatically.

Photographs by Shannon Tyman One option for making the transition to more sustainably grown food more economical- ly feasible is to focus on foods that show the highest level of pesticides when produced con- ventionally. Food For Thought has generated a list of the most toxic and least toxic foods:24

Top Ten Most Toxic Produce (High to Low) Top Ten Least Toxic Produce 1. Peaches 1. Avocado 2. Strawberries 2. Pineapple 3. Apples 3. Cauliflower 4. Spinach 4. Mango 5. Nectarines 5. Sweet pea 6. Celery 6. Asparagus 7. Pears 7. Onions 8. Cherries 8. Broccoli 9. Potatoes 9. Banana 10. Bell Peppers 10. Garlic

18 Photographs by Stacy Vynne

In addition to prioritizing the most toxic produce, the University of Oregon could focus on buy- ing organic produce that is more ‘cost-effective’ than other organic food items. By price and quantity, the following items offer the most “bang for your buck” when purchased organically:

1 Whole Beets 9 Red Potatoes 2 Sweet Potatoes 10 Yellow Onions 3 Yukon Potatoes 11 Fresh Oranges 4 Lettuce Baby Mesclin Mix 12 Fresh Whole Apples 5 Fresh Cabbage 13 Baker Potatoes 6 Red Onions 14 Fresh Carrots 7 Broccoli Fresh Florettes 15 Bananas 8 Mushrooms 16 Romaine Hearts

19 Recommendations

Sourcing As indicated in the intro- Servives. Here we present a few – The most economically- duction of this report, when suggestions to assist Dining viable organic produce. considering the inherent com- Services in making sustainable • Dining Services should eval- plexities to making a food sys- purchasing choices: uate its options to require cur- tem more sustainable it is not • The presence of diverse ag- rent distributors to buy from feasible to prescribe specific riculture in Oregon allows the local and sustainable producers purchasing guidelines that can University to source many prod- or seek alternative distributors achieve complete sustainabil- ucts locally. The UO should who are willing to do so. Din- ity. Many institutions have undertake a more definitive ing Services could investigate developed guidelines that in- inventory to determine what the services other distribu- tend to simplify and maximize products are already sourced tors provide with the intent of this effort. For instance, Yale locally and organically. substituting or supplementing University utilizes a tier system • Dining Services should products that are purchased that guides purchasing for their evaluate its ability to buy large from its current distributors dining services by prioritizing quantities of local and organic with ones that may be more foods based on proximity and produce in the summer months sustainably procured. ecologically conscious agricul- when they are locally available tural practices. Though such and relatively inexpensive and • Forward contracting from an approach is simple, practi- then process and store items local, sustainable farmers and/ cal, and rewarding, it doesn’t for use during the academic or distributors may dramati- fully engage the variety of fac- year. cally increase the cost-effec- tors that influence the sustain- • In response to the compli- tiveness of buying local and ability of our modern food sys- cated nature of the local ver- organic produce while also cre- tem. Ultimately the consumer sus organic dilemma, we sug- ating a more personal relation- decides what to prioritize on gest that the University buy as ship between the University of the path towards sustainability. much as possible from local Oregon, the community, and We suggest that the Food Ad- growers whose practices are the environment. The Univer- visory Committee (see below) sustainable and focus on buy- sity should, therefore, explore at the UO recommend a set ing organic for: opportunities for developing of values of principles to guide – The most potentially toxic a few such relationships on an purchasing choices for Dining foods. experimental basis. 20 Food Advisory Committee Such an entity ensures that active committee mem- the interests of the residen- ber. Administrative respon- We recommend that Dining tial community are conveyed, sibilities could fall to the Services create a Food Advi- shares the responsibility of Office of Sustainability. sory Committee (FAC). The weighing difficult choices (e.g. FAC would build on the cur- local conventional v. organic rent Dining Services student international), and breaks up advisory group, but the goals roles (e.g. individuals respon- and purpose of the committee sible for research, education, would stretch beyond those of maintaining relationships with the existing group. The pur- farmers, etc.) to enable a faster pose of the FAC is: transition to a more sustainable dining experience. • To educate the university community about sustain- The FAC should be composed able food systems and what primarily of students living on the UO is doing to support campus with some spaces re- them; served for students who no • To provide feedback and longer live in the Residence advice from the communi- Halls. An employee of Dining ty to Dining Services; and Services and a faculty member • To conduct research on be- should comminicate frequent- half of Dining Services. ly with the FAC, but does not necessarily need to be an

Ultimately the consumer decides... Photograph by Megan Kemple

Photograph by Steve Mital 21 The chart below shows the living in the Residence Halls Seasonally Based Menus results from an on-going on- to learn about sustainable line survey begun in fall 2004 food systems and what the A key step in transitioning by the Community Food Se- UO is doing to support it. to a more sustainable food curity Council (CFSC).25 It 5. Implement a monitoring system centered on seasonal highlights the importance of and evaluation plan that will and regionally produced foods including a diverse group of enable FAC to learn from ex- is reviewing current menus. participants in the creation, periences and adapt. Continu- Dining Services is striving implementation, and contin- ous open communication and to incorporate more seasonal ued management of a sustain- transparency with students and items into menus , and we en- able food system on campus. the community are extremely courage them to continue to The first steps FAC important throughout the do so. Simple substitutions of should take are to: process to prevent misunder- ingredients can often have an 1. Establish a mission state- standings and invite feedback. enormous impact on the envi- ment for the University ronmental footprint of a meal. of Oregon’s food system; 2. Define a vision which clarifies the role of the com- mittee and enables the group to act in accordance with an agreed upon set of principles; 3. Develop a set of achiev- able goals: both short- and long-term in tandem with Dining Services. It is ex- pected that these goals will be reevaluated periodically and will continue to change as the needs of the commu- nity change. From the priori- ties embedded in the goals, individual roles and respon- sibilities can be defined; 4. Work with Houingi- ng’s Living-Learning pro- gramming to create op- portunities for students

22 While certain seasons may recipes from home. The Support from the University prove challenging for sourc- University could also host a and other local institutions ing foods from our foodshed, “local farms” night in which and individuals could rein- the University can process they feature products sourced vigorate this vital industry. foods (e.g. canning, freez- from local farms and invite On-campus Food ing) during the time of year the farmers in to meet with they are plentiful so that students. Such an event could Education Campaign they can be used through- educate students on the impor- It is our belief that an on- out the year (see section on tance of sourcing food close campus education campaign food preservation below). to home, while also helping about the Dining Services’ to build relationships between sustainability efforts is essen- Students may demand prod- farmers and the University. tial to raise both the aware- ucts that aren’t available at ness and support of the stu- certain times; therefore it is Food Preservation dent body and community at essential to instigate an edu- Currently, there are ample dry large. Dining Services is cur- cation and awareness cam- storage and freezer facilities rently doing many things to paign for students about the on campus to accommodate be proud of, including buying importance of regional and long-term storage. Produce, locally produced foods, pro- seasonally based diets. We ad- such as tomatoes, could be pur- viding healthy options in food vise that dining staff promote chased in season, processed choices and menus, making the efforts they are already into pasta sauce and stored many food items from scratch taking and advertise menu to make it available through- on campus to ensure fresh- items that feature region- out the year. Other opportu- ness and quality, and con- ally sourced, seasonal foods. nities for canning, freezing, sidering where the meat and As has happened at other and long-term preservation dairy products come from and schools around the nation, (such as for jams, soups, and how the animals are treated. students will soon become sauces) should be explored. The efforts and dedication enthusiastic about trying sea- of Dining Service go fairly sonally-based foods such as In conducting research on undetected due to a lagging winter squash on pizza as a regional food purchasing, promotional or educational replacement for fresh tomato. it became apparent that the campaign. A sustainable food canning industry historically education campaign could Dining Services currently provided a valuable way to take place both informally hosts a “What’s Cooking” extend the seasonal avail- and formally across campus. night, in which recipes are ability of produce in the Eu- At the very least, we feel that sent in by parents and fea- gene area. In the past twenty this information should be tured in the dining halls. Par- years, the canneries have communicated to students ents are invited to join their closed and so local produce is through labels on food (this children for an evening of no longer locally processed. hummus is made fresh daily at 23 at a UO kitchen”), labels on menus (“cage-free eggs” Landscape Architecture’s popular course or “grass-fed beef”) and perhaps posters or plac- on Urban Farming teaches students to be ards in the dining areas. conscious consumers as well as to grow

Furthermore, the University food, and therefore could be a strong could take a more formal ap- ally in the food education campaign. proach through inclusion of Dining Service efforts or is- sues in classes across disci- Re-configure current the price of all food items. plines. As mentioned above, We believe this would re- this need could be met through point system duce the cost for sustain- Living Learning programs. Dining Services current- able food choices and in- In addition, Landscape Ar- ly uses a point system that crease their popularity. chitecture’s popular course doesn’t accurately reflect the on Urban Farming teaches actual price of an item. A point Compostable Cutlery students to be conscious con- roughly translates to $1.60 in Plastic cutlery is produced us- sumers as well as to grow value. Since items can only be ing crude oil, natural gas and food, and therefore could be assigned full points, they may a variety of other chemicals.2 6 a strong ally in the food edu- not reflect the actual cost. A While regulated by the USDA cation campaign. The Farm candy bar may be worth $.75 for contact with food, plastic already uses the compost but can’t be assigned less than cutlery is a huge draw on the created by the raw vegetable a point. Cage-free eggs were earth’s resources. In ad- scraps from Dining Services introduced for an additional dition, plastics never fully and requires students to eat lo- point over conventional eggs. decompose in the landfill. cal during part of the course. They are not a popular item. Biodegradable, compostable Universities such as Yale and We assume that students feel materials are becoming more UC Santa Cruz have used on- a full point is too high a pre- accessible for institutional campus gardening/farming mium to pay. Dining Services purchasing. However, given programs to raise awareness could assign higher point val- the range of products that are of food issues and to give stu- ues to some popular conven- available, Dining Services dents hands-on experience. tional items (like soda) and needs to consider what type of The University of Oregon use the additional revenue to product to buy (e.g. soy, pota- has the infrastructure in place subsidize the cost of sustain- to, corn or sugar cane-based) with the Urban Farm to do so able food items. We support a based upon the availability of as well and it is recommended re-configuration of the point the products and which prod- that Dining Services take ad- system to accurately represent ucts are compatible with the vantage of this unique place. the price of all food items. planned composting system. 24 A critical step prior to se- with a current relationship driving up the cost of lecting a particular product with the UO, does offer some corn world wide, mak- is identifying what products compostable cutlery. They ing it increasingly difficult will work in the University’s currently stock Eco-ProductTM for the poor to afford it. composting system. Portland cutlery, which is a corn and The majority of products ap- State University (PSU) has vegetable-based product. proved by PSU and Rexius, conducted research on a va- This product is certified by are corn based. We recom- riety of biodegradable/com- the Biodegradable Products mend that Dining Services postable items that work in Institute as a product that will pursues a transition to corn their system. (see Appendix compost and biodegrade sat- based compostables, but con- for approved compost items isfactorily in an actively man- tinues to work with Sysco to from PSU.) Rexius, a local aged system.27 The product is identify alternative cutlery company that composts food made from US-grown corn. options in the future as they on a large scale has tested become more widely avail- and approved the following While the corn used in able. In order for Dining products as compatible with the Sysco products is U.S. Services to take advantage of their composting system: grown, this is an issue of compostable cutlery and cups, • Biosak Compostable growing controversy. Non- the composting program must Brown Bags food related uses of corn be expanded to accommodate • Marshall Plastic Film (example: ) are post-consumer food waste. • Comp-LeteTM Plastics from Fortune Plastics • Compostable Trash Bags from Fortune Plastics • Nature FriendlyTM prod ucts • Cereplast products • EcoFilm/EcoWorks prod ucts • BioTuf products.

Nature FriendlyTM offers the widest range of products, all of which are compatible with commercial compost- ing systems. (Please see the Appendix for Nature FriendlyTM information) Photograph by Stacy Vynne Sysco, another distributor 25 Appendix

Sustainable Food Programs

Berea Local Food Initiative www.berea.edu/localfoodinitiative/

Bowdoin College http://www.bowdoin.edu/dining/sustainable-dining.shtml

University of California-Santa Cruz Farm to College http://casfs.ucsc.edu/farm2college/index.html

University of California-Santa Cruz Statewide Sustainable Foods Initia- tive http://casfs.ucsc.edu/farm2college/foods_initiative.html

University of Montana-Farm to College http://ordway.umt.edu/sa/UDS/index.cfm/name/Overview

Yale Sustainable Food Project http://www.yale.edu/sustainablefood

26 Sustainable Food Policy

Ecotrust Food and Farm Program http://www.ecotrust.org/foodfarms/index.html

Food Alliance-Sustainable Food Certification http://foodalliance.org/certification/index.html

Sustainable Food Policy Project www.sustainablefoodpolicy.org

Willamette Food and Farm Coalition www.lanefood.org Other Resources

FOOD for Lane County www.foodforlanecounty.org

Locally Grown Directory - Where to find Lane County Foods and Wines http://www.lanefood.org/content/cp-3-foodirectory.htm

27 Portland State University Goals for Sustainable Food System Practices

1) Utilize sustainable, “green” cleaning products 2) Coordinate education efforts, each Academic Term , to promote awareness and understanding of sustainable food systems and nutrition. 3) Maintain minimum annual levels of local food procurement ( local to be defined a products grown and processed in the Northwest (Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and Northern California) with an emphasis on Oregon and Washington grown and processed products within a 150 mile radius of the campus). We strive to ex ceed these minimums to the fullest extent economically possible: i) 30% annual average of total cost of sales, increasing at a rate of 2% per year ii) 39% annual average of fruits and vegetables purchased, increasing at a rate of 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, increasing when economically viable viii) 30% pork, increasing when economically viable ix) 100% salmon an tuna procured in accordance with the Monterrey Bay aquarium “seafood Watch” sustainable fisheries guide. 4) Meet the standards equivalent to the Food Alliance in regards to food procure ment labeling, and mark ting of all locally grown and organic foods. 5) Provide annual and quarterly reports documenting the actual percent of total cost of sales that are local and the average percentage of locally sourced fruits, veg- etables, dairy, four eggs, beef, pork, chicken, and fish.

28 6) Provide annual and quarterly reports documenting the actual percent of total costs of sales that are organic, maintaining minimum, annual levels of organic foods procurement of 10%, increasing at a rate of 1% per year. 7) Comply with the participate in all present and future campus recycling and com posting programs. 8) Assist and comply with City of Portland’s 50% waste reduction requirements by placing a strong emphasis on waste reduction. 9) Assist in participating in City of Portland’s pre- and post-consumer food waste di version polices and programs. 10) Work in tandem with PSU Recycles! (PSU’s campus recycling program) to quan- tify an characterize the waste stream through periodic waste sorts. 11) Provide an collect materials form recycling bins for all cat3red events that serve beverages or other items in recyclable containers. 12) Use earth friendly “to-go”/catering food containers: i) Use paper “to-go” food containers (which are unbleached and contain high levels of recycled content) or biodegradable containers at all food service locations. ii) Prohibit the use of plastic and Styrofoam in the form of cups, plates, bowls, and other to-go food containers. iii) Strictly limit the use of plastics to “to-go” flatware utensils only, with a commitment explore the future use of biodegradable flatware options. iv) Take efforts to maximize opportunities to reduce overall packaging re quired for food (i.e. use of paper wraps rather than traditional “to-go” con tainers that are bulkier and take longer to compost). v) Use paper napkins made with high levels of post-consumer recycled con tent.

29 Produce Seasonality Chart Pacific Northwest (i.e. Northern California, Oregon, Washington) Product J F M A M J J A S O N D Almonds Apples Apricots Apriums Arugula Asian Pears Asian Greens Asian Vegetables Asparagus Avacado Basil Bamboo Shoots Beans Beets Bell Pepper Blackberries Blueberries Boysenberries Bok Choy Broccoli Brussel Sprouts Burdock Cabbage Cactus Pads Cactus Pears Cardoons Carrots Cauliflower Celeriac Celery 30 Product J F M A M J J A S O N D Chard Cherries Cherimoyas Collard Greens Corn Cranberries Cress Cucumbers Currants Dandelion Greens Dates Eggplant Endive Fava Beans Fennel Figs Garlic Goose Berries Gourds Grapefruit Grapes Green Beans Green Garlic Green Onions Guava Hazlenuts/Walnuts Herbs Horseradish Jerusalem Artichokes Jujubes Kale Kiwi 31 Product J F M A M J J A S O N D Kumqauts Kohlrabi Leaf Lettuce Leeks Lemons Limes Loquats Mandarins Marionberries Melon Mulberries Mushrooms Mustard Greens Nectarines Nettles Okra Olives Onions Oranges Parsnips Peaches Pears Peas Peppers Persimmons Pistachios Plums Pluoats Pomegranates Pomelos Potatoes Pumpkins Purslane 32 Quince Product J F M A M J J A S O N D Radishes Rapini Raspberries Rhubarb Rutabagas Salsify Shallots Spinach Strawberries Summer Sqaush Sunchokes Sweet Cherries Sweet Corn Sweet Potatoes Tangerines Tayberries Tomatillos Tomatoes Turnips Walnuts Winter Pears Winter Sqaush

33 Produce Seasonality Chart Oregon Product J F M A M J J A S O N D Apples Apricots Apriums Arugala Asian Pears Asian Greens Asian Vegetables Asparagus Basil Beans Beets Bell Pepper Blackberries Blueberries Bok Choy Broccoli Brussel Sprouts Burdock Cabbage Cardoons Carrots Cauliflower Celeriac Celery Chard Cherries Collard Greens Corn Cranberries 34 Cress Product J F M A M J J A S O N D Cucumbers Dandelion Greens Eggplant Endive Fava Beans Fennel Garlic Goose Berries Grapes Green Beans Green Garlic Green Onions Hazlenuts Herbs Horseradish Jerusalem Artichokes Kale Kiwi Kohlrabi Leaf Lettuce Leeks Marionberries Melon Mushrooms Mustard Greens Nectarines Onions Parsnips Peaches Pears Peas Peppers 35 Product J F M A M J J A S O N D Persimmons Plums Pluats Potatoes Pumpkins Radishes Raspberries Rhubarb Rutabagas Salsify Shallots Spinach Strawberries Summer Sqaush Sunchokes Sweet Cherries Tomatillos Tomatoes Turnips Walnuts Winter Sqaush

36 Notes

1 U.S. Department of Agriculture. Agricultural Marketing Service. http://www.ams.usda.gov/nop/Con- sumers/brochure.html.

2 Food Alliance. “Farm & Ranch Certification Program Guiding Principles.” http://www.foodalliance.org/ gp_producer.htm.

3 United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization. http://www.fao.org/spfs/.

4 The USDA uses definitions from the Life Sciences Research Office. S.A. Andersen, ed., “Core Indicators of Nutritional State for Difficult to Sample ,” The Journal of Nutrition. Vol. 120, 1990. http:// www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/FoodSecurity/measurement.htm.

5 Nord, Mark; Andrews, Margaret & Carlson, Steven. Economic Research Report No.(ERR11), October 2005. USDA. http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/ERR11/.

6National Sustainable Agriculture Information Service. “Reducing food miles.” http://attra.ncat.org/farm_ energy/food_miles.html.

7Ibid.

8Live Science. http://www.livescience.com/health/060627_bad_organic.html

9The New Yorker http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/02/25/080225fa_fact_specter?currentPage=all

10Time Magazine http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1595245,00.html

11 This is currently the most widely recognized definition of fair trade and was created by FINE, an informal Association of the four main Fair Trade networks (Fairtrade Labeling Organizations International, Inter- national Fair Trade Association, Network of European Worldshops and European Fair Trade Association). Fairtrade Labelling Organizations (FLO) International. http://www.fairtrade.net/faq_links.html?&no_ cache=1.

12 CNN. “All About: Food Waste.” . http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/09/24/food.leftovers/ index.html. 37 13 Time Magazine .http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1595245,00.html

14 Driscoll, Tom. Panel speaker for “Sustainable Food Systems: A Guide to Action for Institutions.” Public Inter- est Conference at the University of Oregon. Eugene, 6 March 2008.

15Armstrong, Dan. “Relocalizing Eden.” Mud City Press. http://www.mudcitypress.com/mudeden. html.

16Wisconsin Foodshed Research Project. http://www.cias.wisc.edu/foodshed/foodshed.htm.

17The New Yorker. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/02/25/080225fa_fact_specter?currentPage=all

18The Grist. http://www.grist.org/advice/books/2006/05/18/fromartz/

19 United States Department of Agriculture. “Organic Foods Standards and Labels.” http://www.ams.usda.gov/ nop/Consumers/brochure.html.

20 National Sustainable Agriculture Information Service. http://attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/organcert.html#steps.

21 United States Department of Agriculture. National Organic Cost-Share Program. http://www.ams.usda. gov/nop/StatePrograms/CostShare.html

22 Karen Fernau “Shopping tips help cut cost of going organic.” The Arizona Republic. Sept. 27, 2006. http:// www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/food/articles/0927organic0927cheap.html

23 United States Department of Agriculture. “Food Expenditures and Income.” http://www.ers.usda.gov/pub- lications/sb965/sb965e.pdf.

24 Food for Thought “Going Organic on a Budget” http://www.foodforthought.net/learn-more/blog/organic- on-a-budget.html. More details on toxicity levels available at http://www.foodforthought.net/learn-more/ar- ticles/pesticide-residue.html

25 Coalition. Farm to College.org. http://www.farmtocollege.org/Xgraphs/Initia- tors.gif.

26 Romanowski, Perry. “How Products are Made.” BNET. Volume 7, 1999 http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_gx5205/is_1999/ai_n19125103

27 Please see http://www.bpiworld.org/BPI-Public/Approved/2.html for more information.

38 AcknowledgementsAcknowledgements

Thanks to all of those that provided their time, experience and insight into this project.

Roberta Anderson, Food Alliance Debra Becker, University of Oregon Housing Tom Driscoll, Director of Food Services, University of Oregon Kevin Hatfield, Assistant Director for Academic Initiatives, University Housing Rod Herbert, Emerald Produce Jack Hoeck, Rexius Kelly Hoell, Good Company Megan Kemple, Farm to School Program Doug Lang, University of Oregon Central Kitchen Dave Lively, Organically Grown Tom Lively, Organically Grown Pacific Coast Fruit Natalie Reitman-White, Organically Grown Melina Shannon-DiPietro, Yale University John Turenne, Sustainable Food Systems

39