Democratic Food: Food Policy Councils and the Rebuilding of Local Agriculture

by Dennis Fiser

May 14, 2006 Environmental Studies Program University of Chicago

Advisors: Lynn Peemoeller Rasha Abdulhadi Table of Contents

Abstract ... 1

Introduction ... 1 Disclosure and Acknowledgments ... 2

Policy and Agriculture ... 6 Federal Policy and U.S. Agriculture ... 6

The Reasoning of Local Food ... 11

Food Policy Councils ... 18 Anatomy of a Food Policy Council ... 20 City Food Policy Councils ... 25 State Food Policy Councils ... 27 Food Policy Councils: A Collaboration ... 29 The Role of Farmers in Food Policy Councils ... 32

Conclusion ... 34

Works Cited ... 39

Appendix 1: Farmer Survey ... 46 Appendix 2: Retailer Survey ... 51 Appendix 3: Farmer Survey Correspondence ... 58 Appendix 4: Retailer Survey Correspondence ... 59 Appendix 5: Summarized results from farmer surveys ... 60 Appendix 6: Compilation of CFPAC Summit Priorities ... 64 Appendix 7: City of Berkeley Food Policymaking ... 65 Fiser 1

Abstract

Since World War II, the face of agriculture in the United States has changed dramatically. As late as the 1950s, cities sourced most of their food from nearby farms, and small, diversified farms accounted for the majority of food production. Today, agriculture has become increasingly centralized, and urban consumers have become increasingly separated from food production in rural areas. As a response to increasingly globalized food systems, local food movements have started to call for a return to more locally based agriculture, and encourage consumers to “vote with their dollars” and support local producers. But “voting” in the marketplace has its limitations, and supporting local agriculture is an issue that needs to be addressed on the policy level. This paper looks at food policy councils and their potential to provide an accessible forum for the creation of food policy on local scales by soliciting input from stakeholders all across the food system, and to foster a sense of “food democracy.” This concept entails “citizens having the power to determine agro-food policies and practices locally, regionally, nationally, and globally” (Hassanein 79).

Introduction

As the United States becomes increasingly urban, many people are becoming ever more separated from food production in rural areas, and they have largely ceased to see to food as a policy issue. At the same time, agriculture has become an increasingly centralized and globalized undertaking, shaped largely by federal policies. However, as a one-size-fits-all approach, these policies will not be able to create appropriate responses to local concerns. And despite the notable achievements of contemporary agriculture in the U.S., such as food safety, abundance, and year-round availability, one of its shortfalls is that is does not help build ties between urban and rural communities. It is a mode of production predicated on quantity and price, not relationships. Growing urban consumer dissatisfaction over this separation from food production and globalization has given rise to local food movements, many of which are predicated on an exclusive antagonism between the “local” and “global,” and a dualism of local as “good” and global as “bad” (Hinrichs 35). One unfortunate consequence of this is that many movements are “socially homogenized and exclusionary” white, middle-class consumer initiatives (DuPuis and Goodman 362) that fail to appreciate their place in a global and political context and become exclusionary and elitist (Hinrichs 37). Fiser 2

The food policy council (FPC) is an innovative mechanism which allows consumers to play an active role in influencing food policy at the city and state levels, and is built upon inclusivity and democratic decision-making. An FPC does three things – it creates an open forum for citizens, governments, and stakeholders in the food system to come together and discuss common strategies for food issues; it bridges the disconnects both between urban and rural populations as well as between consumers and governments; and it helps create democratic food policy which reflects the participants' diverse perspectives and concerns. This thesis aims to evaluate the potential of the food policy council as an alternative approach to support local agricultural systems, to avoid becoming elitist and exclusionary, and to provide local populations the ability to discuss and directly shape policy.

Disclosure and Acknowledgments

I was drawn to this topic through my work at Sustain and my interactions with the

Chicago Food Policy Advisory Council, where I have gotten to know an incredibly diverse and interesting group of individuals from all across the food system. At various events, including

Sustain's FamilyFarmed.org Expo in March and the Chicago Food Policy Advisory Council

(CFPAC) Food Summit in January, I was particularly struck by two things: how integral personal relationships were to the movements surrounding food issues and how diverse those relationships were. Participants included established companies such as Organic Valley and

Whole Foods, government officials, academic researchers, organic and conventional farmers, various non-profits, and community members who were concerned about food and health issues in their neighborhood. The operative principle of food democracy is that the more people involved, the more perspectives which are represented, the better the chances for drafting policies which represent the informed interests of all affected groups.

At the CFPAC Food Summit, participants discussed a number of issues, including Fiser 3 zoning, environmental impacts, legislation, and business relations. Local agriculture was by far the most popular issue, while urban agriculture was also highly ranked, at fourth.1 Arguably, this interest in local and urban agriculture had a lot to do with the idea that it offers real participation and more visible results. Many urban consumers would like to support local agriculture and would like to see more locally grown produce in urban markets, but have no convenient forum for shaping policy, nor do they necessarily have the opportunities to learn about the various perspectives that should be taken into account when creating those policies.

Before expressing my thanks to the wonderful array of people who helped me on this journey into the world of sustainable agriculture and the importance of food, I would like to offer a full disclaimer regarding my personal connections to this issue: since October 2006, I have been an intern at Sustain, a nonprofit organization that works with both farmers and retailers.

The program director of Sustain is both the co-chair of the Chicago Food Policy Advisory

Council and the primary advisor for this paper. Sustain has recently entered a partnership with

Whole Foods, administering the Midwest portion of a $10 million loan program for small farmers.

Finally, I personally know several individuals who played a large role in drafting the Illinois legislation for the creation of a multi-disciplinary Task Force2 to help analyze the state of agriculture in Illinois and provide the context for policy-based solutions. However, this has given me the opportunity to observe the idea of “food democracy” in action. I attended CFPAC meetings, talked with policymakers, city officials, food policy councils, retailers and wholesalers, among others, and saw individuals from communities taking issues of their own up to the stage, for example, diabetes in Puerto Rican communities as a corollary of low quality food options.

I have attempted to balance my experiences in this field with scholarly literature and the 1 Participants broke into groups to discuss various categories, including “Funding and Economic Sustainability,” “Food Access,” and “Food and Sustainability.” After each group had presented their suggested approaches to various issues, all participants voted on which they thought were most important. The highest ranked issues were, in order, “local and regional farmers” (47.5 votes), “Chicago Public Schools” (38), “small grocers” (36), and “urban agriculture” (34). 2 “Illinois Local and Organic Food and Farms Task Force.” Fiser 4 experience of other organizations doing related work; this paper is not meant as an advertisement for the CFPAC, Sustain, Whole Foods, or any mentioned organization. However, relatively little has been written about food and the food system, particularly on more local scales, and personal connections play a crucial role in how democratic food systems and food policy operate. Lynne Fessenden of the Williamette Farm and Food Coalition observes, “it all comes down to relationships" (Fessenden). These organizations are connected to a growing array of other efforts across the country and the world working towards a more sustainable agriculture, and I hope this paper can be one work which helps inform the bigger picture.

Food policy councils, and, to a lesser extent, local agriculture, are the focus of this paper.

However, to provide a sense of context and to discuss the importance of systems-based policymaking, it is also necessary to briefly discuss how federal policies have influenced agriculture's development over the last century and some of the shortfalls that could be addressed by policies at a more local level. It is also important to illuminate some of the problems with the notion of “local” as inherently good. After discussing these topics, I then consider the food policy council (FPC) – how the food policy council model offers consumers, neighborhoods, municipalities, and states the opportunity to craft policy solutions to issues which remain outside the purview of federal policy and conventional agriculture.

I conducted a number of interviews with FPCs across the country, and distributed a small number of surveys to farmers and retailers. The interviews were necessary as first-hand data, since much research remains to be done on food policy councils. The surveys were designed to analyze market approaches towards issues surrounding local agriculture, but due to low response rates,3 I was not able to utilize those. I have, however, included the surveys, and summarized farmer responses in Appendixes 1-5 for interested parties.

3 Of 24 farmers who received surveys, eight returned surveys; one was unusable. This was an acceptable response rate. Of the retailers, only one completed the survey. Fiser 5

My thanks goes to the many individuals who in their own ways guided, inspired, and contributed to this work. Ted Steck and Dave Aftandilian coordinate the Environmental Studies

Program at the University of Chicago, and they have been there all the way, from the seed of an idea through its growth and development, offering suggestions, ideas, and being my strongest critics. I would like to thank everyone who took the time to talk about their experiences in the food system: Lynne Fessenden, Bridget Holcomb, Warren King, Jiff Martin, Jennifer McTiernan,

Lynn Peemoeller, Wayne Roberts, Mallory Smith, and Mark Winne. In the course of my research and work, I also spoke with several farmers in the region, and I am grateful especially to them.

One farmer wrote, “great food is necessary for great people.” Great farmers are needed for great food, and I sincerely respect what they do.

I would like to thank Rasha Abdulhadi from the Angelic Organics Learning Center4 for offering her expertise, experience, and time as a third advisor to read and evaluate this thesis. I greatly respect the work that she does and her contributions towards just solutions for our food system.

Finally, I would like to express my thanks and gratitude to Lynn Peemoeller, program director at Sustain, co-chair of the Chicago Food Policy Advisory Council, my thesis advisor, co- worker, and friend. Both organizations are focused on fostering a sustainable form of agriculture in Chicago, Illinois, the Midwest, and the nation. Lynn and the wonderful people at Sustain have introduced me to the intricacies of sustainable food systems and shown me the nuanced, hard, but exciting work required to make sure we ultimately achieve one.

4 The Angelic Organics Leaning Center “empowers people to create sustainable communities of soils, plants, animals and people through educational, creative, and experiential programs offered in partnership with Angelic Organics, a vibrant Biodynamic community supported farm” (www.csalearningcenter.org). Fiser 6

Policy and Agriculture

Our food system has not come about by happenstance. Rather, it has been the result of far-sighted planning and investment decisions that long ago put policies and procedures in place to support it (USDA, Food and Agricultural Policy 1).

In the second half of the twentieth century, the United States experienced a major shift in the way food was produced, marketed, and consumed. As late as the 1950s, cities received most of their food from nearby farms (Pirog et al., Food Miles 1). Food started to travel much farther with the advent of refrigerated trucks, lower gasoline prices, and an interstate highway system. Today, food coming to Chicago travels over 1500 miles on average (Pirog et al., Food

Miles 2). This has given consumers access to a steadier, more secure, and more convenient supply of food than before. But the current state of agriculture is not only the result of market forces; it was not just consumer demand that built agriculture to this point. Policy created the highways, the subsidy system for farmers, and continues to shape how farmers grow crops for both domestic and international consumption. Policy has profoundly shaped the development of agriculture in the 20th century, and continues to do so in the 21st. Therefore, to better understand how government policy might help or impede FPC efforts to link urban consumers with rural farmers, it is important to briefly survey agricultural policy and how it creates the framework for urban consumers' relationship to food in the market. I then touch upon the notion of “local” in local food movements before moving on to discuss food policy councils.

Federal Policy and U.S. Agriculture

Food policy, “like all public policy, has to be situated historically” (Lang). The history of modern food policy really began in 1933, when the United States passed the first Agricultural

Adjustment Act (AAA). Since that piece of legislation was enacted, “farm price and income supports have been the core of agricultural policy in the United States” (Dimitri et al. 9). At the Fiser 7 time, repeated financial crises during the Great Depression and Dust Bowl eras drove government to provide a financial foundation for farmers in the form of subsidy payments. Will

Allen of Growing Power and the Organic Consumers Association explains that the goals of the program were three-fold: providing sufficient commodity crops for times of natural emergency or war, keeping farmers on the land in times of economic emergency, and supporting soil conservation programs to rehabilitate damaged farmland (Allen).

These price supports were designed at a time when nearly 25% of the population was employed in agriculture, working on over 6 million farms (Hoppe and Banker 6). This farm structure – “small, diversified operations selling primarily to domestic markets behind high tariff walls” – persisted into the early 1950s (Dimitri et al. 9). Post-World War II industrialization precipitated a rapid decline in the number of farms as machines enabled individual farmers to work more acreage in the same amount of time. Figure 1 below illustrates the simultaneous decline in numbers of farms and increase in farm size in the 1950s and 1960s.

Fig. 1: Farms, land in farms, and average acres per farm, 1850- 2002. From Hoppe, Robert, and David Banker. Structures and Finances of U.S. Farms: 2005 Family Farm Report. Economic Information Bulletin Number 12. USDA ERS, 2005. 25 Nov. 2006 . Fiser 8

In the 1960 and 1970s, additional programs were added to federal food policy, including nutrition (e.g., Food Stamp Act (1964)) and development (e.g., Rural Development Act (1972)).

While federal supply controls were eliminated in 1996 and many commodity payments

“decoupled” from production decisions, the government continues to offer extensive financial support in the form of direct cash payments for certain crops (Dimitri et al. 9).

The commodity payment program is arguably the most important aspect of federal food policies, and while it has evolved to some degree since the 1930s, it has retained two key features: “commodity specificity and and focus on income support” (Dimitri et al. 11). Income support is simply the principle of ensuring livable income streams for farmers. Commodity specificity indicates that subsidy payments are only available for certain crops.5 This becomes problematic when looking at the current recipients of such payments – fewer than 25% of all farms receive these payments, and as seen in Figure 2, most of them are large and very large farms.6 In Figure 3, it is evident that their share is increasing over time. and indicate that policies are not necessarily benefiting the smaller, diversified farm operations as originally intended. The

USDA observes that “in an environment in which more than 90 percent of farm household income is derived from off-farm sources [for smaller farms], the impact of farm programs on the well-being of farm households continues to decline” (Dimitri et al. 11).

5 The top five commodity crops are corn, soybeans, wheat, cotton, and rice. Fruits, vegetables, and wild rice are prohibited on farms receiving subsidy payments. 6 The USDA defines a “small farm” as one with an annual income of $250,000 or less. A “large farm” is one with an annual income greater than $250,000. The USDA uses “very large” to designate farms with annual incomes of $500,000 or greater (the largest bracket in USDA statistics). Very large farms are the only category of farm which is growing in terms of their share of nationwide sales and subsidy receipts. Large and very large farms are the only categories operating at a net profit. For this paper, “smaller” includes both farms with an annual income below $250,000 and the smaller end of the “large” category. I include this additional segment of the farm population because there is no clear- cut boundary between small and large, and several of the surveyed farmers at the lower end of “large” do supply local wholesale markets with a variety of produce. This is a more qualitative metric, but nonetheless important to consider, since it illustrates how a “pure” market-based categorization fails to adequately represent non-market variables. Fiser 9

Fig. 2: Distribution of payments from conservation and commodity programs, 2003 . From Hoppe, Robert, and David Banker. Structures and Finances of U.S. Farms: 2005 Family Farm Report (see Fig. 1).

Fig. 3: Government commodity payments are shifting to larger farms, 1989 and 2003. From MacDonald et al. Growing Farm Size and the Distribution of Farm Payments. Economic Brief Number 6, 2006. 2 May 2007 .

USDA commodity subsidies are one of the most important factors in determining what types of crops are grown and how much is grown. Currently, USDA commodity subsidies provide an incentive for intensively produced monocultures, contract farming,7 and focus on 7 In 2003, fewer than 10% of small farms farmed under contract. 28% of mid-sized farms did so, but “this is much less than the share of large and very large farms”; 45% of large farms and 63% of very large farms operated under contract (Hoppe and Banker iv). Fiser 10 volume (Hoppe and Banker iv). These subsidies encourage farmers to produce as much of one crop as possible, since increasing yield is the only means of increasing income. The original argument behind these payments was that “stabilizing the agricultural sector – through guaranteed minimum farm prices, income payments to producers, and/or various supply management techniques – would help to ensure an abundant supply of food and fiber at reasonable prices in the future” (Becker 5). However, these policies have left locally based agriculture largely unsupported.

Efficiency is an admirable goal which benefits society, and these policies were created based on the demands of a broad base of the population – at that time, farmers. Additionally, consumer demand for locally grown food was a moot issue; as previously mentioned, most food already came from nearby farms. But democratic solutions of the 1930s do not necessarily apply to the present. While federal food policies are re-drafted at periodic several year intervals,8 and definitely should be re-evaluated from a smaller scale perspective in order to address some of the issues described above.

While this is a very cursory overview, it aims provide an overall sense of the historical context for how federal policy has influenced agriculture, and demonstrates that there are issues in the food system which federal policy does not always address. Before moving on to food policy councils, it is important to situate local food movements as a response to these federal policies and as an attempt to expand the role that local agriculture “should” play in the broader system.

8 For official proposals for the upcoming Farm Bill, see USDA 2007 Farm Bill Proposals, http://www.usda.gov/documents/07finalfbp.pdf. Fiser 11

The Reasoning of Local Food

The symptoms of the crisis include loss of farmland and farmers (and in the United States, especially minority farmers), impoverishment of rural economies and the decline of small towns, shrinking of the farmer's share of the food dollar, erosion of the soil, pollution of air and water with synthetic pesticides and farm run-off, the spread of monoculture and the correspondent decline of biodiversity - the litany of problems goes on and on (Henderson 112).

As powerful as the food consumer is, [...] voting with our forks can advance reform only so far. To change [the agricultural system], people will have to vote with their votes as well — which is to say, they will have to wade into the muddy political waters of agricultural policy (Pollan 15).

Local food movements position themselves as solutions to the shortcomings of an increasingly globalized and industrialized food system and as a way to address consumer demand for locally grown foods. Foodroutes, one of the larger local food movements and creator of the “Buy Fresh, Buy Local” initiative, states that with local foods, “you'll get exceptional taste and freshness, strengthen your local economy, support endangered family farms, safeguard your family's health, and protect the environment” (www.foodroutes.org). In this section I discuss the reasoning behind local food movements and their potential shortcomings, then move on to food policy councils as a model for shaping local food policies.

Local food movements would not exist without active consumer interest. Urban consumers frequently express a strong preference for locally grown foods, naming freshness and taste as the most important reasons to buy them (Pirog et al., Ecolabel 41). Direct marketing relationships such as farmers' markets and Community Supported Agriculture (CSA)9 farms have been expanding rapidly. Between 1994 and 2002, the number of farmers' markets nationwide rose by 79% to more than 3,100 (Kremen et al. 2). Mindi Schneider conducted a

9 The USDA describes a CSA as a community of individuals who pledge support to a farm operation so that the farmland becomes, either legally or spiritually, the community's farm, with the growers and consumers providing mutual support and sharing the risks and benefits of food production. Members receive shares of food during the growing season, and reconnect to the land by participating directly in food production. Members also share in the risks of farming, including poor harvests due to unfavorable weather or pests. By direct sales to community members, growers receive better prices for their crops, gain some financial security, and are relieved of much of the burden of marketing (USDA Alternative Farming Systems Information Center). Fiser 12 survey of several hundred consumers in Washington County, Nebraska, and found that 70% of consumers were either “very interested” or “extremely interested” in purchasing locally grown foods from a grocery store (Schneider 57). In a Connecticut and Massachusetts survey, nearly all consumers indicated that they would buy locally grown food at a store near home or work

(CT-97%, MA-95%), and more than half were willing to travel out of their way to do so (CT-55%,

MA-51%) (Center for Survey Research and Analysis 3). A 2005 study found that consumers are more likely to “choose a local food product that offers clear economic benefits to the farmers who grew the product and the community that supported the farmer,” rather than one which does not economically benefit the community (DeCarlo et al. 12).

Schneider observes, however, that even very high consumer demand for locally grown foods does not necessarily translate into more farmers growing food for local markets, since

“this sentiment is not translated into action unless convenient markets for local foods exist” (50).

Urban consumers' high demand for locally grown foods has not been realized in the marketplace, and local food movements have grown over in the past decade as a result of growing concern about the structure of agriculture. Unfortunately, these movements often create an unnecessary distinction between local and global as “good” and “bad” (Hinrichs 35), and it is important to being by acknowledging some of the benefits and shortcomings of each.

Conventional agriculture has provided consumers with more choice, increased food security, and made food more affordable for consumers. Largely as a result of lower prices,

Consumers generally have access to a variety of foods throughout the year, independent of season or climate. Conventional agriculture also offers consumers a certain degree of food security; consumers know and expect that food will be available in abundance if they go to the supermarket. Finally, United States citizens spend only 5.7% of total household expenditures on food,10 less than any other country (Meade).

10 5.7% includes non-alcoholic beverages. Does not include alcoholic beverages or tobacco. Euromonitor Fiser 13

Local agriculture, like conventional agriculture, is not a panacea to all problems.

Consistency in food quality and appearance, less efficient distribution chains, and uncertainty

(e.g. will this farm be operating next year) are all issues with locally grown foods, but local food movements rightly call attention to the environmental and economic consequences of conventional agriculture, as well as the lack of opportunities for democratic input into food policy. Local food movements are concerned about conventional agriculture and the consolidation of produce, overuse of chemicals, soil loss, fuel usage in long distance shipping, loss of small-scale farms, and the loss of a connection between urban consumers and rural growers.11

Claire Hinrichs observes that globalization and industrialization have encouraged the creation of movements focused on a return to local “strategies for localization in housing, economic development and commerce, resource use and agriculture, which together provide the “solution” to the “problem” of globalization” (34). For local food movements, one of the most serious “problems” is the consolidation of the market; “the major concern about concentration in the food system focuses on the control

exercised by a handful of firms over decision-making throughout the food system” (Heffernan 3)

. More than 50% of the nation's vegetables, fruits and nuts are grown in California (Warnert), while 25% is imported from other countries (Lucier et al. 19). Though meat carries with it a very different set of laws and regulations, the meat market is also heavily consolidated: four firms control over 83% of beef packing operations,12 approximately 60% of pork and poultry

estimates that U.S. citizens spend 2.2% of household expenditures on alcoholic beverages and tobacco. 11 I will not discuss environmental and economic impacts in this thesis, as these are better dealt with in more comprehensive research papers. The brief list simply raises some of the more central issues for local food movements. 12 Tyson, Cargill, Swift & Co., National Beef Packing Co. Fiser 14 production.13 Five firms control nearly half of all food retailing in the United States.14 These percentages are noticeably higher than just twenty or thirty years ago (Hendrickson and

Heffernan).

Not only are product markets consolidated, but farms operations are increasingly consolidated as well. Large and very large farms account for 7.1% of all farms and nearly 60% of total production. Similarly, small family farms represent 91.2% of all farms, but are only responsible for 27.1% of total production (Hoppe and Banker 7). Only large and very large farms are operating at a profit, while the average age of smaller farmers is increasing,15 and they are retiring more frequently. The USDA expects this trend to continue, at least in the near-term

(MacDonald et al.1). At the same time, many “consumers in advanced capitalist countries [...] are demanding 'quality' products,” and that the notion of quality is increasingly being associated with local food and local products more generally (Murdoch 108).

The ostensible “solution” to consolidation is a straightforward “small, thoughtful return to regional food self-reliance,” and restoring the role of the small, “independent family farmer

(Hinrichs 43). But while this may reflect local food movements' priorities, Hinrichs also argues that it obscures the “more complex cultural, social, and environmental content ” of the “local”

(37). In other words, there is no one-size-fits-all solution, local food movements included.

Restoring a locally based agriculture is a relatively complicated goal, and the exact details of any policy project to do so need to be worked out democratically.

Hinrichs labels this single-perspective approach “defensive localization,” similar to

DuPuis and Goodman's “unreflexive localism.” Both terms indicate an emphasis on the local that consciously ignores criticisms of its own mission to rebuild local food systems. DuPuis and

13 Smithfield Foods, Tyson Foods, Switft & Co., Cargill Broilers: Pilgrim's Pride, Tyson, Perdue, Sanderson Farms; Turkeys: Butterball LLC, Hormel Foods, Cargill, Sara Lee 14 Wal-Mart, Kroger, Supervalu, Safeway, Ahold. 15 About 27 percent of farm operators report their age as 65 years or more (Hoppe and Banker 15). Fiser 15

Goodman argue that unreflexive localism, or localism which is characteristically one-sided in its perspective, can “deny the politics of the local, with potentially problematic social justice consequences. Second, it can lead to proposed solutions based on alternative standards of purity and perfection” (360) which may not be reflective of a more nuanced reality.

Local food movements could benefit from expanding their views of how global or conventional agricultural systems could play a part in forming a solution. They could most benefit not only by reaching out to a variety of socio-economic and ethnic groups, but also to the perspectives that individuals from those groups might bring. DuPuis and Goodman see an opportunity to “free food reform from its control by consumers of a particular class and ethnicity who have historically set the agenda for 'saving' the food system (365). This is especially important as some local food movements themselves become global, such as the Slow Food movement, which has 80,000 members involved in over 850 local chapters worldwide (Slow

Food). The existence of such an organization raises the question about whether local food movements can legitimately cross international boundaries.

Farmer and author Wendell Berry argues has written on the industrialization of agriculture for several decades, and is perhaps one of the most prolific writers on the importance of a more holistic approach to maintaining a human connection to the land. He writes, “'get big or get out' and 'adapt or die'' are [not] appropriate government policies. I cannot see why a healthful, dependable, ecologically sound farm-and-farmer-conserving agricultural economy is not a primary goal of this country. I know that I am not alone, and that farmers are not alone, in wishing to see such a policy. A rapidly increasing number of urban consumers also wish to see it” (Berry). Berry is not calling for the end of conventional agriculture, but rather a more comprehensive approach. He argues that farmers , consumers, and policymakers alike should take steps to include these hitherto ignored or overlooked aspects of the food system – conservation, focus on environmental stewardship, and human connections to food. Fiser 16

These authors all acknowledge the importance of local approaches and local norms in shaping policy, and their aim is to “be cautionary, not destructive of the alternative food agenda”

(DuPuis and Goodman 360). Several authors observe that “locality is closely associated with traditional notions of community and the positive elements of intimate face to face human interaction,” and even that the tendency to “romanticize the local is not necessarily a bad thing”

(Hinrichs et al.). However, it is a matter of degree: “following romantic tendencies too far can ultimately have debilitating effects: a slide into reaction or utopianism, commitments to pasts that never were or futures that never can be” (Hinrichs et al.).

To return to the issue of policy, local food movements need to be conscious of their role in the broader system and be conscious of the risks of isolating themselves from criticism. Two examples of some of these issues involve commodity payments and a general shortage of farmers. Local food movements could address these issues, but only provided they invite all stakeholders to participate, governments and conventional farmers included. Without this dialogue, urban consumers may not fully comprehend the implications of commodity payments for farmers' financial viability or the amount of time required to either enter the farming occupation or change production from monocultures to more diversified crops.

Stan Schutte is an organic farmer in Stewardson, Illinois who raises a variety of livestock and grows several types of fruits and vegetables. He stresses the role of government subsidies in shaping farmers' growing decisions, “they [conventional farmers] are addicted to it. They don’t want to do anything different. I was that way myself...And it’s mainly because of the support programs. Until that changes, you’re not going to see a change... My neighbor says: 'I’ll go out of business before I do what you’re doing'” (Rozyne 9).

Bridget Holcomb of the Illinois Stewardship Alliance observes that while demand is strong, “we don't have enough farmers growing fresh fruits and vegetables to fill up a semi load.

It turns into this chicken and the egg problem: There are these tremendous markets, but the Fiser 17 farmers stay in the niche markets until there is the volume” (Holcomb). While initiatives focusing on individual aspects of this issue are important, a systematic approach is a more effective way to address several issues simultaneously while ensuring that there is minimal duplication or counter-productivity. The food policy council brings together a diverse group of individuals from all throughout the food system to negotiate common, unified solutions to food system problems.

Both urban consumers who may want to see a more “just” food system develop and farmers who come from long family traditions of certain ways of growing crops and raising livestock. One particularly promising aspect of the food policy council is its ability to avoid insulating itself against criticisms and pursue a narrow-minded agenda. Fiser 18

Food Policy Councils

The unique aspect of food policy councils is a place where all different components of the food system can meet. Simply the proximity of being there at the table gives you the opportunity to create new relationships (Winne).

Food democracy is not only a method; establishing a strong food democracy will itself constitute a genuine transformation of societal values and practices (Hassanein 85).

The food policy council has its roots in 1977, when University of Tennessee professor

Robert Wilson and a group of graduate students conducted a study to assess the need for a comprehensive approach to food planning in Knoxville. They found that the lack of coordination among governmental agencies, private businesses, non-profit organizations and individuals led to fragmented or even counterproductive efforts to address problems involving food, such as low-income access to supermarkets and grocery stores (University of Tennessee-Knoxville).

Five years later, largely as a result of their efforts, the first municipal food policy council was created. The Drake University Food Policy Project broadly defines an FPC as a multi- disciplinary organization which “convene[s] citizens and government officials for the purpose of providing a comprehensive examination of a state or local food system”

(www.statefoodpolicy.org).

Because food policy councils (FPCs) appear relatively infrequently in the scholarly literature, I conducted a number of interviews16 to supplement the existing data and I draw on comments made at FPC meetings and related policy discussions. After discussing local agriculture, urban retail markets, and systems approaches with representatives from several

16 Interviewees: Lynne Fessenden, Exec. Dir., Williamette Farm and Food Coalition (www.lanefood.org) Bridget Holcomb, Policy Director, Illinois Stewardship Alliance (www.illinoisstewardshipalliance.org) Jiff Martin, Program Dir., Working Lands Alliance & American Farmland Trust (www.farmland.org) Jennifer McTiernan, Exec. Dir., CitySeed (www.cityseed.org) Lynn Peemoeller, Co-chair, Chicago Food Policy Advisory Council (www.chicagofoodpolicy.org) Mallory Smith, Exec. Dir., Buy Fresh, Buy Local Iowa (http://www.practicalfarmers.org/buyfresh.asp) Mark Winne, Dir. Communications, Community Food Security Coalition. (www.foodsecurity.org) Fiser 19

FPCs across the country, I learned that the potential role of an FPC in supporting local agriculture is far more nuanced than a simple support or ignore. First, there is no prescriptive formula for what precisely an FPC should do – democratic, community-based decision making should determine what each area's demands, limitations, and priorities are. Second, FPCs as they currently exist are limited in what they can do because councils are isolated and there is no network at various levels of government which they could access.

One other potential limitation of the food policy council is that, like any consensus-based body, it may not always be able to address issues quickly. This stems not only from creating compromises between conflicting interests, but also from a lack of funding and full-time staff and the logistics of developing sufficiently nuanced and comprehensive policy.

Despite these caveats, FPCs can play a crucial role in addressing the above-mentioned environmental, economic, and social problems cover a broad spectrum of governmental policy, from commodity subsidies to environmental regulation, international trade to regional investment. There is no one governmental department or organization, on any level, which can appropriately address these problems, certainly not with an eye to the broader implications to the food system as a whole. An FPC, by contrast, has the benefit of bringing together both government and the full gamut of stakeholders in the food system, and a cooperative network of food policy councils at neighborhood, city, and state levels would expand the opportunities for democratic and informed decision-making while working to ensure that certain segments of the population are not left out of the process.

Most importantly, FPCs do “provide a structure, and that structure can become part of a network” which could address some of the previously mentioned issues (McTiernan). The more comprehensive a network is, the more opportunity FPCs have to achieve measurable change.

Bridget Holcomb argues that for meaningful policy to develop from the community upwards,

“there need to be more food policy councils, more councils at multiple levels, and more interface Fiser 20 between them” (Holcomb).

Anatomy of a Food Policy Council

Most FPCs' primary goal is not only to examine the local food system, but also to generate solutions and draft improved policies for governmental bodies. To date, the Drake

Project lists 25 local17 and state-level food policy councils. However, several are still in the early planning or formative stages. They all have widely differing structures – many are independent entities, a few are integrated into city or state government, some are very loosely organized18 – but all are united in their vision for a just and sustainable food system (Biehler et al. 27).

An FPC at each level of government has its own strengths and weaknesses. The limitations of a neighborhood council may seem more obvious; a neighborhood council can petition the city or state for new policies, but on its own may not be particularly effective.

However, a state FPC acting without input from the city and county governments will likely create policies which benefit the more vocal parties, creating a incomplete solution. Similarly, a city FPC faces urban demand for locally grown produce but can do very little to shape state agricultural policy.

On the other hand, each level is effective at dealing with certain issues. A neighborhood can be the site for small-scale efforts and community activism tailored to the very specific concerns of the population, while a city FPC provides a forum to connect with the government

17 There are both county- and city-level FPCs; both can be appropriate models depending on the regional demographics. For simplicity, I will use “city” or “city-level” to indicate both. Currently, about half of the existing food policy councils are state-level, the rest are at city or county level. 18 To give an example of what the official membership structure of an FPC might look like, this is the list of members for the Michigan FPC: Directors from the Department of Agriculture, Department of Labor and Economic Growth, Department of Community Health, Department of Education, Department of Human Services, and Department of Environmental Quality. Two representatives each from farm organizations in the state and from the sustainable agriculture community. Also, one representative each from higher education, K-12 education, community-based urban development, rural development, the anti-hunger community, the public health arena, the food-processing sector, the food-retailing sector, the non-food manufacturing sector, the restaurant sector, and from organized labor. Fiser 21 on policy issues. Miguel Morales works with CLOCC19 and CO-OP Humboldt Park20 to “build a network of community groups and individuals, medical facilities, and elected officials to create awareness of obesity, related illnesses and create community based solutions” to the problem of obesity, which is a serious problem within that neighborhood (Morales and Whitman). By presenting at the CFPAC Food Summit in January 2007, he was able to present his findings and message to a much broader audience, including the city. The Austin-Travis FPC in Texas designed and implemented a public transit route connecting public housing units and low- income neighborhoods on the eastern edge of the city to supermarkets and community service buildings. The route still exists and the local Transit Authority has asked the FPC to identify other areas which could benefit from such an initiative (Biehler et al. 32).

A state council has both the capacity and responsibility to deal with broader issues such as investment in infrastructure for processing, storage, and distribution of locally grown foods, supporting farmland preservation, providing funds for statewide projects, or creating a labeling program for food grown within the state. The Connecticut FPC, for example, simplified the application process for food assistance programs, linking Food Stamps, WIC, Reduced Price

School Lunch Program and Husky into one form (Connecticut FPC).

It is unrealistic to believe that all consumers or organizations will or even should engage with all of the issues surrounding food and food policy, even though consumer food choices have wide impacts beyond an individual's health, including “effects on the environment, the economy, and society as a whole” (Wilkins et al. 4). The complexity of the food system requires specialized approaches, but comprehensive solutions require cross-sector networking and coordination: “the diverse values that motivate the various advocates around the food systems table – from community, to health, to social justice, and so forth – are each important, and none

19 Consortium to Lower Obesity in Chicago Children (http://www.clocc.net). 20 Community Organizing for Obesity Prevention (http://www.prcc-chgo.org/coop_humboldtpark.htm). Fiser 22 of them is going to go away. In short, the field is not likely to choose a single value” (Aubrun et al. 60). But as long as individual missions remain disconnected from a broader movement, an organization runs the risk of the “politics of conversion,” with which “a small, unrepresentative group decides what is 'best' for everyone and then attempts to change the world by converting everyone to accept their utopian ideal” (DuPuis and Goodman 361).

Creating a neutral forum where all stakeholders can come together and voice their opinions has proven its merit in many other policymaking arenas. The United States Institute for

Environmental Conflict Resolution21 observes that “agencies can create better regulations by developing new regulations jointly with the people affected by the contemplated regulation”

(Consensus Building Institute ii). It is a consensus-based decision process in which “the parties involved in the negotiation process agree in advance that they seek an agreement that all the members of the Committee can live with” (Consensus Building Institute ii). Marion Nestle and

Michael Jacobson argue that “the participation of health officials and researchers, educators and legislators, transportation experts and urban planners, and businesses and nonprofit groups

[is necessary] in formulating a public health campaign with a better chance of success” (12).

Any approach, however, is contingent on staff and funding.

Most food policy councils are short on staff and funds, particularly those not officially connected to government. While there are trade-offs by becoming a political body, “the council will be more likely to receive resources [...] such as staff, funding, or use of conference rooms”

(Borron 5). In addition to staff and funding, more institutionalization brings possible review and/or planning powers (Dahlberg 9).

On the other hand, it can be argued that “locally based economies and food systems are 21 The USIECR is an independent agency in the federal government where public and private interests can reach common ground through the use of non-adversarial, interest-based negotiation. The Institute has mediated issues as diverse as off-road vehicles near Cape Hatteras, overflights in the Grand Canyon, e- waste, and endangered species recovery (see http://www.ecr.gov/s_publications.htm for select publications). While often a completely separate set of topics, this sort of project diversity and opportunity for neutral, open discussion is also characteristic of a democratic approach to food policy. Fiser 23 too important to be left to governments, and the public-policy process has too many loopholes” to build a solely top-down policy (Perkins). For this reason, small-scale involvement is important, though it may still require assistance from larger agencies, since “public processes and public money can at times provide very useful support for grass-roots economic initiatives” (Perkins).

There are presently too few FPCs to constitute any comprehensive network and far too little interest from governments to expect spontaneous action. Governments still do not see food as a central policy issues, and no U.S. city or state has a Department of Food (Dahlberg 1). The food system is a “factor not traditionally included in a city's comprehensive planning activities, despite the fact that food is is vital to the well-being of the population” (Haughton 182). The

Michigan and Toronto Food Policy Councils, which are part of their respective governments, also observe that ”too many cities ignore the role of food in their economy, environment, and society” and that moving food into cities means dealing with “transportation, distribution, marketing, processing, health, and waste management” (Toronto FPC, Wealth of Food 1). The

Michigan FPC notes that “no one state department comprehensively supports or governs all of the agri-food system’s facets, which include production, processing, distribution, marketing, access and consumption,” and that the council format has enabled participants to better address issues across the agri-food system (7).22

Neil Hamilton at Drake University notes this lack of interest in food, but argues that a major benefit of the food policy council, at any level, is its ability to bring a diversity of interests to the table which is otherwise absent in the traditional policymaking process, and that these councils can “ask the type of questions that often do not get asked when the parties typically involved in developing farming and agricultural policies meet” (436). And while consumers “have little existing knowledge of the nation's food system, they are [...] very interested in learning

22 While the both the TFPC and MFPC clearly have an interest in promoting themselves as institutions, it is worth nothing that the government is very well-represented on the councils, indicating that the governments are well-aware of their own limitations in addressing food system issues. Fiser 24 more about it. This suggests that it should be relatively easy to create a public conversation about the food system” (Bostrom 4). Both governmental bodies and individual consumers have an important role in shaping future food policy, but without a convenient forum for comments, ideas, and criticism, democratic solutions will most likely not emerge. The current lack of urban interest in agricultural policy such as the federal Farm Bill is potentially one indication of this

(Braun).

An important role for FPCs is educating consumers about the importance of a sustainable and equitable food system and the reasons to buy locally grown foods, such as health and environmental benefits, supporting the local economy, and reducing the energy used to transport foods over long distances, and making sure to include farmers' perspectives at the same time. Without this information, consumers have little reason to take a more active interest in where their food comes from. In a report on “making consumers sovereign,” the Toronto FPC explores how the government could implement policies which help educate consumers, such as labels for how food was produced, nutritional content of produce items, and creating a legal framework for labeling locally grown foods. If consumers know where their food is coming from, they can make more rational and informed food purchases, which helps allocate food resources in a more equitable fashion (Toronto FPC, Making Consumers Sovereign 43). FPCs should not worry about completing too many projects, however; as an institution which is essentially a collaboration of a diverse group of individuals and organizations, it can leave a sizable portion of project implementation to those organizations, while helping them keep their respective projects connected to the whole system, and forming policies to support those initiatives.

Finally, while federal policies would have to be addressed to provide a more supportive framework for local agriculture,23 federal policies will not create localized responses. Individuals

23 For example, current commodity payment programs prohibit farmers from planting fruits or vegetables on their land. Current (official) proposals for the 2007 Farm Bill include “de-coupling” that relationship, and allowing fruit and vegetable planting. However, they will almost definitely remain unsubsidized, and Fiser 25 can more effectively communicate with officials on a neighborhood, city, or even state level.

People are also more likely to take action into their own hands when there is an institution like a food policy council on hand, which can build a more direct relationship with the local population by inviting community members to participate and voice their wants and concerns (Hamilton

415). While too many community-based initiatives run the risk of competing with other groups or reinforcing “local elites at the expense of other local actors” (DuPuis and Goodman 365), they can be productive so long as they remain open to collaboration and new ideas.

City Food Policy Councils

Due to consumer demands or concerns, city food policy councils have a strong interest in getting healthy foods to urban consumers, supporting local and regional agriculture, and doing so in a sustainable way.24 Located in more populated areas, they are particularly well- positioned to benefit from the input of a variety of organizations and stakeholders. Even farm organizations are often headquartered in more urban areas, and the proximity facilitates networking between a number of parties. Several city FPCs have developed regular forums where farmers, community groups, government, nonprofits, and businesses can come together and collectively discuss problems and solutions. The Chicago Food Policy Advisory Council

“Food Summit” is one possible forum model. The council had participants separate into topic groups, hosted speakers on various topics, and held a discussion panel with city officials.

Another approach has been used by the Toronto FPC, which has published a series of discussion papers to encourage open community debate,25 and many FPCs keep their regular meetings open to the public and encourage input. Furthermore, FPC meetings are typically the USDA Economic Research Service predicts that it will have a minimal impact on the market. These initial limitations have been in place for several years, but recent WTO rulings indicate that they may violate “green box” trade distortion regulations (USDA 32). 24 For an example of city FPC policy, see Appendix 7: City of Berkeley Food Policymaking. 25 Chicago Food Policy Advisory Council website: www.chicagofoodpolicy.org Toronto FPC discussion papers: http://www.toronto.ca/health/tfpc_discussion_paper.htm Fiser 26 open to the public, both as spectators and participants.

The history of the city FPC also has an impact on current city-level approaches. These councils have focused on urban issues of food access in low income neighborhoods, urban hunger programs, public transit systems, community gardens, zoning, and school nutrition, among other things. A group of policy analysts at the Community Food Security Coalition

(CFSC) and the California Sustainable Agriculture Working Group (SAWG) drafted an “Action

Guide to Local Food Policy” which analyzes nine local food policy initiatives, specifically looking at how they responded to existing problems and what challenges they faced (Biehler et al.). This fairly comprehensive look at FPCs across the country (including Toronto) reveals that these initiatives focus on the urban environment, as one would expect. However, they do relatively little with state-level policies, even if those could help provide a broader framework for city-level initiatives. Considering that city FPCs are not in an ideal position to deal with state policy directly, it is not surprising that there is little mention of the importance of building up local agriculture in order to deepen the connection between rural and urban areas. This step would be required, however, to support any urban project to bring more locally grown foods into the city, and would need the support of a state FPC. This is not to discount city FPC projects – only to emphasize that all projects and policies could benefit from a broader support base.

One example of a city-level initiative is the Hartford Food Policy Commission's quarterly survey of prices at area supermarkets. It publishes a handbook comparing those prices; consumers can save consumers up to 18% on food expenses. The Commission has a strong focus on low-income populations and food access; a related project involves working with the government trying to encourage supermarkets to build new stores in underserved areas, be that through tax incentives, zoning policies, or loan programs (Biehler et al. 29). The Knoxville FPC has worked with the city Board of Education to offer the School Breakfast Program to all low- income school children (Biehler et al. 41). Another example is the Toronto FPC's rooftop garden Fiser 27 program, which involved collaboration with a roofers' association, to help provide low-income families with a source of fresh, nutritious food (Borron 7).

Though city FPCs can achieve gains in the city, “there is a real need for that cooperation

[between neighborhoods, cities, and states], and you have to have that multi-level investment in the food system. There is lots of potential” [original emphasis] (Peemoeller). Mallory Smith of

Buy Fresh, Buy Local Iowa observes that “distribution systems tend to be larger than individual states,” which supports the idea that collaboration is necessary, both between cities and states, and across states. She also finds that many initiatives still exhibit the same sort of fragmented and counterproductive nature revealed in the 1977 study in Knoxville, Tennessee; there is unnecessary project duplication in the food system. Furthermore, political popularity of certain issues leads to relative overfunding in these areas, while others remain underfunded as a result

(Smith).

Lynn Peemoeller identifies geography as one of the main limitations of the CFPAC to address some of the limitations of the current food system. Issues relating to agricultural production are beyond their reach, with the exception of urban farms. Many of the interviewees voiced similar sentiments: a city FPC can act in various capacities – financial, geographic, community-based, etc. – but these are largely restricted to the city itself (Peemoeller).

State Food Policy Councils

State FPCs, by contrast, can approach broader policy issues over larger geographic areas. One example is the Iowa Food Policy Council, which names three goals for what it calls

“New Agriculture”: creating opportunities to keep farm families on the land and create new farms; promoting sustainable farming practices to protect the environment and support profitable farms and communities; and building diverse efficient local food systems designed to address local food (Hamilton 416). Another example is the Michigan FPC, which has created Fiser 28 one of the more successful “Buy Local” labeling campaigns, called “Michigan Select,” through which locally grown produce can be labeled as such in grocery stores. The council has also expressed interest in preserving Michigan farmland and maintaining the “viability and diversity of

Michigan agriculture” (Michigan Food Policy Council 2). Without city and community-based input, however, even a comprehensive effort such as a certified labeling program will not encourage, for example, the production of “culturally appropriate” foods.

Another very valuable state FPC project is comprehensively analyzing the state's food system and identifying issues that need to be addressed as well as areas which can be improved. Without this overview, policymakers will not be able to take all of the relevant issues into account. The Connecticut FPC, for example, has conducted two thorough reports on the food system. One is “New Directions for Agricultural Policy in Connecticut,” which exposes

Connecticut's location as a missed opportunity for local agricultural sales along the New York-

Boston corridor (Connecticut FPC et al. 9). Another is a comprehensive analysis of food security in 169 towns, opening the way for more specific initiatives in the future.26

State cooperation would be crucial to the effectiveness of a multi-level FPC network, since it provides the legal and geographic framework necessary for policy action; “the actions of local politicians committed to regional cooperation may be vitally important, but the institutional context within which they work will play an important role in either strengthening or weakening this commitment and in determining how much they are able to achieve” (Gainsborough 500).

Inter-agency and inter-level cooperation is by no means unprecedented; transportation projects frequently require cooperation between cities, states, and neighborhoods (Peemoeller), simply due to their geographic reach. Food is another issue which obviously crosses all of these boundaries, but is not seen as a relevant issue in government. It would be expected that

26 Community Food Security in Connecticut: an Evaluation and Ranking of 169 Towns - Sept 2005 : http://www.foodpc.state.ct.us/images/CFS%20in%20CT.pdf. Fiser 29 agricultural issues encompassing production, processing, distribution, and consumption would prompt regional cooperation of a similar nature, provided the existence of a policy forum and democratic support for such discussion.

Even with system-wide input and debate, getting locally grown foods into Chicago and urban markets generally is no simple task; it is not merely a matter of addressing important issues such as infrastructure and subsidies. It is not even necessarily building up community interest and using food policy councils to shape policy out of opinions and needs.

Food Policy Councils: A Collaboration

Chicago and Illinois hold unique positions in the United States agricultural system.

Chicago is the third-largest city in the country (U.S. Census Bureau) and the largest single terminal market for food in the Midwest. Chicago is currently home to the Chicago Food Policy

Advisory Council (CFPAC) and two neighborhood groups based in Humboldt Park and Rogers

Park. The CFPAC is supporting the further development of neighborhood councils, and hopes to thereby foster community involvement in the decision-making process for policy development.

There is also legislation currently in the Illinois State Senate which would create an advisory committee on food issues, made up of a diverse group of over thirty representatives of various aspects of the food system: chefs, certification agencies, government officials, farmers, and academics, among others.27 These three levels of food policy analysis and discussion could prove to be a useful model for helping organizations and farmers to work together more productively. Even the more established FPCs have limited opportunities for this sort of intergovernmental cooperation, since they are relatively isolated; there are not yet any real models of policy/project collaboration between FPCs on several different levels.

27 For full bill text as voted on in the Illinois House of Representatives [Passed 3/27/07. 108 yea - 8 nay - 0 absent or abstaining]: http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/95/HB/PDF/09500HB1300lv.pdf. Currently the bill is in the Illinois Senate, where a majority of Senators are co-sponsoring the bill. Fiser 30

The Chicago Food Policy Advisory Council was founded in 2001, and its mission is “to facilitate the development of responsible policies that improve access for Chicago residents to culturally appropriate, nutritionally sound, and affordable food that is grown through environmentally sustainable practices” (www.chicagofoodpolicy.org). Like other city FPCs, it deals with a wide array of urban issues, including emergency food programs, institutional food purchasing, public transportation, and access to supermarkets. One of its goals is to support local and regional farmers by working with regional organizations and governments “to protect and preserve agricultural land, support training and resources for transitioning and beginning farmers, and develop resources for getting products to market” (www.chicagofoodpolicy.org).

The CFPAC Food Summit in January 2007 produced a series of topics which participants would like to see represented in the CFPAC agenda, including food access, sustainability and economic issues, and urban agriculture (Peemoeller et al.; see Appendix 6).

The CFPAC also emphasizes diverse participation. At the quarterly Chicago Food Policy

Advisory Council meeting in April, 2007 there were individuals from state government, farm organizations, religious groups, urban agriculture, nutritionists, neighborhood organizations, and members of the Evanston food policy council, among others.

The Illinois Local and Organic Food and Farm Task Force would have the appropriate scope to look at related, but larger issues, such as expanding infrastructure for local food supply chains, recirculating capital within the state, and addressing the rapid loss of farmland (Illinois

Food, Farms, and Jobs Act 2). Working at the state level, the group would be able to more directly address some of local food movements' concerns. There are issues of accountability and democratic participation which become more apparent at the state level, however. It is more difficult to individual citizens to participate on the state level, if only due to transit times to meetings, nearly all state FPCs are appointed by the governor and have a prescribed membership structure, and state policy usually has a less apparent impact on urban or Fiser 31 neighborhood activities than does local legislation. The lower level FPCs would be primarily responsible for maintaining relations with a council at the state level, since they are, as mentioned previously, more accountable to local stakeholders.

One potential stumbling block for a network of FPCs is how well city and state governments or departments within one government could work together. Bringing more locally grown foods into the city is difficult, first and foremost because supply is insufficient, and the

CFPAC is simply not designed to be responsible for state-level issues. At the same time, an

Illinois FPC might not be attuned to Chicago's interests as much as the rest of the state. But “in an era of multi-level governance such policy integration is not only required horizontally across policy sectors, but also vertically through different levels of governance” (Barling et al. 557). And despite a mentality of “departmentalism,” or departments' tendencies to avoid collaboration or ceding authority to other department, the task force has been a popular and very successful model in the United Kingdom (Barling et al. 558).

Furthermore, the structure of a network of neighborhood, city, and state FPCs is already similar to the existing structure of government, where local aldermen represent their individual districts and work together on a city level to create policy, and in turn discuss policy on a state level (Peemoeller). Mallory Smith underscores the importance of this point, and explains that nearly any sort of food system project could be categorized under agriculture, economic development, tourism, or business affairs. But the idea that four departments could get together and do something collectively is daunting, and needs to be facilitated by a third party (Smith).

While “too many food policy councils” could become a logistical issues – one city-wide council might be preferable to thirty neighborhood councils – “having FPCs at multiple levels only increases the number of advocates, to the great benefit of the kind of work FPCs are trying to get done” (McTiernan). Fiser 32

The Role of Farmers in Food Policy Councils

Farmers are among the most important individuals in any democratic discussion surrounding food systems and agricultural policy. But most farmers do not grow crops based on urban food demands, and it can be difficult to find farmers who are willing to shift from intensive monoculture production to diversified production for local markets or even who are willing to work with urban initiatives. Some of this may very well be due a lack of knowledge about certain aspects of the food system, not unlike urban consumers. Subsidies encourage farmers to produce commodity crops for the open market rather than diversified crops for urban markets, and increasing support for biofuel and ethanol production has driven the production of corn monocultures planting to new records: farmers intend to plant 15% more corn than in 2006, totaling 90.5 million acres of corn, the largest area since 1944 (National Agricultural Statistics

Service 1). Mindi Schneider found in her research found that only 17.6% of farmers in

Washington County practiced crop diversification (Schneider 54), and that two-thirds of farmers were “not interested” in selling to local supermarkets, farmers' markets, or restaurants (57).28

Illinois is the third largest recipient of commodity subsidies in the country (Environmental

Working Group), and what I have been calling conventional agriculture has a strong political presence throughout the state. The "corn and soybean" lobby is not a group that should be attacked, but rather a group which can play a role in the overall debate. There is sometimes a relatively high level of mistrust between urban and rural areas in Illinois politics, and House floor debate on the Illinois Task Force legislation illustrates that. While the vote was passed with the broad support of the House and the Illinois Farm Bureau, there was also harsh criticism.

Representative William Black from Vermillion County was the first to respond to sponsor Julie

28 For supermarkets, 67.7% responded “not interested.” For farmers' markets, 65.2%. For restaurants, 71.4%. Furthermore, only 8.6% of respondents indicated that they were “very” or “extremely interested” in selling directly to supermarkets and grocery stores. Fiser 33

Hamos'29 introduction of the bill:

The next bill will be: 'There will be no fertilizers used. There will be no herbicides used. There will be no tillage, except what we tell you – what you can till, and how you can till, and what you can grow, and when you can grow, and how you can grow.' This whole concept of organic farming starts in a district like [Representative Hamos's], where they seem to think that if you go back to farming methodology of a hundred years ago [...] you can feed a population of 5 billion or more people. Well, it's been proven that you can't. The American farmer is the most productive individual in today's world (Black).

One of Representative Black's main concerns, and the concern of many farmers, is that a Task Force would effectively be a top-down approach which robs individual communities and cities of their sovereignty. He is right to argue that this should be avoided, but he fails to realize that farmers did play a large part in drafting the legislation. The proposed task force includes seats for specialty crop producers, farmers, and farm organizations. Jim Braun, one of the legislation's architects, formerly ran one of the largest hog farms in Iowa. And while no active farmers were able to attend the initial brainstorming meeting for the legislation, Terra Brockman from The Land Connection emphasized that “farmers should be answering these questions and should play a central role in the decision making process” and Julie Hamos emphasized that several farmers did play a role in actually shaping the legislation. The mistrust is largely the result of a lack of communication and a consequent antagonism between urban and rural areas.

For this reason, developing relationships is all the more difficult and all the more important.

Hopefully the Chicago Food Policy Advisory Council is only the first of many throughout the state to begin building those relationships and working to create common solutions.

DuPuis and Goodman pose a critical question: “is localism in itself more socially just?” (361). They warn against an overly “local is beautiful” approach to local food systems.

29 Julie Hamos represents the 18th Legislative District, which stretches along Lake Michigan from Touhy Avenue in Rogers Park to the southeastern corner of Glencoe and includes much of Evanston, eastern Wilmette, Kenilworth and most of Winnetka. Fiser 34

They also note that many local food movements trumpet themselves as solutions to the scourge of globalization while the two are in many ways interdependent (359). The answer to their question is “no.” Localism in itself can become insular, and shut off communication between all parties involved. But it has the potential to be socially just, provided all parties are welcomed to the table, and all parties keep an open mind about the possible fallacies of their positions— problems they may have not noticed until confronted with another person's perspective. DuPuis and Goodman recognize the importance of locally based food systems for re-enforcing principles of stewardship, environmental sustainability, and care for the land (359) and emphasize that this notion of a “socially just” movement is to be realized, it will have to take the form of a “democratic local food politics” (360). Fortunately, there is the food policy council.

Conclusion

The heart of the policy choice is the issue of consumerism versus citizenship. Unchecked consumerism heralds a diminution of food culture, an erosion of many of the gains in the struggle for social improvement over the last two centuries. Consumerism implies a relationship in the market; citizenship implies a permanent struggle to control markets. One is food control from above and beyond; the other is the constant search for food democracy from below (Lang).

There remains much to be done to develop “food democracy,” or the notion of democratic deliberation and shaping of food policy from the ground up, which must include both urban consumers, local farmers, and organizations who are well-versed in the issues at hand.

Food policy councils are in many ways the most promising opportunity to achieve food democracy, not only because the idea of a neutral, democratic forum for all parties has proven its merit in other areas, such as environmental conflict resolution and international diplomacy, but because the existing food policy councils have demonstrated that a sufficient number of consumers are willing to exercise Lang's notion of “citizenship,” and organizations are ready to Fiser 35 support them in those efforts. The food policy council offers both groups a direct connection to government decision-making, and the support for local food and democratically crafted approaches to food policy has grown impressively.

Food policy councils can play an important role in making local agriculture economically viable, complementing those areas where market demand simply does not suffice. Building relations with farmers and disseminating information about agricultural practices and market opportunities is admittedly a daunting task, and food policy councils will have make extra efforts to include traditionally non-”local food” groups, such as farm bureaus, state legislatures, and farmers themselves in order to adequately deal with those issues and to overcome some of the distrust between urban and rural areas.

The food policy council is not a unilateral institution. It can create programs and policies on its own, but by its nature it is more of a collaborative effort, and only as effective and driven as the people who constitute it. Organizations and people who work under the umbrella of an

FPC can certainly tackle these problems, perhaps better so with the official support and networking afforded by an FPC. Furthermore, the lone FPC will need help from similar efforts at other levels of government and citizen investment.

Rebuilding local agriculture is no small task, and it involves everything from farmer training to changes in subsidy programs, building up regional infrastructure to educating retailers on how to deal with a diversified supply chain. State funding could provide the impetus for local initiatives to increase their efforts, but it will not occur without vocal demand from the cities and rural farmers. A number of organizations would have to weigh in with their expertise in whichever field, and work with one another to reach a common solution. But merely having an established place to do so is a major step forward.

Cities need to continue to address specifically urban issues – urban agriculture and community gardens offer unique opportunities for city residents to reconnect with their food and Fiser 36 appreciate the importance of sustainable practices. These gardens increase property values, build community, reduce crime and delinquency, and have demonstrated a host of health benefits such as lower stress levels, lower blood pressure, and decreased muscle tension

(Access to Healthy Food 4). School meal programs are currently dumping ground for surplus goods, creating meals which are notorious for their high saturated fat, salt, and sugar content and low nutritional value: “on average, 33 percent of calories in elementary school lunch come from fat. Only 20 percent of all schools meet the guideline for less than 30 percent of calories from fat in the average lunch, and only 14 percent of schools meet the guideline for 10 percent of calories from saturated fat” (Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine). Most low- income neighborhoods depend on small grocers and corner stores for their food, though they are often expensive and low quality, with an emphasis on processed foods (Gallagher). Working to expand local produce sales into these areas is important.

The current makeup of the Chicago Food Policy Advisory Council seems to indicate that it has successfully skirted the risk of becoming a socially homogenized group; the January 2007

Food Summit featured speakers from a broad variety of backgrounds, including Hispanic,

Muslim, African-American, impoverished, wealthy, and Caucasian communities. Beyond racial and economic lines, there were academics, city officials, community members, farmers, and nonprofits, among others. Even appointed councils, such as the Michigan FPC (see footnote

18), represent a diversity of interests. The CFPAC's democratic structure and focus on inclusivity seems to meet DuPuis and Goodman's criteria for a democratic and self-reflexive approach to the food system.

There is a wealth of material that requires extensive further research, and a number of opportunities to begin such studies. A comprehensive analysis of the upcoming Farm Bill as it relates to local food systems would be a crucial contribution to the overall discussion, as would, farther down the line, the actual impact of the Farm Bill and how federal policy directly impacts Fiser 37 locally based agriculture. One very interesting question would be whether small farms are better

“laboratories” for alternative agriculture research, and if so, how to capitalize on small farms as a resource for those sorts of experiments.

Furthermore, some of the advantages or disadvantages of locally grown food remain largely intuitive, not empirical, such as nutrition. Much of this lack of knowledge can be traced to the system of grants for agricultural research. There is plenty of money available for biofuels research, genetic engineering, fertilizer application techniques – all of which are needed contributions to the overall body of knowledge – but precious little outside of the chronically underfunded USDA SARE30 program for issues such as sustainable agriculture, integrated pest management (IPM), and local food systems.

As I mentioned in the introduction I had initially planned to look at supermarkets and farmer-retailer relations, hoping to discuss more “practical” market-based approaches to bringing locally grown foods into the city, specifically Chicago, and sent out a small number of surveys as a means of soliciting feedback on wholesaling and retailing relationships. However, I was unable to utilize the retailer surveys, since only one retailer responded, even after multiple attempts to contact potential respondents. I unfortunately did not have enough time to follow-up more or send out more surveys. Still, the market has a very important role to play, and further research on market-based strategies would be very helpful, since much of the existing research remains very anecdotal.

Several farmers who responded to my survey have active business relationships with wholesalers and supermarkets indicated that they, too, had had major communication problems with retailers, particularly in the first couple years working together, and that this was probably one of the biggest barriers to entering the market. While it was a small scale survey, this lack of communication between retailers and farmers is emblematic of a limited interest, willingness,

30 Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education. http://www.sare.org. Fiser 38 and even awareness about how to actively engage with local farmers, and it illustrates that the market is not necessarily responsive to certain demands. Market approaches can only go so far to support local agriculture; policy is required for the rest, and it should be shaped by a diverse and representative group of stakeholders who can keep an eye towards the bigger picture and how individual initiatives play a role in the broader system, while ensuring that they do not become an elitist initiative.

The environmental, economic, and social impacts of conventional agriculture have played an important large role in the formation and expansion of local food movements. Policy solutions hold promise for addressing them where the market does not, but market decisions are important as well. There is always a need for more research on how policy and market approaches interact, and for local agriculture, such research would be particularly useful.

Fred Kirschenmann argues that our agricultural system has become one characterized by “fragments” rather than “relationships” (3). And though a network of food policy councils would be complicated, it would be democratically determined and relationship-based. Food is one of the essential needs of an individual and of a society. Without a just, sustainable, and nourishing food system, meeting other human needs are impossible: security, health, friendship, confidence, respect, lack of prejudice, and creativity. Research on local food systems and sustainable agriculture is just beginning, and I hope that it continues to grow and inform the choices we make as consumers, not merely as members of an economic system, but as members of a society, where there is always a person on the other side of the purchase of a potato or carrot, working with the dirt. Fiser 39

Works Cited

“Access to Healthy Food Fact Sheet.” Michigan State Government. 14 May 2007

f>.

Allen, Will. “King Cotton and U.S. Farm Subsidies.” World Social Forum. Mumbai, India. Jan

2004. 5 May 2007 .

Aubrun, Axel, Andrew Brown, and Joseph Grady. “All Trees and No Forest.” In Perceptions of

the U.S. Food System: What and How Americans Think About Their Food. Eds. Ali Webb

and Oran Hesterman. Battle Creek: W.K. Kellogg Foundation, 2005. 10 May 2007

=19&ListID=28&ItemID=190950&fld=PDFFile>.

Barling, David, Tim Lang, and Martin Caraher. "Joined-Up Food Policy? the Trials of

Governance, Public Policy and the Food System." Social Policy & Administration 36.6

(2002): 556-74.

Becker, Geoffrey S. “Farm Commodity Programs: A Short Primer.”, 2002. Congressional

Research Service. 8 May 2007

.

Berry, Wendell. "Nation's Destructive Farm Policy is Everyone's Concern." Herald-Leader 11

July 1999. 13 Apr. 2007 .

Biehler, Dawn, Andy Fisher, Kai Siedenburg, Mark Winne, and Jill Zachary. Getting Food on the

Table: An Action Guide to Local Food Policy. Venice, CA: Community Food Security

Coalition & California Sustainable Agriculture Working Group, 1999. 11 Jan. 2007

.

Black, William B. Illinois Representative, 104th District. Floor debate. 27 Mar. 2007. Fiser 40

Borron, Sarah Marie. Food Policy Councils: Practice and Possibility. Eugene, Oregon:

Congressional Hunger Center, 2003. 9 Apr. 2007

03.pdf>.

Bostrom, Meg. The Food Chain: Linking Private Plate to Public Process: An Analysis of

Qualitative Research Exploring Perceptions of the Food System. Prepared for the

FrameWorks Institute, 2006. 10 May 2007

=19&ListID=28&ItemID=5000187&fld=PDFFile>.

Braun, Jim. Illinois Farmer-Consumer Coalition. Illinois Legislation Planning Session.

Unpublished discussion. 21 Nov 2006.

Center for Survey Research and Analysis. Locally Grown: A Survey of Connecticut and

Massachusetts Residents. Storrs, CT: 2003. 20 Mar. 2007

.

Chicago Food Policy Advisory Council. “Our Mission.”, 2007. 2 May 2007

.

Connecticut Food Policy Council. “Achievements.”, 2007. 10 May 2007

.

Consensus Building Institute and Fisher Collaborative Services. Cape Hatteras National

Seashore: Negotiated Rulemaking Feasibility Report. 2006. 7 May 2007

.

Dahlberg, Kenneth A. Food Policy Councils: The Experience of Five Cities and One County.

Kalamazoo, MI: Western Michigan University, 1994. 8 Apr. 2007

.

DeCarlo, Thomas, Veronica Jean Franck, and Rich Pirog. Consumer Perceptions of Place- Fiser 41

Based Foods, Food Chain Profit Distribution, and Family Farms. Ames: Iowa State

University, 2005. 13 Mar. 2007

.

Drake Agricultural Law School. “Food Policy Council Questions & Answers.”, 2005. 10 Nov.

2006 .

DuPuis, E. Melanie, and David Goodman. "Should we Go 'Home' to Eat?: Toward a Reflexive

Politics of Localism." Journal of Rural Studies 21 (2005): 359-71.

Environmental Working Group. Total USDA Subsidies in United States. 2006. 3 Mar. 2007

es>.

Fessenden, Lynne. Williamette Food and Farm Coalition. Telephone interview. 22 Mar. 2007.

Foodroutes. “Where does your food come from?”, 2007. 14 May 2007

.

Gainsborough, Juliet. "Bridging the City-Suburb Divide: States and the Politics of Regional

Cooperation." Journal of Urban Affairs 23.5 (2001): 497.

Hamilton, Neil. "Putting a Face on our Food: How State and Local Food Policies can Promote

the New Agriculture." Drake Journal of Agricultural Law 7.2 (2002): 408-54.

Hassanein, Neva. “Practicing food democracy: a pragmatic politics of transformation.” Journal of

Rural Studies 19 (2003): 77-86.

Haughton, Betsy. "Developing Local Food Policies: One City's Experiences." Journal of Public

Health Policy 8.2 (1987): 180-91.

Heffernan, William. Consolidation in the Food and Agriculture System. National Farmers Union,

1999. 14 May 2007 .

Hendrickson, Mary, and William Heffernan. Concentration of Agricultural Markets. Columbia,

MO: University of Missouri -- Department of Rural Sociology, 2007. 27 Apr. 2007 Fiser 42

.

Hinrichs, Claire C. “The practice and politics of food system localization.” Journal of Rural

Studies 19.1 (2003): 33-45.

Hinrichs, Claire, Jack Kloppenburg, Steve Stevenson, Sharon Lezberg, John Hendrickson, and

Kathy DeMaster. “Moving Beyond 'Global' and 'Local'.”, 1998. Draft. 13 May 2007.

.

Holcomb, Bridget. Telephone interview. 22 Mar. 2007.

Hoppe, Robert, and David Banker. Structures and Finances of U.S. Farms: 2005 Family Farm

Report. Economic Information Bulletin Number 12. USDA ERS, 2005. 25 Nov. 2006

.

Illinois Food, Farms, and Jobs Act. Illinois House Bill 1300. Filed 15 Feb. 2007.

Kirschenmann, Fred. Spirituality in Agriculture. Concord: Concord School of Philosophy, 2005. 3

Mar. 2007 .

Kremen, Amy, Catherine Greene, and Jim Hanson. Organic Produce, Price Premiums, and Eco-

Labeling in U.S. Farmers' Markets. Report No. VGS-301-01. USDA ERS, 2004. 1 Mar.

2007 .

Lang, Tim. "Food Policy for the 21st Century: Can It Be Both Radical and Reasonable?" In: For

Hunger-Proof Cities: Sustainable Urban Food Systems. Ed. Mustafa Koc, et al. Ottawa:

IDRC Books, 2000. 20 Apr. 2007 .

Lucier, Gary, Susan Pollack, and Agnes Perez. Fruit and Vegetable Backgrounder. Report No.

VGS-31301. USDA ERS, 2006. 25 Feb. 2007

.

MacDonald, James, Robert Hoppe, and David Banker. Growing Farm Size and the Distribution

of Farm Payments. Economic Brief Number 6, 2006. 2 May 2007

. Fiser 43

McTiernan, Jennifer. Executive Director, CitySeed, Inc. Telephone interview. 11 Apr. 2007.

Meade, Birgit. Food CPI, Prices and Expenditures: Expenditures on Food, by Selected

Countries, 2004. Washington, DC: United States Department of Agriculture, 2004. 31 Mar.

2007 .

Michigan Food Policy Council. 2006 Annual Report of Recommendations - Prepared for

Governor Jennifer M. Granholm., 2006. 13 Mar. 2007

.

Morales, Miguel, and Steve Whitman. “CO-OP Humboldt Park, the newest project of

Vida/SIDA.”, 2004. 10 May 2007 .

Nestle, Marion, and Michael Jacobson. “Halting the Obesity Epidemic: A Public Health Policy

Approach.” Public Health Reports 115.1 (2000): 12-24.

Peemoeller, Lynn. Program Director, Sustain. Personal interview. 2 Apr. 2007.

Peemoeller, Lynn, Erika Allen, and Roger Cooley, eds. Proceedings of the Second Annual

Chicago Food Policy Summit. January 19, 2007. Chicago: Chicago Food Policy Council,

2007.

Perkins, Ellie. "Public Policy and the Transition to Locally Based Food Networks." In: For

Hunger-Proof Cities: Sustainable Urban Food Systems. Ed. Mustafa Koc, et al. Ottawa:

IDRC Books, 2000. 20 Apr. 2007 .

Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine. “National School Lunch Program Background:

Nutrition Requirements.” 14 May 2007

.

Pirog, Rich. Ecolabel Value Assessment: Consumer and Food Business Perceptions of Local

Foods. Ames: Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture, Iowa State University, 2003. 12

Dec. 2006 .

---. Food Miles: A Simple Metaphor to Contrast Local and Global Food Systems. Ames, IA: Fiser 44

Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture Iowa State University, 2004. 14 Dec. 2006

.

Pollan, Michael, Alice Waters, Eric Schlosser, Mark Hertsgaard, Corby Kummer, and Orville

Schell [moderator[. Factory Food: Are the Alternatives Viable?. Webcast panel discussion.

Berkeley, CA:, 2002. 14 Jul. 2003 .

Rozyne, Michael. Feeding Ourselves: Strategies for a New Illinois Food System. Chicago:,

2004.

Schneider, Mindi. “Local Foods and Land Ethics: A Survey of Farmers and Consumers.” MS.

University of Nebraska, 2004.

“Who we are.” Slow Food International. 2006. Slow Food International. 13 May 2007

.

Smith, Mallory. Coordinator, Buy Fresh, Buy Local Iowa. Telephone interview. 30 Mar. 2007.

Toronto Food Policy Council. Making Consumers Sovereign: How to Change Food Information

Systems so Food Shoppers are the Informed Consumers Governments and Businesses

Say they should be. Toronto: Toronto Food Policy Council, 1998. 2 Apr. 2007

.

---. A Wealth of Food: A Profile of Toronto's Food Economy. Toronto: 1999. 10 Apr. 2007

.

United States. Census Bureau. “Table 7: Population Estimates for the 100 Largest U.S.

Counties Based on July 1, 2006 Population Estimates: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2006 (CO-

EST2006-07).”, 2007. 28 Apr. 2007

07.html>.

---. Dept. of Agriculture. Farm Bill Proposals 2007, 2007. 20 Apr. 2007

.

---. Dept. of Agriculture. Food and Agricultural Policy: Taking Stock for the New Century, 2001. Fiser 45

11 May 2007 .

---. Dept. of Agriculture. Alternative Farming Systems Information Center. “Community

Supported Agriculture.”, 2007. 20 Apr. 2007

.

---. Natural Agricultural Statistics Service. Prospective Plantings., 2003. 10 May 2007

.

University of Tennessee-Knoxville Graduate School of Planning. Food Distribution and

Consumption in Knoxville: Exploring Food-Related Local Planning Issues. Knoxville:

University of Tennessee-Knoxville Graduate School of Planning, 1977.

Warnert, Jeannette. Healthful Eating would Bring Big Economic Boost to California Farmers.

University of California: Dept. of Agriculture and Natural Resources, 2004. 4 Jan. 2007

.

Wilkins, Jennifer, Jennifer Bokaer-Smith, and Duncan Hilchey. “Local Foods and Local

Agriculture: A Survey of Attitudes among Northeastern Consumers.” 1996. 10 Mar. 2007

.

Winne, Mark. Communications Director, Community Food Security Coalition. Telephone

interview. 22 Mar. 2007. Fiser 46

Appendix 1: Farmer Survey

Page 1 of 8 Please indicate whether you would like to keep your answers confidential. Your answers will only be cited anonymously. The survey should take about 30 minutes to complete. 1. Please indicate which of the following apply to you. You may select more than one. 1. Direct marketing (e.g. farmers' market, CSA, website/mailorder, agritourism, etc.) 2. Wholesale marketing (either direct with retailer or through brokers) 3. Retail operation 4. Other______

Before we begin, please verify the following contact information: 2. Name: ______3. Business/Farm Name: ______4. Street Address: ______5. City: ______6. State: ______7. Zip: ______8. Telephone: ______9. County: ______10: Email (if applicable): ______

Page 2 of 8

First, I would like to briefly ask you some general questions about your farm operation. 11. How many years have you been farming?

12. How many acres did you have in production in 2006?

13. About how many acres did you have in production five years ago, in 2001?

14. How many different crops did you grow and sell in 2006?

15a. Are you either currently or transitioning to organic agriculture? 1. YES 2. NO [Skip to Q16]

15b. Please indicate your organic status 1. USDA Certified Organic 2. Practice organic, not USDA certified 3. Currently transitioning to organic 4. Not USDA certified organic

16. Can you list, in order, the three farm products that brought in the most revenue in 2006? 1. Highest: ______2. 2nd Highest: ______3. 3rd Highest: ______Fiser 47

17. What range best describes your farm's gross sales for 2006? 1. $0 $50,000 2. $50,000 $150,000 3. $150,000 $250,000 4. $250,000 or greater

Page 3 of 8

For the purposes of my research, I'd like you to consider your farm’s sales in four categories: 1) retail sales either on the farm or at a roadside market 2) retail farmers’ markets 3) direct sales to restaurants, individual stores or chains, institutions or other similar wholesale buyers 4) sales through middlemen such as wholesalers, distributors, processors, packers, or agricultural coops.

18. Can you tell me what percentage of your gross sales in 2006 were represented by: 1. Retail sales either on the farm or at a roadside market ____% 2. Retail farmers’ markets ____% 3. Direct sales to restaurants, stores and other wholesale buyers ____% 4. Sales through middlemen ____% 5. Other ____% explain: ______TOTAL 100%

19. If you do sell to farmers' markets, were any of the farmers’ markets you sold at located in Chicago? 1. YES (Skip to Q22) 2. NO

20. If none of your gross sales in 2006 were represented by direct sales to restaurants, stores, institutions or other similar wholesale buyers, have you sold to these types of customers in the past 10 years? 1. YES 2. NO

21. If so, please explain the reasons why you stopped selling to these types of buyers.

22. If you do sell directly to restaurants, stores, and other wholesale buyers (e.g. schools, hospitals, other institutions), how many individual buyers did you sell to?

23. Again, if you do sell directly to restaurants, stores, and other wholesale buyers, were any of these buyers located in Chicago? If so, how many?

Page 4 of 8 Fiser 48

24a. Did you sell to wholesalers, distributors or through brokers in 2006? 1. YES 2. NO [Skip to Q25] 24b. Were any of these buyers located in Chicago? 1. YES [please list] 2. NO

25. Did you sell to packers and/or shippers? 1. YES 2. NO If you had wholesale transactions in 2006, I'd like to ask you how your products were transported or shipped.

26. Did you make deliveries with your own vehicle? 1. YES 2. NO 3. DON’T KNOW

27. Did buyers pick up products from your farm? 1. YES 2. NO 3. DON’T KNOW

28. Did buyers pick up from a farmers’ market you attended? 1. YES 2. NO 3. DON’T KNOW

29. Did you transport or ship your products in other ways, such as UPS or through a farming cooperative? 1. YES [specify]:______2. NO

Page 5 of 8

I would also like to know how satisfied you are with the ways you marketed your products in 2006.

30. If you sold on the farm or at a roadside market, how would you rate your satisfaction with your retail operation? 1. VERY SATISFIED 2. SOMEWHAT SATISFIED 3. NEUTRAL 4. SOMEWHAT DISSATISFIED 5. VERY DISSATISFIED

31. If you sold at farmers' markets, how would you rate your satisfaction with sales there? 1. VERY SATISFIED Fiser 49

2. SOMEWHAT SATISFIED 3. NEUTRAL 4. SOMEWHAT DISSATISFIED 5. VERY DISSATISFIED

32a. If applicable, how would you rate your satisfaction selling direct to restaurants, stores, institutions, and other similar wholesale buyers? 1. VERY SATISFIED 2. SOMEWHAT SATISFIED 3. NEUTRAL 4. SOMEWHAT DISSATISFIED 5. VERY DISSATISFIED

32b. If you were somewhat or very dissatisfied, why was that the case (feel free to clarify)? 1. LOW PRICES 2. INADEQUATE DEMAND 3. LABOR COSTS 4. TIMELINESS OF PAYMENTS 5. OTHER: ______

33a. If applicable, how would you rate your satisfaction selling to wholesalers, distributors or through brokers? 1. VERY SATISFIED 2. SOMEWHAT SATISFIED 3. NEUTRAL 4. SOMEWHAT DISSATISFIED 5. VERY DISSATISFIED Page 6 of 8

33b. If you were somewhat or very dissatisfied, why was that the case (feel free to clarify)? 1. LOW PRICES 2. INADEQUATE DEMAND 3. LABOR COSTS 4. TIMELINESS OF PAYMENTS 5. OTHER: ______

34a. If applicable, how would you rate your satisfaction selling to packers/shippers? 1. VERY SATISFIED 2. SOMEWHAT SATISFIED 3. NEUTRAL 4. SOMEWHAT DISSATISFIED 5. VERY DISSATISFIED

34b. If you were somewhat or very dissatisfied, why was that the case (feel free to clarify)? 1. LOW PRICES 2. INADEQUATE DEMAND 3. LABOR COSTS 4. TIMELINESS OF PAYMENTS 5. OTHER: ______Fiser 50

Page 7 of 8

This is the last section of this survey, and I'd like to first thank you again for your help. I'd like to close by asking you some more open questions about your wholesaling experience. Please try to answer these as best as you can, as they are the most important questions in the survey. If you need additional space, feel free to write on a separate sheet of paper, with the question number in front of your answer.

35. Please briefly explain your reasons for entering the wholesale market.

36. Have you had any difficulties or problems with wholesaling? If so, please explain. I am particularly interested in any difficulties you had in the first few years of selling to the wholesale market, and how you overcame those obstacles.

37. What are some of the benefits you've seen from wholesaling? This can be financial, personal, related to the farm itself, or whatever you see as being a benefit.

Page 8 of 8

38. How do you picture your farm in the next several years? Do you plan to expand your sales, decrease them, produce new types of products, etc.?

39. If there is anything additional you'd like to share about your farm, wholesaling experience, or any other related issue, please feel free to write about it here.

That is all of my questions. If you are interested in learning more about this project, have questions about the survey, or if you have any other observations you'd like to share, please feel free to contact me at (773) 288-2351 or by email at [email protected]. Thank you very much for your help, and my best wishes to you and your farm!

This survey was derived from the New York Wholesale Market project survey. The project was led by Karen Karp of Karp Resources and Ted Spitzer of Market Ventures, Inc. Market Ventures: www.marketventuresinc.com Karp Resources: www.karpresources.com www.wholesalefarmersmarketnyc.com Fiser 51

Appendix 2: Retailer Survey

Page 1 of 9

This is a confidential survey. The answers you provide will only be published anonymously. The survey should take about 30 minutes to complete. Please complete this survey only if you are responsible for making decisions about purchasing fresh fruits and vegetables.

1. Are you responsible for making decisions about purchasing other fresh foods, such as meat, poultry, dairy, and seafood? 1. YES 2. NO [disregard all related questions] 3. SOME [specify]:______

Allow me to verify some contact information: 2. Name: ______3. Title/Position: ______4. Business Name: ______5. Street Address: ______6. City: ______7. State: ______8. Zip: ______9. Telephone: ______10. Email: ______

Page 2 of 9

First, I would like to understand a little bit about your business.

11. How many stores does your company operate in the Chicago metro area? ____

12. Does your company operate any stores outside of the Chicago metro area? 1. YES 2. NO [skip to Q14] 3. DON’T KNOW

13. If so, Is the buying for fresh fruits and vegetables done individually by each of your stores in the Chicago metro area or is it done on a centralized basis? 1. INDIVIDUALLY 2. CENTRALIZED 3. SOME OF BOTH/DEPENDS ON THE PRODUCT [please clarify] 4. DON’T KNOW

14. What range describes your company’s gross sales for 2006 (for your stores in the Chicago metro area)? 1. Under $250,000 2. $250,000 - $500,000 Fiser 52

3. $500,001 - $1,000,000 4. $1,000,001 - $5,000,000 5. $5,000,001 - $10,000,000 6. Over $10,000,000 7. DON’T KNOW

15. In the past 12 months, how much in total did your company spend on all fresh fruits and vegetables (for your stores in the Chicago metro area)? $______

16. In the past 12 months, have you bought fresh fruits and vegetables that were grown in Illinois or adjacent states? 1. YES 2. NO [skip to Q18] 3. DON’T KNOW (survey continues on next page)

Page 3 of 9

17. In the past 12 months, how much did you spend on fresh fruits and vegetables that were grown in Illinois or adjacent states? 1. $______2. DON’T KNOW

18. Have you bought fresh fruits and vegetables that were grown in Illinois or adjacent states in the past ten years? 1. YES 2. NO 3. DON’T KNOW

19. In the past 12 months, have you bought meats and poultry that were raised in Illinois or adjacent states? 1. YES 2. NO [Skip to Q21] 3. DON’T KNOW

20. In the past 12 months, how much did you spend on meats and poultry that were raised in Illinois or adjacent states? 1. $______2. DON’T KNOW

21. In the past 12 months, have you bought eggs and other dairy products that were produced in Illinois or adjacent states? 1. YES 2. NO [Skip to Q23] 3. DON’T KNOW

22. How much did you spend on eggs and other dairy products that were produced in Illinois Fiser 53 or adjacent states in the past 12 months? 1. $______2. DON’T KNOW

Page 4 of 9

Now I would like to discuss fresh fruits and vegetables only.

23. When you purchase fresh fruits and vegetables grown in Illinois or adjacent states, do you expect to pay more, less, or the same for those products compared to similar products from outside the region? 1. MORE 2. SAME [skip to Q26] 3. LESS [skip to Q25] 4. DEPENDS ON THE PRODUCT [clarify, then skip to Q26]:______

24. Do you generally expect to pay 5%, 10%, 20%, or some other amount more? 1. 5% 2. 10% 3. 20% 4. OTHER: ___%

25. [IF LESS] Do you generally expect to pay 5%, 10%, 20%, or some other amount less? 1. 5% 2. 10% 3. 20% 4. OTHER: ___% The next few questions have to do with your most recent experiences buying fresh fruits and vegetables from Illinois and adjacent states. I would like to know how you rate your most recent experiences with these products compared to products that came from outside the region. How would you rate your most recent experiences buying locally grown fresh fruits and vegetables compared to products from outside the region:

26. Consistency of size and appearance 1. MUCH WORSE 2. SOMEWHAT WORSE 3. NEUTRAL 4. SOMEWHAT BETTER 5. MUCH BETTER 6. DON’T KNOW

27. Freshness or condition 1. MUCH WORSE 2. SOMEWHAT WORSE 3. NEUTRAL 4. SOMEWHAT BETTER 5. MUCH BETTER Fiser 54

6. DON’T KNOW

Page 5 of 9

28. Taste and texture 1. MUCH WORSE 2. SOMEWHAT WORSE 3. NEUTRAL 4. SOMEWHAT BETTER 5. MUCH BETTER 6. DON’T KNOW

29. Price 1. MUCH MORE EXPENSIVE 2. SOMEWHAT MORE EXPENSIVE 3. NEUTRAL 4. SOMEWHAT LESS EXPENSIVE 5. MUCH LESS EXPENSIVE 6. DON’T KNOW

30. Packaging and handling 1. MUCH WORSE 2. SOMEWHAT WORSE 3. NEUTRAL 4. SOMEWHAT BETTER 5. MUCH BETTER 6. DON’T KNOW

31. Shelf life or durability 1. MUCH WORSE 2. SOMEWHAT WORSE 3. NEUTRAL 4. SOMEWHAT BETTER 5. MUCH BETTER 6. DON’T KNOW

32. Consumer response 1. MUCH WORSE 2. SOMEWHAT WORSE 3. NEUTRAL 4. SOMEWHAT BETTER 5. MUCH BETTER 6. DON'T KNOW

Page 6 of 9

I am also interested in the different ways that you obtained locally grown fresh fruits and Fiser 55 vegetables.

33. Have farmers from Illinois or adjacent states delivered their products directly to you? 1. YES 2. NO 3. DON’T KNOW

34. Have you picked up products directly from local farmers at their farms? 1. YES 2. NO 3. DON’T KNOW

35. Have you picked up products at Chicago farmers' markets? 1. YES 2. NO 3. DON’T KNOW

36. If you answered yes to any of the previous three questions, please tell me, over the past 12 months, what percentage of the locally grown fresh fruits and vegetables you purchased came directly from local farmers? 1. ____% 2. DON’T KNOW

37. If you have had farmers deliver their products directly to you, would you describe the reliability of their delivery as excellent, good, fair or poor? 1. EXCELLENT 2. GOOD 3. FAIR 4. POOR 5. DON’T KNOW Now I’d like you to consider all fresh foods, not just fruits and vegetables.

38. In the past 12 months, have there been any locally grown or produced fruits or vegetables, plants or flowers, meats, poultry, dairy products, seafood or other products that you wanted to purchase but were not able to find a supplier for? 1. YES 2. NO [Skip to Q40] 3. DON’T KNOW

Page 7 of 9

39. What were these local products? [List up to 5] 1. ______2. What else? ______3. What else? ______4. What else? ______5. What else? ______Fiser 56

40. Over the past 12 months, have any of your customers requested locally grown items? 1. YES 2. NO [Skip to Q42] 3. DON’T KNOW

41a. What percentage of your customers have requested locally grown items? ____%

41b. What percentage have provided positive feedback on local foods in the store? ____%

42. When you display your products, do you use signs or labels to indicate if a particular item is grown or produced locally? 1. YES 2. NO 3. SOMETIMES 4. DON’T KNOW

43. If so, could you list how you label products to indicate that it is grown or produced locally (e.g state where food was grown, brand name, certified label, sign, etc.)? 1.______2.______3.______4.______5.______

Page 8 of 9

This completes the first part of the survey. Before continuing on to the final and most important part, I'd like to thank you again for your cooperation. It will help farmers and retailers alike develop better strategies and methods for wholesaling.

44. In your experience, what have been some of the most pronounced problems or difficulties you have faced when sourcing locally grown foods? I am particularly interested in knowing what some of the initial problems were/are, and how they got resolved.

45. Please explain what you feel are the benefits of sourcing locally - this may include financial, personal, reputation, customer satisfaction, or any other kind of benefit.

46. What would you tell farmers to do in order to make their products more attractive (quantity/quality, contracting, packaging, delivery, etc.)? Please be as detailed as possible. Page 9 of 9

47. Please briefly describe how you have specifically marketed locally grown foods in your store, and in your estimation, how successful that has been.

48. How would you describe the impact of your retail operation's size (large chain, independent grocer, etc.) on your ability to source locally grown foods? Fiser 57

49. If there is anything additional you'd like to share about your retail operation, wholesaling experience, or any other related issue, please feel free to write about it here.

That is all of my questions. If you are interested in learning more about this project, have questions about the survey, or if you have any other observations you'd like to share, please feel free to contact me at (773) 288-2351 or by email at [email protected]. Thank you very much for your help! This survey was derived in part from the New York Wholesale Market project survey. The project was led by Karen Karp of Karp Resources and Ted Spitzer of Market Ventures, Inc. Market Ventures: www.marketventuresinc.com Karp Resources: www.karpresources.com www.wholesalefarmersmarketnyc.com Fiser 58

Appendix 3: Farmer Survey Correspondence

Dennis Fiser 1314 E 52nd Street Chicago, IL 60615 (773) 288-2351 [email protected]

January 15, 2007

Dear [Name of Farmer],

My name is Dennis Fiser, and I am currently a senior at the University of Chicago working on my bachelor's thesis. I am studying wholesale markets for foods grown in the Midwest, more specifically in Illinois and surrounding states. I hope to identify some of the problems and benefits of local wholesaling and with the help of input from farmers, retailers, and consumers, offer some suggestions that will hopefully turn into solutions and help local farmers better sell their products in regional markets. Your response to this survey is crucial in providing the necessary information to formulate useful solutions for farmers throughout the Midwest who are trying to sell locally, and I sincerely appreciate your cooperation in this project.

I have enclosed a brief survey which focuses on your experience with wholesaling, particularly your reasons for selling to parties such as grocery stores, restaurants, and institutions, how you overcame particular hurdles in the wholesaling process, and suggestions you might have for farmers looking to begin wholesaling in their region, but are not sure how to begin.

Enclosed you will find a self-addressed, stamped envelope to use when returning the survey. It would be most helpful if you could complete and return the survey by Saturday, February 17th. If you have any reservations, questions, or suggestions for this project, don't hesitate to contact me either by telephone, email, or letter. Your response and time is greatly appreciated. Thank you!

Sincerely,

Dennis Fiser Fiser 59

Appendix 4: Retailer Survey Correspondence

Dennis Fiser 1314 E 52nd Street Chicago, IL 60615 (773) 288-2351 [email protected]

January 15, 2007

Dear [Name of Retailer]:

My name is Dennis Fiser, and I am currently a senior at the University of Chicago working on my bachelor's thesis. I am studying wholesale markets for foods grown in the Midwest, more specifically in Chicago. I hope to identify some of the problems and benefits involved in purchasing locally grown foods, and by combining input from farmers, retailers, and consumers, offer some suggestions that will hopefully turn into solutions and help retailers better meet the increasing demand for locally grown foods. I am interested in learning about what local foods you source, how you market your products, and what you think of buying locally grown foods.

Your response to this survey is crucial in providing the necessary information to develop useful solutions, and I sincerely appreciate your cooperation in this project. I have attached a brief survey which focuses on your experience with wholesaling, particularly your reasons for sourcing locally, what types of hurdles you encountered when dealing with individual growers, and suggestions you might have for farmers on how to prepare their products to better meet your delivery and quality standards. Your answers and identity will remain anonymous, but I do request that you complete the contact information section, so that I can keep track of who has responded.

Please complete and return the survey within 10 days of receipt – both digital and hard copies are acceptable. And please, if you have any reservations, questions, or suggestions for this project, don't hesitate to contact me either by telephone, email, or letter; my contact information can be found above. Your response and time is greatly appreciated. Thank you!

Sincerely,

Dennis Fiser Fiser 60

Appendix 5: Summarized results from farmer surveys

For anonymity, each farmer survey was labeled with a number. Answers are quoted precisely as possible without revealing identifying information, introduced by the question number [see Appendix 1]. Any punctuation and emphasis is original.

Survey #2: 1. Direct marketing, wholesale, retail 17. Income < $50,000

35. We sell to whomever will buy – primarily to health food co-ops and local groceries.

36. We have not really had any problems with wholesaling, but our biggest challenge is educating consumers and customers about our product./

37. Wholesaling has been great for our retirement – we both love to be outdoors and have met some fantastically interesting people. Plus, it has given our grandchildren something to do with us.

38. We do not plan much expansion, mostly because we are 76 and 74 years of age.

39. We have a great deal of help from the media and local newspapers. State Extension, the Buy Fresh, Buy Local campaign and various ethnic groups who know our products. It's fun.

Survey #15: 1. Direct marketing, wholesale, retail 17. Income > $250,000

35. Needed expanded markets as our business increased. We chose wholesalers who supported us through price and transportation.

36. You have to be careful choosing your wholesalers - there is a large difference in price and accommodation. When you are a small producer, you don't have a lot of leverage, but there are wholesalers who respect what you do and will stay with you during your growing pains. Our biggest problems were inexperience with large production and it takes time to work those out.

37. Wholesaling has allowed us to grow our business. Wholesalers have given us financial support and have been encouraging as we have tried different crops.

38. We will expand slowly. We'll drop farmers' markets and expand the crops we offer to our stores and wholesalers.

Survey #20: 1. Farmers' market, CSA, direct w/ retailer, through brokers 17. >$250,000

35. We can grow it / they can sell it. Fiser 61

36. Price, volume, freight are problems. We keep cost of production numbers, we talk prices, sometimes it works. We can't compete dollar for dollar with larger scale farms.

37. Large volume is efficient and can be profitable, but modest volume, 1/2 pallets, high freight, late orders, price discounts, etc. can easily turn it into a negative!

38. New products, expanding profitable ones, drop losers, increase sales from the same acreage, educate customers to get higher price produce if they want higher quality.

39. Labor is the biggest issue/expense. There are no contract labor crews to exploit here, so we want to have well paid, full-time, health insurance, etc. etc. work-force, but who is going to pay for it? Our CSA members and direct customers who know our cutting edge mineralization, sanitation, social justice stand.

Survey #8: 1. Direct marketing, wholesale 17. $50,000 - $150,000

35. Volume. It's the last thing I like to do because of the reduced price. However, some situations offer a "good" wholesale price, and the volume makes it "doable."

36. The price - trying to compete with large commercial farms. If you're a small or medium sized grower - you can't be the cheapest price around. Let the commercial guys have that business. Focus on the more profitable venues. We got out of the wholesale business with the exception of a few of our more profitable accounts.

37. If you can find some select profitable accounts on the wholesale end, it helps you plan on a larger scale and create some revenue. We are "no spray" but not certified organic. Find some accounts that appreciate that aspect and will reward you for it.

38. Expand production for direct sales (farmers' markets). Continue to add new items.

39. It ain't easy, but I love it. If you keep on your toes it can be profitable.

Survey #17: 1. Direct marketing, wholesale marketing 17. > $250,000

35. I enjoy producing more than selling/marketing, and selling direct to organic food stores and coops is very simple and steady.

36. No problems - I decided in the early 1990s to focus on selling directly to local stores. We developed a strong, solid relationship with these stores, and we grew what they wanted to buy; we all succeeded! We expanded together.

37. Good cash flow. We can plan in the winter for just about what the stores will actually buy in season. We together set prices before the season, so I know what to expect. My prices do not fluctuate with the national market. Fiser 62

38. We will continue with our current mix of crops & will expand by growing our CSA and maintaining our current long-standing wholesale customers. We have only ~5 additional acres to use on this farm and I am 59 years old, so we will emphasize getting more out of what we already have.

39. The booming organic/local market is gratifying. I've been involved with this since 1970, my whole adult life actually, and to see us rise from a tiny speck to our current strength gives me hope and energy. Great food is necessary for great people.

Survey #3: 1. Direct marketing, wholesale marketing 17. $50,000 - $150,000

35. Reduced marketing costs, ability to move larger quantities, reliable income, can pre-plan plantings knowing they are already sold. I work directly with several buyers & plant specifically for them - i.e. restaurants.

36. Timely reimbursement - kept good records and quickly resubmitted unpaid invoices to a specific individual in the firm. I feel communication is the key to success.

37. Reliability. The order comes in & goes out with no "leftovers" as can occur with farmers' markets. It reduces the need for employees and save on fuel - thus an economic benefit. I can combine a wholesale delivery with CSA or farmers' market trips with a two-fold benefit: increased revenue with one trip, fuel $ truck expense reduction.

38. Expand - both in sales (CSA & Wholesale) and product diversification.

39. I like loading the truck, delivering, and coming back with an empty truck. With farmers' markets there is no such guarantee. There is a lot of market variability. After market there is always the problem of excess produce that is no longer salable.

Survey #13: [received via email] 1. Direct marketing, wholesale marketing 17. $50,000 - $150,000

35. We have over 20 acres of certified organic vegetables and live in a county with less than 30000 people. Wholesale markets can take our volume and our location makes shipping simple to coordinate. We are efficient enough at a few crops to profit at the wholesale margins.

36. Some of the difficulties are maintaining a consistent supply so not to loose the buyers’ routine and interest. Temperature control and icing are difficult without the right equipment. Some buyers were not very reliable and the risk is high in planting so much of a few crops.

37. The benefits are the simplicity of the exchange, the steady income, the steady work to keep and provide consistent labor on the farm for the full season, and volume. One buyer, one phone call, electronic order taking and invoicing is all nice and time efficient.

38. Sales will expand in all markets. This is due to increases in productivity from the same acres planted. Our soil quality is getting better and our understanding of all the different vegetable Fiser 63 cultures is improving. We will continue to diversify our offering and perennial plantings will begin to bear.

Survey #21: [email] 1. Wholesale marketing 17. > $250,000

35. To reach a greater market that we could not personally deliver to.

36. The wholesale market from our experience is only interested in certain products that we offer so sometimes if we have an excess of some things they could not help us out. Other times our products did not move well for them so they would expect full credits which we have given. Produce does spoil so it is acceptable for us to have a percentage of return but sometimes especially with wholesale it is a large sum that we thought was on the way to the bank and ends up in the compost pile.

37. Financially wholesale is wonderful at certain times in the season when we are overflowing with whatever our retail can not handle. At these times it is crucial to communicate with our wholesale accounts with a certain time notice so they can be network their resources and be ready for our overflow. It keeps the production ability high and the waste low.

38. We have big dreams. We want to expand our acreage, rely less on diesel and look towards an animal led tractor implement farm. We envision a biodiesel delivery fleet that has filling stations in the cities along our routes. Like I said we dream big. We are trying to network to find investors who believe that our dream is a solution worth listening to. If you know of any one who might want to meet us or hear our story send them our way.

39. Farming is a difficult but rewarding career; Networking with buyers of produce and sellers of seeds and supplies that make it all possible, knowing how many people we are feeding makes us feel relied upon. We are a family farm but our potential is so great they we are also on the verge of not being considered a family farm, but my husband and I have been working together all of our 12 years and now we have taken over [the farm], and hope to make some of our visions unfold! Fiser 64

Appendix 6 : Compilation of CFPAC Summit Priorities

January 19, 2007

These notes represent the compiled work of the attendees of the second annual Chicago Food Policy Summit where participants broke off into discussion groups based on their interests. Facilitators captured the context, plans, and outcomes for each discussion group. Each participant was then given six colored dots based on the three general areas (blue=funding and economic sustainability, red=food access, green=food and sustainability) and asked to vote on priority areas for the city of Chicago. What follows are the results of the total voting:

Funding and Economic Sustainability Small Grocers: 36 Small Business & Processors: 17 Emergency Food: 10 Large Grocers: 10

Food Access Farmers Markets: 28

Food and Sustainability Local and Regional Farmers: 47.5 Chicago Public Schools: 38 Urban Agriculture: 34 Composting: 32 Environmental Safety of our Land: 31 Food and Sustainability: 26.5

Next Steps The work and priority list from the Summit will be used in 2007 as a policy platform for the Chicago Food Policy Advisory Council. Points from these notes will be shared with government offices. An executive summary will be produced this spring. Fiser 65

Appendix 7: City of Berkeley Food Policymaking

Food And Nutrition Policy

Purpose

The purpose of the City of Berkeley Food and Nutrition Policy is to help build a more complete local food system based on sustainable regional agriculture that fosters the local economy and assures that all people of Berkeley have access to healthy, affordable, and culturally appropriate food.

Responsibilities

The City Council recognizes the opportunity to contribute to the conditions in which optimal personal, environmental, social, and economic health can be achieved through a comprehensive food policy. The City Council also recognizes that the sharing of food is a fundamental human experience; a way of nurturing and celebrating diverse cultures, thereby building community and strengthening inter-generational bonds.

Council will direct City staff, in collaboration with the Berkeley Food Policy Council and other community groups, to take the necessary steps within the resources available to work toward the achievement of the Food and Nutrition Policy goals in:

* City of Berkeley programs involving the regular preparation and serving of food and snacks in youth centers, senior centers, summer camp programs, City jail, and other similar programs. * Food purchased by all City of Berkeley programs and staff for meetings, special events, etc. * Other City-funded programs and sites interested in voluntary participation in policy implementation.

City staff from the Chronic Disease Prevention Program in the Public Health Division of the Department of Health and Human Services will coordinate the implementation of the Food and Nutrition Policy through the following activities: 1) promoting awareness of the policy and information on implementation strategies; 2) providing technical assistance to City programs working on implementation through collaboration with community groups and agencies such as the Food Policy Council; 3) monitoring implementation and reporting on progress; 4) coordinating outreach and education promoting voluntary participation in policy implementation to City residents, non-profit agencies, government agencies, businesses and other groups.

In addition, Council supports the City's role as a model promoter of healthy food and a sustainable and diverse food system and encourages other public agencies, private sector businesses, and non-profit agencies to adopt relevant portions of the policy.

Goals

1. Ensure that the food served in City programs shall, within the fiscal resources available:

§ be nutritious, fresh, and reflective of Berkeley's cultural diversity

§ be from regionally grown or processed sources to the maximum extent possible Fiser 66

§ be organic (as defined by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Organic Program regulations) to the maximum extent possible

§ not come from sources that utilize excessive antibiotics, bovine growth hormones, irradiation, or transgenic modification of organisms until such time as the practice is proven to enhance the local food system [1]

2. Utilize a preventive approach to nutrition-related health problems.

3. Improve the availability of food to Berkeley residents in need.

4. Promote urban agriculture throughout the City.

5. Support regional small scale, sustainable agriculture that is environmentally sound, economically viable, socially responsible, and non-exploitative.

6. Strengthen economic and social linkages between urban consumers and regional small-scale farms.

7. Maximize the preservation of regional farmland and crop diversity.

8. Provide community information so residents may make informed choices about food and nutrition and encourage public participation in the development of policies and programs

9. Coordinate with other cities, counties, state and federal government and other sectors on nutrition and food system issues.

Strategies

A. Local and Regional Food Systems

1. Purchase fresh food from nearby and regional farms, gardens and food processors as a first priority, when affordable, readily available, and when quality standards are maintained.

2. Purchase prepared or processed foods from nearby, small businesses that procure ingredients from regional organic farmers and food processors to the maximum extent possible.

3. Support cooperatives, bartering, buying clubs, local currencies and other non-traditional payment mechanisms for purchasing regionally and sustainably grown food.

4. Join with neighboring “food shed” municipalities, county governments and organizations in the purchase of agricultural conservation easements [2] in neighboring rural communities where feasible.

5. Promote ecologically sound food cultivation in public and private spaces throughout Berkeley.

B. Equitable Access to Nutritious Food Fiser 67

1. Increase access to affordable fruits, vegetables and healthy foods for all Berkeley residents through support of farmer’s markets, community supported agriculture, produce stands and other farm to neighborhood marketing strategies.

2. Promote neighborhood-based food production, processing, warehousing, distribution, and marketing.

3. Improve public transportation that increases access to food shopping, especially in highly transit dependent communities.

4. Assist low-income residents in accessing available emergency and subsidized food sources.

5. Where feasible, make City-owned kitchen facilities available to community-based groups to provide nutrition education and increased access to healthy foods for residents.

C. Public Policy

1. Advocate for food labeling laws, and request that federal and state representatives support legislation that will clearly label food products that have been irradiated, transgenically modified or have been exposed to bovine growth hormones.

2. Promote the use of the Precautionary Principle in agriculture and food issues to ensure the environment is not degraded and Berkeley residents are not exposed to environmental or health hazards in the production and availability of local foods. [3]

3. Work with media to offset unhealthy eating messages and to promote activities that alter public opinion in ways that will support policy initiatives that promote the public's health.

4. Support state and local initiatives, including research, which provide clear, concise, accurate, culturally appropriate messages about food and healthful eating patterns.

5. Advocate for federal and state programs that increase access to nutritious food for low- income residents.

6. Foster regional food production through support for initiatives that assist nearby farms, gardens, distributors and neighborhood stores.

7. Advocate for local, state and federal actions that support implementation of the City of Berkeley Food and Nutrition Policy.

D. Public Outreach and Education

1. Conduct outreach to a wide range of stakeholders in the food system through support of regular public events such as festivals of regional food, resource guide on the regional food system, publicizing community supported agriculture (CSA) options, and farmer’s markets. Fiser 68

2. Provide training to appropriate City staff on basic nutrition, nutrition education, and the benefits of organic and regional sustainable agriculture.

3. Provide accurate, ongoing, and culturally appropriate nutrition education messages to residents that are tailored to their individual needs and that consider the whole health of individuals, including emotional, mental and environmental health as well as social-well-being.

4. Increase resident skills in consumer literacy, reading labels, analyzing conflicting healthy eating and weight loss messages, meal planning, cooking, and shopping for nutritious foods.

5. Conduct citywide culturally specific social marketing activities promoting nutritious food choices.

6. Increase food system literacy among residents on issues such as the environmental and social impact of synthetic biocides (fungicides, pesticides, and herbicides), large-scale industrial farming, and patenting of life forms.

7. Provide training to residents and community groups in backyard, container, and rooftop gardening techniques.

8. Provide information to residents on the impact of open-air propagation of transgenically modified plants and the use of synthetic biocides.

9. Outreach to neighborhood stores to promote the availability of a variety of fresh, affordable regional and organic produce.

E. Berkeley Food Policy Council

1. The Berkeley Food Policy Council, a community group in existence since May, 1999, consisting of a wide range of Berkeley residents and agency providers and open to all interested persons, shall serve in an advisory capacity to the Department of Health and Human Services and City Council on food issues and provide a forum to discuss food-related topics of concern to the community. 2. The Berkeley Food Policy Council shall meet at least six times a year at hours convenient for public participation. 3. The Berkeley Food Policy Council will provide technical assistance to City programs, staff and community groups in the implementation of this Food and Nutrition Policy and subsequent recommendations.

[1] While existing research indicates that food grown and processed utilizing these practices may have risks that are at acceptable levels for human consumption and there are some positive consequences of their use, it is the negative social and ecological consequences of the advancement of such technologies that prompt their exclusion in this policy.

[2] Purchase of agricultural conservation easement programs compensate property owners for Fiser 69 permanently limiting non-agricultural land uses. Selling an easement allows farmers to cash in a percentage of the equity in their land, thus creating a financially competitive alternative to development. After selling an easement, the landowner retains all other rights of ownership, including the right to farm the land, prevent trespass, sell, bequeath or otherwise transfer the land.

[3] In contrast to the Risk Management Principle that weighs hypothetical outcomes and determines hypothetical manageability of risk, the Precautionary Principle states that a practice must be proven to be safe in order to be allowed. Where risk is indeterminable and recall is questionable, as in the case of transgenically modified organisms and genetically engineered seeds and substances, the Precautionary Principle is becoming the standard of choice in policy development.