NE185: Commodities, Consumers, and Communities: Local Food Systems in a Globalizing Environment

(Multistate Research Project)

Status: Inactive/Terminating

Project Menu

SAES-422 Reports

Annual/Termination Reports:

[09/11/2001] [04/17/2002] [02/06/2003]

Date of Annual Report: 09/11/2001

Report Information

Annual Meeting Dates: 08/10/2001 - 08/10/2001
Period the Report Covers: 01/01/2000 - 01/01/2001

Participants

Project Participan s

Beth Barham, Dept. of Rural Sociology, Univ. of Missouri, Columbia, MO
William Heffernan, Dept. of Rural Sociology, Univ. of Missouri, Columbia, MO
Mary Hendrickson, Univ. of Missouri-Extension, Univ. of Missouri, Columbia, MO.
Leonard Bloomquist, Dept, of Rural Sociology, Kansas State Univ., Manhattan, KS
Rachel Hage, Dept. of Rural Sociology, Kansas State Univ., Manhattan, KS
Michael Hamm, Dept. of Nutritional Sciences, Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, NJ
Anne Bellows, Dept. of Nutritional Sciences, Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, NJ
Gail Feenstra, UC Sustainable Agriculture Research & Education Program, Univ. of California, Davis, CA
Viviana Carro Figueroa, Dept. of Agricultural Economics & Rural Sociology, Univ. of Puerto Rico, Rio Piedras, PR
Tom Lyson, Dept. of Rural Sociology, Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY
Jennifer Wilkins, Division of Nutritional Sciences, Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY
Gil Gillespie, Dept. of Rural Sociology /Farming Alternatives Project, Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY
Clare Hinrichs, Department of Sociology, Iowa State Univ., Ames, IA
Raymond Jussaume, Dept. of Rural Sociology, Washington State Univ., Pullman, WA
Jack Kloppenburg, Jr., Dept. of Rural Sociology, Univ. of Wisconsin, Madison, WI
Steve Stevenson, Center for Integrated Agricultural Systems, Univ. of Wisconsin, Madison, WI
Steve Lilley, Dept. of Sociology & Anthropology, North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh, NC
Audrey Maretzki, Dept. of Nutrition, Penn State University, University Park, PA
Joan Thomson, Dept. of Agriculture & Extension Education, Penn State University, University Park, PA
Helene Murray, Minnesota Institute for Sustainable Agriculture, Univ. of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN
Gerard D'Souza, Agriculture & Resource Economics, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV
Bill lacy, Vice Provost International Programs, Univ. of California, Davis, CA
Tim Kramer, Agricultural Research Service, Little Rock, AR
Frank Mangan, Dept. of Plant and Soil Sciences, Univ. of Massachusetts, ?????, MA
Edith Thomas, Project Advisor, USDA, Washington, D.C.

NGO Participants

Carlos Muniz-Perez, INACC project in Barranquitas, Puerto Rico
Adela Rosa, Cooperativa Organica Madre Tierra
Francisco Figuueroa and Miguel Delgado, APARI, Cidra, Puerto Rico

Brief Summary of Minutes

Minutes Attachment:

Attachment

Accomplishments

Statement of Accomplishments: The regional research project, Consumers, Commodities, and Communities: Local Food Systems in a GlobahzingEnvironment (NE-185), has developed and refined an array of protocols for studying the food systems of individual counties or regions in our respective states. The methodologies employ both quantitative and qualitative tools for gathering information about trends in the production, processing, distribution, access, and policy dimensions of the food system. Work has been completed on the selection of common "food system indicators" so that all participating states can gather the same data for comparability. Studies are also analyzing attitudes and relationships among a variety of food system stakeholders. In addition, research is documenting conventidnal and alternative commodity networks, as well as the challenges and opportunities faced by farmers and rural communities. Throughout this project, local non-governmental organizations have been involved in developing the methodologies, identifying key community stakeholders, and gathering data. The involvement of these groups will help ensure that the results of the project will be disseminated widely and that the information will be used. As indicated above, the use of information generated by the project is well underway, impacting issues from food production through food policy setting. Work Planned for Next Year: The next year will be the fourth in NE-185‘s initial five years. Focus will be placed on making wide use (across numerous states) of research protocols crafted during the first three years. This is particularly true of the foodshed template developed by California for Objective 3, and the food retail establishment typology and data collection protocol developed by New York for Objective 1. Several states will be applying methodologies like these to three or more counties. Methodologies associated with Objective 2 will be more varied, with a shift in emphasis to analyses of alternative food commodity chains. Project participants and local NGOs will continue to explore and develop outreach strategies at the state level, including an increasing interest in local foodlag festivals. At the project level, plans will be made during the next year for project-wide outreach products. Possibilities include: a joint conference with journalists at the University of Missouri, practical and academic publications, food system curricula for educators, a fully developed web site, and a book summarizing the findings from Objectives 1, 2, and 3. Work during the fourth year will also focus on applying for a five-year renewal of NE185. Project officers for 2001 include: Steve Lilley (chair), Jennifer Wilkins (vice chair), and Leonard Bloomquist (secretary). The annual meeting for 1002 is projected for October in Davis, California.

Publications

<a href="http://agnr.umd.edu/users/nera/projects/ne185/ne185publication2000.htm">Publications</a>

Impact Statements

Date of Annual Report: 04/17/2002

Report Information

Annual Meeting Dates: 10/11/2001 - 10/14/2001
Period the Report Covers: 01/01/2001 - 12/01/2001

Participants

Bloomquist, Leonard - Dept. of Rural Sociology, Kansas State Univ., Manhattan, KS; Carro-Figueroa, Viviana - Dept. of Agricultural Economics & Rural Sociology, Univ. of Puerto Rico, Rio Piedras, PR; D'Souza, Gerard - Agriculture & Resource Economics, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV; Feenstra, Gail - UC Sustainable Agriculture Research & Education Program, Univ. of California, Davis, CA; Guptill, Amy - Dept. of Rural Sociology, Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY; Jussaume, Raymond - Dept. of Rural Sociology, Washington State Univ., Pullman, WA; Lyson,Tom - Dept. of Rural Sociology, Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY; Murray, Helene - Minnesota Institute for Sustainable Agriculture in the College of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Sciences, Univ. of Minnesota; Ostrom, Marcy - Dept. of Rural Sociology, Washington State Univ., Pullman, WA; Stevenson, Steve - Center for Integrated Agricultural Systems, Univ. of Wisconsin, Madison, WI; Thomson, Joan - Dept. of Agriculture & Extension Education, Penn State University, University Park, PA; Wilkins, Jennifer - Division of Nutritional Sciences, Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY

Brief Summary of Minutes

Much of the annual meeting was spent developing a new proposal that builds on the work accomplished in the first five-year project. The new proposal was to be completed by January 15th. A writing committee (Gail Feenstra, Amy Guptil, Tom Lyson, Helene Murray, Steve Stevenson, and Jennifer Wilkins) was organized.

Below is the timeline for getting the proposal submitted on time, a proposal outline supplied by USDA/NERA, the proposed project title, the new objectives and the potential procedures.

What needs to be done:

Review the objectives and procedures below. Send comments to the entire technical committee by October 25th.

Provide suggestions for external peer reviewers. We need to have the proposal peer reviewed prior to the submission and we need to respond to this review. So we need to have names by December 1. We supply NERA with names and email addresses of people to serve as reviewers and they send it out for review. Reviewers do not necessarily have to be affiliated with an academic institution, could be from a governmental agency or NGO.)

Provide suggestions of literature to cite (can include your own published or "in-press" work) in the "Related current and previous work" section of the proposal.

Suggest others to be recruited to join our Technical Committee in the new project.

Timelines:

Oct. 15: Send new objectives to NE-185

Oct. 15-31: Draft new proposal

Nov. 30: Send draft proposal to Technical Committee and other potential investigators

Dec. 1-31: Recruit new investigators, comments on proposal draft to writing committee

Jan. 1-14: Revise from NE-185 committee comments

Jan. 15: Send to external reviewers

Jan. 25-Feb. 15: Revise from external reviewer comments

Feb. 19: Submission Deadline

Outline of Regional Research Proposal (and lead person(s) for each section):

Statement of Issues, Justification (3)[Tom & Len]

Related current and previous work (4) [Amy, Jennifer & Vivianna]

Objectives (.5) [cull from Minutes]

Methodologies (unifying and specific) (5) [Writing committee & Len]

Measurements of Results (1.5) [Gail & Len]

Outcomes

Milestones

Outreach Plan (1 paragraph) [Gail & Len]

Organizational Governance (2 paragraphs) [Jennifer] 15pp total

References

Participants

Tentative Title of Proposal: Sustaining Local Food Systems in a Globalizing Environment: Forces, Responses, Impacts

Objective 1: Identify and analyze forces that are transforming and reproducing the relationships between localities and their food system.

We settled on "relationships between localities (e.g. communities) and their food system" to describe what we have called "local food systems" or "place-based food systems" at other times. To extent possible, continuing states will analyze forces within the context of the food systems (county analyses) described in current project. These analyses can involve historical analysis of food systems, including social discourse. This objective can easily be applied to new farm-to-school programs that several NE-185 states are involved with. The "forces" considered here can include, but not be limited to: technology, policy, demographic, consumer preferences, social movements, market structures, global concentration, broader economic system, household and institutional food "deskilling." This objective emphasizes analysis of policies/projects/events, etc. rather than describing their characteristics. "Localities" can be interpreted to mean communities, regions, cities, or neighborhoods.

Objective 2: Examine the strategies employed by producers and other stakeholders in localities to create and manage change in the food and agriculture system.

"Strategies" can include food product labeling, direct marketing, new alliances (CSAs, farmer cooperatives, etc.), new "value chains," formation of county-level agriculture commissions, education, farm visits, new value chains, media coverage, public policy, food policy councils, institutional buying. "Value chains" are similar to processing, but include networks of people involved. Food products represent bundles of characteristics/values.

Objective 3: Document and evaluate the multiple and interactive impacts of place-based change strategies.

The concept of multi-functionality falls into this objective. This is the place to explore successes and challenges of the placed-based food system strategies.)

Objective 4: Collaborate with food system stakeholders to identify high priority information needs and the forms in which information should be delivered.

Procedures

Discussion: There was again a desire to have some consistent approaches across participating states. At the same time, specific projects may utilize unique approaches. Most states will analyze places (county or multi-county units) studied for current project, including different commodity chains that traverse localities. For example, this could include various labeling strategies within those localities, new value chains created, etc. Others will focus on commodities that cut across localities.

Procedure 1: Develop a protocol, in collaboration with key stakeholders, for interviews, focus groups, shared histories/visions, secondary data analysis, etc. on forces that are transforming or reproducing the relationship between localities and their food systems. Also collect information from academic and activist literature as well as existing statistics.

Use same 3 counties studied for NE-185 or sets as research sites. Describe how food systems have changed in localities over the past X (20 - 50?) years. A wide range of methodologies is expected, including: in-person or telephone interviews, focus groups, shared histories/food systems visioning, stakeholder surveys (agriculture lenders, cooperative extension educators, policy makers, farmers, consumers, processors, etc.), analysis of secondary data where available. Research instruments may explore and reveal beliefs, attitudes, and values related to technological change, food and agriculture policy, demographic change, food quality and safety, etc. Instrument design will be completed in first year of project. Other methods discussed included: citizen panel method in inquiry, and the community consensus model. Data will primarily be qualitative, because much of the information not quantifiable. Project investigators will serve as points of exchange, both between stakeholders within a place as well as between places. Outputs will be shared across states for comparison purposes.

Procedure 2: Conduct comparative case studies across states of stakeholders with similar strategies.

Some overarching questions that will be addressed: (1) What are the major challenges stakeholders have faced? (2) What have been the most fruitful opportunities for success? (2) How have stakeholders communicated with potential consumers? Specific questions will depend on the particular strategies being examined.

Procedure 3: Collect information on the multi-functional aspects of agriculture and the food system in localities.

Such information areas include but are not limited to: (1) local agriculture, (2) non-agricultural economy, (3) economic development and job creation, (4) civic engagement (5) nutritional health and well-being of local population(s), (7) bio-diversity, (8) environmental resources, (9) ethnic composition. (This will allow for food systems to be put into the broader environmental, social, political and economic context.)

Accomplishments

Objective 1: To document and assess how social, economic and political forces influence the interaction between community stakeholders, consumers and the local and global food system. In Kansas, interviews were conducted with stakeholders in alternative enterprises to the conventional food system. Specifically, proprietors or managers of the local food cooperative and two international food stores were interviewed, plus vendors and customers in the local farmer‘s market and in a recently established community supported agriculture (CSA) network. Preliminary analysis indicated that these food providers stressed the importance of informal, non-market interactions with their customers. Examples include getting to know customers well enough to interact with them on a first-name basis, making special orders to accommodate a customer‘s needs and reducing prices for regular customers. In Missouri, the research revolves primarily around the impacts of global change on local rural areas, and opportunities for holistic rural development via place-based labeling of food and agricultural products. Research sites on this topic have been established in France (the first country to develop this type of labeling and the most advanced in its use); Quibec, where the first Canadian label of origin to be administered following the French model is being established; and in Missouri, where the focus is on the wine industry. Objective 2: Identify, assess, and examine the factors, conditions, and changes associated with the global and local dimensions of selected commodity systems (production, processing, consumption). In New Jersey parameters were developed to analyze the local food commodity production by applying import substitution theory to initiatives for more localized food systems. This project was based on the contention that while food systems that are more concentrated at the local scale can build some level of resistance to market hegemonies, they must be monitored to examine whether they may simply replicate inequitable and unsustainable patterns of labor and the use of land and resources on a local community scale. In North Carolina, the focus was on peanuts, one of the most important cash crops in the depressed northeastern portion. Currently peanuts are in an economic free-fall due to changes in the government price support system. The Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) will result in restrictions in the use of certain key pesticides for pest control in the very near future. Closer scrutiny of pesticides used on foods consumed by children has given additional incentive for peanut production practices to utilize the most advanced Integrated Pest Management (IPM) techniques to reduce any unnecessary pesticide use. In the next five years many peanut farmers will be going out of business. The focus of analyses in West Virginia has been both on individual commodities and commodity groups, but at a systems level and within the context of a local food production system. A comprehensive economic analysis of aquaculture in WV revealed the conditions under which it can be profitable and sustainable. Work in progress includes conducting a national household telephone survey to determine food consumption preferences and attitudes as they pertain to issues including emerging technologies (such as genetic modification) and geographic characteristics (such as origin or location of production). With respect to beef cattle, a data base of historic cattle auction prices at various locations statewide was compiled. With regard to organic farming, a preliminary cost and return analysis using experimental farm data was completed to determine the expected profitability of transitioning from a conventional to an organic production system. Objective 3: Examine and analyze the local and non-local components of community food systems and quantify the economic and social contributions of local food systems to their communities. California researchers completed the Placer County Foodshed Report, the first of three county studies. Indicators related to foodshed sustainability as outlined in the foodshed data collection template were analyzed. The nine types of indicators included demographic, environmental, agricultural resource base, food distribution network, economic productivity, food system wages and employment, food consumption, community food security/ food access, and education, advocacy and policy. The template identifies specific measures, years for which data are collected and data sources. It is intended to be used by other states so foodshed comparisons can be made between states. Iowa researchers completed a rural food retailing study, including 25 interviews (semi-structured) with proprietors and/or managers of food retailing businesses in these four rural counties. Establishments ranged from convenience stores to superstores. Interviews focused on questions of food supply, food quality and food security. Interviews have been transcribed and analysis is in progress. From the rural food retailing study, Iowa developed a focus on meat lockers, which are important, if imperiled market outlets for independent meat producers, as well as important sources of high quality local meat for rural consumers. Work on Objective 3 in Kansas focused in Manhattan, with a particular interest in how the alternative food stores obtained the food they sell. Both of the international food stores and the food cooperative obtain much of their food from national suppliers. The economic transactions between the stores and their respective suppliers are contractual, similar to transactions grocery stores in the conventional food system have with their suppliers. The food cooperative does rely on local producers for fresh vegetables and meat. The prices paid for these fresh products are negotiated at the time of the transaction. New Jersey researchers initiated a statewide food-system mapping project in 2001. As collaborators, the New Brunswick Community Health and Environment Coalition (CHEC) worked with the University Medical and Dental Group of New Jersey (UMDNJ) to set up informal focus group dinners around New Brunswick to discuss participants‘ observations and concerns regarding community environmental factors, like retail and exercise opportunities, that influence diet, weight, and health. In New York, the concept of ‘civic agriculture‘ was developed further. Empirical indicators of civic agriculture were derived from the U.S. Census of Agriculture and other secondary data sets. The effects of civic agriculture on local social and economic well-being were tested. Measures of direct marketing of agriculture and food products were developed. Research was begun to investigate places favorable to direct marketing and those less favorable. Research continued on the topic of food desserts. A case study of one county in rural New York show that large areas are devoid of any locally produced and/or fresh food. The growth of large multinational and national supermarket chains was directly related to the demise of smaller, community grocers. In Puerto Rico the data analysis and interviews needed to complete the profile of the Barranquitas food system, in conjunction with the activities performed under a Southern SARE project on Community Agricultural Development, were completed. Preliminary results of these analyses were shared with the community in a poster presentation exhibited during the local Festival del Apio and in an alternative marketing seminar organized in collaboration with the Barranquitas Agricultural Extension Service. At present, a food system profile of Barranquitas is being prepared. In Washington, the primary accomplishment was the completion of 74 in-depth, qualitative interviews with agri-food system participants in three Washington counties--Skagit, Chelan and Grant. Given these conditions, creating local marketing options for all farmers in such counties will be difficult. A preliminary telephone survey was conducted with consumers on Vashon Island to identify opportunities for increased purchasing of locally produced foods. The Wisconsin NE-185 project has begun to explore the concept of "fair trade. Other Wisconsin participants have focused on analyzing the opportunities and barriers to the purchase of local and organic food by food services at Wisconsin‘s colleges and universities, as well as facilitating these purchases through building connections with local producers and working with student groups to increase the demand for such food. The food service directors from over 30 colleges and universities were interviewed regarding their interest and capacity to purchase local food and four institutions were selected to be worked with more intensively: UW-Madison, Edgewood College, Beloit College, and Lawrence College. Researchers have begun gathering data on the opportunities and barriers for creating "middle-sized" value chains that extend beyond direct marketing. The Wisconsin research focuses on pastured poultry and specialty cheese. The poultry project is currently gathering information on pastured poultry producers in the U. S. who raise more than 5,000 birds per year. The research on specialty cheese will take the form of comparative and evaluative case studies of various forms of enterprise currently being conducted or explored by specialty cheese groups in the upper Midwest, e.g., farmer cooperatives who contract with cheese makers but market their own cheese, similar co-ops who contract both the production and marketing, independent cheese makers who maintain special relationships with farmer patrons, farmstead cheese enterprises, and "cheese condominium" models where several specialty cheese enterprises share common infrastructure. Objective 4: Collaborate with ongoing educational efforts to enhance the viability of local food systems. California shared a foodshed data collection template with all NE-185 states. They have provided more support for several states on request. The template was also included in a workbook for food security leaders nationwide, written by Cooperative Extension specialists at Cornell University. Iowa researchers developed a one-page overview of the Iowa project designed to inform non-academic audiences of the scope and goals of the project. Iowa has also partnered with the State Center Main Street Project (Marshall County), focusing on recommendations for developing a new State Center Main Street Farmers Market (its which first, very successful season was in 2001). A significant outreach connection this past year involved the Iowa CAFI, a SARE-PDP workshop on "Community Agriculture and Food Enterprises" held in five Iowa locations. In New Jersey, project participants have developed new educational efforts to enhance and promote the viability of local food systems. "Local Food Systems in a Globalizing Environment" class (400 level), Spring 2001 was taught for the second time. This 400 level colloquium course was developed in Fall 1999 to introduce Cook College (land grant part of Rutgers) and other students to contemporary policy and intellectual debates around the topics of food systems, food security, and food rights. In Pennsylvania, additional resources have been produced to support community-based educational initiatives on the food system. Edible Connections: Changing the Way We Talk About Food, Farm, and Community resulted in a planning guide and video as well as an action plan. A new book, The Food System: Building Youth Awareness through Involvement, is the text for a general education course introducing Penn State undergraduates to the food system. Offered each semester, the course enrolls from 125 to 165 students per semester.

Publications

Harmon, A. H. 2000. Building youth awareness about the food system: Putting research to work for educators. Kids Can Make a Difference, a program of World Hunger Year (WHY). Levine, J. F and Levine, L., eds. Winter 2001:Vol. 6 (1)10-11. Lyson, Thomas A., Robert Torres, and Rick Welsh. 2001. Scale of agricultural production, civic engagement and community welfare. Social Forces 80:311-327. Lyson, Thomas A. 2001. The promise of a more civic agriculture. Catholic Rural Life 43(2):40-43. Lyson, Thomas A. 2001. How do agricultural scientists view advanced biotechnologies? Chemical Innovation 31(4):50-53. Sharp, Julie T. and C. Clare Hinrichs. 2001. Farmer Support for Publicly Funded Sustainable Agriculture Research: The Case of Hoop Structures for Swine. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 16(2): 81-88. Thomson, J. S., J. L. Abel, and A. N. Maretzki. 2001. Edible Connections: A Model to Facilitate Citizen Dialogue and Build Community Collaboration. Journal of Extension 39:2 April (4 pages) <http://www.joe.org/joe/2001april/a5.html>. Thomson, J. S., J. L. Abel, and A. N. Maretzki. 2001. Edible Connections: A Model for Citizen Dialogue Used to Discuss Local Food, Farm, and Community Issues. Journal of Applied Communications, 85:1: 25-42 (March).

Impact Statements

Work in Missouri has revealed a very important role for the World Intellectual Property Organization in determining what kind of property a place-related label represents and how it should be protected internationally. The IP status of labels of origin is contentious and its resolution will affect local places which attempt to use labels of origin as a rural development tool and mediator between consumers desiring local food and producers who can provide it.
Researchers in New Jersey developed parameters to measure the impact of community initiatives to create more localized food systems because these initiatives often include social and environmental risks as well as benefits . Three units of analysis were used to measure changes in local autonomy and sustainable development as a result of import substitution schemes: fair labor trade, equity and democracy, and environmental stewardship.
A key finding made last year in Washington was that many agricultural producers are actively looking for marketing alternatives, in part because of falling prices due to overproduction and retail and wholesale consolidation. However, opportunities for establishing alternative networks of production, processing, and marketing are restricted by factors such as geography and ecology.
Project participants in Wisconsin have been instrumental in providing organizational leadership and strategic research for the Dane County REAP Food Group, a local NGO that works closely with NE-185 personnel. REAP was assisted with its annual Food For Thought Festival, and especially with the planning and implementation of a forthcoming Farm Fresh Atlas. The Atlas will locate food producers that use sustainable practices and supply the eaters of a 10 county region.
As a result of a report in Stanislaus County, California, the Community Alliance with Family Farmers (CAFF) Chapter in Stanislaus/Merced counties increased its efforts to engage in public forums in the region.
The Iowa CAFE provided an extensive resource manual on various facets of community-based agriculture to participants. Their project contributed materials for the manual, including two short reports on research about Iowa farmers market managers and farmers market vendors, conducted in conjunction with another project Program's Community Food Production Program were developed.
Our Food - Our Future, a half-hour television documentary, was produced in cooperation with Penn State and Cornell universities and USDA. Each of the four projects is designed to teach self-reliance and promote a sustainable local food and agricultural system. The projects profiled include the Urban Nutrition Initiative in Philadelphia, the Farmers Market in Camden, NJ, a profit-sharing venture in West Virginia and a community garden project focusing on economic justice in New York City.
In Puerto Rico, interviews with farmers and community leaders showed that one of the most important obstacles to the development of local agriculture is the lack of new marketing channels for farm produce, particularly at peak harvesting time. A farmers' market was organized this year to address this problem. Organizers felt that they needed more information on how to improve the operation of the market and on other direct marketing strategies.
The Minnesota Institute for Sustainable Agriculture is working with two local food systems projects focused on restoring a strong local food system for their regions. One group developed and presented a 10-part fith grade curriculum on sustainable food systems and brought together hunger and nutrition organizations to discuss making locally produced food more accessible to families with limited resources.

Date of Annual Report: 02/06/2003

Report Information

Annual Meeting Dates: 11/01/2002 - 11/03/2002
Period the Report Covers: 10/01/1997 - 09/01/2002

Participants

Feenstra, Gail - University of California; Hinrichs, Clare - Iowa State University; Bloomquist, Leonard - Kansas State University; Murray, Helene - University of Minnesota; Barham, Elizabeth - University of Missouri-Columbia; Lyson, Thomas - Cornell University; Wilkins, Jennifer - Cornell University; Guptill, Amy - Cornell University; Thompson, Joan - Pennsylvania State University; Carro, Viviana - University of Puerto Rico; Stevenson, Steve - University of Wisconsin-Madison

Brief Summary of Minutes

Website and email communication. The committee decided against a website for the new project and to establish a new listserv, to include continuing members and adding new members. Information about the project and membership will be on the NERA site.

County Food System Assessments:
Discussion focused on the many lessons learned from conducting county level food system assessments in the NE-185 project. The detailed county foodshed data collection completed in California was an invaluable process for developing a set of potential indicators available to stakeholder groups interested in conducting similar studies. The differences in methods for food system analyses in the states where they were done (particularly in Iowa and California) were discussed. The brevity and accessibility of the reports developed in Iowa provided another potentially useful model for other states to emulate. There was general agreement with the need for developing skills in facilitation and stakeholder involvement when conducting food system analysis and also reporting the findings to communities of interest in order to make the best use of the reports for food system planning. Plans for new project: Cross county comparisons of county food system analyses were discussed and the value of detailing the differences between the units of analysis. Develop facilitation methods for community involvement in food system assessments. Shift focus from food system to asset assessment and identification of key indicators. Identify fewer key dimensions (know better now what they were) and assemble more county-specific information, based on needs/assets of each county. Through a SARE grant PA, NY and NJ will conduct a project designed to facilitate structured community conversations on food systems, in order to bring awareness of food system issues and, hopefully, generate actions. This will involve a web-based survey of all extension counties on food system activities in their county.

Farm to School Projects:
Several states have become involved in farm-to-school work. This strategy for developing and sustaining local food systems will be a focus of the new project. This is also an opportunity to move up the scale to address unsustainable trends for middle-sized farmers as well as price issues, the role of food suppliers and distributors, and the involvement and development of grower cooperatives. The committee agreed that there is a need to engage faculty in business schools (and perhaps ag economists) in ways address these challenges. In NY a survey of college dining directors is getting underway soon. This will provide baseline information on practices, interest level and opportunities for developing farm to school links.

Food Origin/Identity Labeling:
Food labeling according to food origins (appellation) will be a more concentrated area of work in the new project with the goal of applying the European approach to the U.S. context. Policy and economic implications of labels of origin, and geographic criteria for use in identification and evaluation of food products will be investigated. Work has started in Missouri on a project funded by the Federal-State Market Improvement Program (FSMIP) that takes a bioregional, ecological perspective. GIS and IMPLAN will be used to investigate wineries, and a survey will be conducted to study networking with non-wine agricultural sectors in specific ecological regions. A survey of chefs and consumers to determine demand for and meanings behind local" foods is also underway.

Food System Impacts:
In Puerto Rico there is an opportunity to document and analyze impact of significant structural changes in food retailing and resistance to change, particularly the drive to establish of a Walmart food market. In NY and other states data sets for municipalities and other small localities are being assembled to examine impacts of a single alteration in local food systems such as the closing of a grocery story.

Outreach materials were developed to assist communities in developing local food systems. (Growing Home from the CU Community, Food and Agriculture Program).

Food System Vulnerabilities:
The new project will address issues of greater vulnerability caused by farm consolidation, food sovereignty (ongoing significance) versus food security (more static), territorial access, vulnerabilities of container shipping.

Potential forces:
Will include factors that affect local food systems, such as concerns about bio terrorism, but also state food policies, global economic changes, etc. One example shared from IA: recently when non-pork farmers filed suit against industrial pork producers for impacts of large pork producers on quality of life issues. Another example is lawsuit by Monsanto against farmer who has some of their genetically modified crops. Tom and Viviana are looking at local implications for re-configuration of food distributors.

Moving from description to examination:
In the new project we will engage in more evaluation, highlighting strengths and accomplishments but also commenting on shortcomings in constructive manner. There is a need to develop strategies for communicating limitations and failures in a way that is constructive and moves a project/effort forward.

Book Project:
Clare and Tom passed out a prospectus for a book that pulls together the scholarship of NE185/NE1012. Anticipate 8-9 articles, three substantive sections have similar themes with Kellogg Foundation's new program.

Mechanism for improving communication within NE-1012:
Discussed making more use of the new listserv and scheduling technical committee conference calls. First call tentatively scheduled for Wednesday, January 15. 2:30 EST, 1:30 CST, 11:30 PST, 3:30 Atlantic time. Joan Thomson is organizing.

Next Meeting:
Next meeting will be in Madison, WI, in Oct. 3-5 or Oct. 24-26 or Nov. 7-9, depending on football schedule (preference in reverse order). May arrange to have tour of Troy Gardens, which will require folks to come in Thursday evening. Meet Friday morning, tour gardens afternoon, meet all day Saturday.

2002-2003 Officers:
Len grudgingly agreed to be chair. Vivana will be vice chair. Clare will be secretary. Administrative advisor will be in touch with Len.

Possible new members:
Larry Lev, Tom Kelly, Bill Lacy, Stuart Smith, Marcie Ostrom. Mike Hamm will continue in new position at Michigan State. Also need to find out if Gerard or Ray Jussaume will continue. Lamented lack of someone from south. Steve will contact Nancy Kremer Clare will contact ISU grad who is now in Rhode Island. Beth will check with Mary Hendrickson to see if she can recommend others. Also want to include Sally Maggard, person who replaced Susan Welch (and others in USDA) on listserv.

Foci for coming year:
Pursue book project. Develop more constant communication medium for project.
Explore funding possibilities. A subgroup may involve certain parts of the project. But need to let folks know about plans to submit proposal in case others would like to get involved.
Include the effort coming out of sustainable ag centers to develop committee that will produce white paper on agriculture of the middle. Will be asking for funds from each of SARE regions, rural development centers, and other for planning grant (to write white paper). One idea is to develop third funding area in SARE. Kellogg seems interested in topic, although concern that they may go with idea in different direction.

Accomplishments

The regional research project, Consumers, Commodities, and Communities: Local Food Systems in a Globalizing Environment (NE-185), has developed and refined an array of protocols for studying the food systems of individual counties or regions in our respective states. The methodologies employ both quantitative and qualitative tools for gathering information about trends in the production, processing, distribution, access, and policy dimensions of the food system. Objective 1: New York developed a typology of food retail outlets based on size, annual sales, offerings, and ownership that consisted of four major retail store types and nine subtypes: hyperstore, conventional grocery, green grocery, and discount grocery. The retail store typology was used as the basis for a course taught at Rutgers University, and was employed in interviews of retail food stores in four counties in Iowa. New York researchers also examined consumption trends, dietary guidelines, and agricultural productions trends/capacity in the state. Analysis of the data was reported at a national meeting. In Kansas, interviews were conducted with stakeholders in alternative enterprises to the conventional food system. Pennsylvania researchers interviewed thirty-three county and municipal planners in eighteen counties in southern Pennsylvania to determine their involvement in food system issues, their interests in food systems, and openings for relationships with Extension. Minimal opportunities for Extension were found. A Masters thesis evaluated potential for local food relationships in Lopez Island in the San Juan archipelago of northwest Washington state. In addition, Iowa is conducting interviews with meat processing establishments, and Kansas continues to conduct research on the Common Ground Project in Topeka. Following an emerging issue for NE-185, the growth of urban and ethnically-oriented agri-food activity, researchers in Massachusetts surveyed farmers' market customers relative to the acceptance among Latino buyers of a larger-sized variety of Asian pepper. Analysts in New Jersey have focused on four related research projects associated with "food work skills," e.g., knowledge of local foods by school cafeteria workers, or relationships between cooking skills and nutritional health among college students. Missouri has also surveyed Kansas City restaurants' interests in buying locally, finding considerable interest in fresh vegetables. Other research from this institution focuses on place-based food labeling approaches, including comparative research in France, Spain, Belgium, and Canada. Social scientists at the University of Wisconsin have studied the opportunities and barriers to sourcing more local and organic food through the food services of the state's colleges and universities. Finally, Minnesota has done local coalition building, education and policy studies to develop support for increasing support for a stronger community food system. Objective 2: Despite the eventual low participation in this objective, considerable work was completed on commodity analyses in several states. In New Jersey, parameters were developed to analyze the local food commodity production by applying import substitution theory to initiatives for more localized food systems. In West Virginia analysis was conducted on both individual commodities and on commodity groups, at a systems level and within the context of a local food production system. Researchers in Iowa worked on pork production, focusing on this commodity chain in its four-county analyses. In Missouri, scientists are evaluating grass-fed beef and dairy systems with both environmental and economic criteria. Researchers from the University of Missouri have authored a recent study of the dairy processing sector. Research in West Virginia has focused on the economics of transitioning from conventional to organic vegetable systems, and on evaluations of small-scale aquaculture enterprises in the state. Taking a systems approach, this latter research is collecting data on the state's primary aquaculture enterprises, processors, alternative water sources, tourist destinations, and market outlets. An input/output analysis will be done to shed light on the economic impact of small-scale aquaculture in West Virginia. Researchers in Wisconsin continue to study alternative poultry production systems, with perspective being provided by evaluations of France's very successful "label rouge" labeling system for mid-scale poultry enterprises that are farmer controlled and vertically coordinated. Researchers at this institution are also beginning work with researchers in Nebraska on specialty cheese systems. Finally, scientists in New Jersey are studying small scale urban livestock systems, another example of the urban and ethnic agriculture theme introduced earlier. Objective 3: The principal accomplishment associated with Objective 3 has been the finishing of research protocols and the moving on to data collection and analysis. Strong efforts along these lines have occurred in California, New York, New Jersey, Iowa, Puerto Rico, Minnesota and Wisconsin. Researchers in California completed a foodshed data collection template that features nine types of indicators: demographic, environmental, agricultural resource base, food distribution network, economic productivity, food systems wages and employment, food consumption, community food security/food access, and education/advocacy/policy. In California foodshed reports were completed for 3 counties, with some of the data coming from a sister research project exploring the nature and impacts of farmers' markets. Work in Iowa focused on foodshed indicators as well (using the California template), food venture inventories (using the Wisconsin methodology), food retail store analysis (using the New York interview guide), and base line data collection on alternative food ventures in Audubon country to be used for a longitudinal study. Iowa developed additional elements for foodshed reports that help users interpret the implications of changes in measures such as the decline in diversity of agricultural production within a given county. The California template was also being applied to counties in Kansas. Participatory research with the Common Ground Project in Topeka continues in this state, guided by theoretical frameworks generated by other NE-185 participants. Using the California template, researchers did a food systems assessment of a 7 county area in Northeastern Minnesota. Work in Massachusetts focused on providing Integrated Pest Management (IPM) education for entry-level Asian farmers, and on developing markets for Asian crops. Particular attention has been paid to aji dulce peppers, an important ingredient in Puerto Rican and Dominican cuisine. Work in Missouri has focused on the development and support of urban farmers' markets and community gardens, as well as on the place-based labeling work and analyses of the larger food system described above. Researchers in New Jersey added two counties to their foodshed analysis and initiated a case study in Middlesex County of urban livestock agriculture, a largely underground activity. Findings from this study are to be used to engage urban planners and policy makers regarding the legitimization of these urban livestock systems. Research in both urban and rural counties of New York led to some interesting insights relative to the existence in both locales of "food deserts" and to the characteristics of an emerging and "civic agriculture." In Puerto Rico, foodshed analyses were conducted in the municipalities of Barranquitas (rural) and Caguas (urban), and work continues with community groups on the development of organic food cooperatives. West Virginia researchers have begun foodshed analyses of the U.S. Virgin Islands food system. The three islands closely approximate the rural, urban, and peri-urban classifications being used by other states working on Objective 3. Finally, researchers in Wisconsin engaged in an on-going monitoring of nearly sixty alternative food ventures in Dane county and comparisons between agricultural- and food security-based ventures in Milwaukee county. Objective 4: Outreach work in California and Iowa has focused on using the foodshed analyses to increase awareness and decision-making among stakeholders in the counties studied. Several important insights were gained in how to apply foodshed analysis to fostering and strengthening local food systems. Information from the research in Iowa was presented to a local food systems conference and featured in several Leopold Center publications. Researchers in both Iowa and Kansas used information generated from the project to educate Extension agents regarding local food systems issues through participation in a SARE Professional Development Project (PDP). In addition to authoring a major report on concentration in the food retail and dairy processing sectors, researchers in Missouri have focused their outreach activities on efforts associated with the Kansas City-based Food Circles Networking Project, consumer-farmer forums, community food security round tables, and computer data bases to help farmers market directly restaurants. Scientists in New Jersey developed at new course at Rutgers University entitled "Local Food Systems in a Globalizing Environment," and have collaborated with that university's Urban Ecology Program for student training purposes. Information associated with the project in New York has found its way into the Farming Alternatives newsletter, presentations to community groups, presentations at professional meetings, research reports, journal articles, and book chapters. Project participants from Pennsylvania have researched the coverage of agri-food issues in the state's daily newspapers. Additionally, these scientists have developed a new course for non-food majors at Penn State University entitled "Food Facts & Fads." Project participants from New York, California, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania have also collaborated on the IFAFS -funded project "From Farm to School: Improving Small Farm Viability and School Meals." Finally, two states have been involved with successful community festivals that focus on local food systems. Puerto Rico's efforts involved presenting information at a local food, crafts, and music festival held annually in Barranquitas during the harvest of celeriac, a specialty crop of the island's central region. For the second year, researchers in Wisconsin were among the primary organizers of a highly successful "Food for Thought" festival in October, done in collaboration with the Chefs Collaborative 2000, and associated with the Dane county farmer's market. During 2000, 2001 and 2002, researchers associated with NE-185 convened panel presentations and workshops at the joint meetings of the Agriculture, Food, and Human Values Society and the Association for the Study of Food and Society, occurring in June, 2001 in Minneapolis. Additionally, one of the panels was presented at the meetings of the Rural Sociological Association in Albuquerque, October 2001.

Publications

Abel, J. L. and J. S. Thomson. 2000. Food System Planning: A guide for county and municipal planners (4 pages). College of Agricultural Sciences, University Park, PA, 16802. Reprinted 2001 Abel, J., J. S. Thomson, and A. N. Maretzki. 2000. Food Matters: Evaluating the Participation of County, City, and Town Planners in Community Food Systems. Final Report, (11 pages plus appendices), November. Northeast Regional Center for Rural Development. Abel, J.L., J.S. Thomson, and A.N. Maretzki. 1999. Extension's Role with Farmers' Markets: Working with Farmers, Consumers, and Communities. Journal of Extension, 37 (5) 5 pages. October http://www.joe.org/joe/1999october/a4.html Abel, J.L. and J.S. Thomson. 2000. Working with Planners on Community Food System Issues: A guide for community organizations (4 pages). Available from the Penn State College of Agriculture Publication Distribution Center, 112 Agricultural Administration Building, Penn State University, University Park, PA, 16802. Abel, J. and J.S. Thomson. 2000. Assessing the Involvement of Pennsylvania Professional Planners in Food System Activities. Abstracts: Millennial Stews: Food and Food Systems in the Global City. Joint annual meeting of Agriculture, Food, and Human Values Society (AFHVS) and the Association for the Study of Food, and Society (ASFS), New York, NY, p. 3, June 2. Adamchak, Donald J., Bloomquist, Leonard E., Bausman, Kent, Qureshi, Rashida. 1999. Consequences of Population Change for Retail/Wholesale Sector Employment in the Non-metropolitan Great Plains: 1950-1996. Rural Sociology, Vol. 64 (March): 92-112. Barham, Elizabeth. 2001. Translating 'Terroir': Social Movement Appropriation of a French Concept. Invited paper presented at the workshop, International Perspectives on Alternative Agro-Food Networks: Quality, Embeddedness, and Bio-Politics, held at the University of California, Santa Cruz, October. Baase, Karen Ann. 2000. Production agriculture in Madison County, New York: An industry in transition. Unpublished thesis. Cornell University. Ithaca, NY. Bellows, A.C. and M.W. Hamm. International Origins of Community Food Security Policies and Practices in the U.S. (Submitted to Critical Public Health; under review). Bellows, AC, V. Robinson, J. Guthrie, T. Meyer, N. Peric, and MW Hamm. Urban Livestock Agriculture in the State of New Jersey, USA. Urban Agriculture Magazine. Vol. 1(2), p. 8-9 (also available at http://www.ruaf.org/). Bellows, A.C. and M.W. Hamm. 2000. Syllabus for Local Food Systems in a Globalizing Environment. D. Myhre, N.Davis, and A. Bentley (eds.) Agriculture, Food, and Society Syllabi and Course Materials Collection: 2000 Edition. http://www.princeton.edu/~dmyhre/syllabi.htm: Agriculture, Food, and Human Values Society (AFHVS) and the Association for the Study of Food and Society (ASFS). Bellows, A.C. The Praxis of Food Work in Marianne DeKoven (ed.) Feminist Locations: Global/Local/Theory/Practice in the Twenty-First Century. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. (In press, 2001) Bellows, A.C. and M.W. Hamm. Local Autonomy and Sustainable Development: Testing Import Substitution in Local Food Systems. Agriculture and Human Values. (Late 2001) Bellows, AC, V. Robinson, J. Guthrie, T. Meyer, N. Peric, and MW Hamm. Extant, Yet Invisible: Urban Livestock Agriculture in New Jersey. Submitted to Middle States Geographer. Benedict, Abbey. 2001. The CLEAR Eco-Label: Finding Partner Organizations and Developing a Message for Consumers. Unpublished thesis. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY. Bloomquist, Leonard E., and Williams, Duane D. 2002. From Dust Bowl to Green Circles: A Restudy of Haskell County, Kansas. In Al Luloff and Richard Krannich (eds.), Persistence and Change in Rural Communities: A Fifty Year Follow-Up to Six Classic Studies. Wollingford, England: CABI Publishing. Bloomquist, Leonard E., Oehme, Frederick W., Pontius, Jeffrey S. (2001). The Prevalence of Cancer and Neurological Diseases in Scott County. Unpublished research report. Campbell, David and Gail Feenstra. 2001. A Local Partnership for Sustainable Food and Agriculture: the Case of PlacerGROWN in Mark R. Daniels (Ed.) Creating Sustainable Community Programs: A Casebook for Public Administrators. Praeger Publishers, Westport, CT. Carro Figueroa, V. and Weathers, G. Livelihood Strategies of Farming Operations in Puerto Rico's Central Region: Survival in the Context of Economic Restructuring and Policy Change. Book chapter submitted for publication in: Falk, Schulman and Tickamayer (eds.) Communities of Work: Rural Restructuring in Local and Global Contexts. Ohio State University Press. Carro-Figueroa, Vivian and Carmen Alamo-Gonzalez. Cambio en la estructura agrmcola de la regisn central de Puerto Rico: tipos de finca y caractermsticas de sus operaciones; Ag. Exp. Station Bulletin; Approved for publication. D'Souza, G.E. and T.G. Gebremedhin. 1998. Sustainability in Agricultural and Rural Development. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate Publishing Co. D'Souza, Gerard. USVI Agriculture: Structure and Trends, 1987-97 Census Data. Working paper. D'Souza, Gerard. Comparison of Agricultural Production and Consumer Food Expenditure Patterns in the Virgin Islands: Implications for Marketing. Working paper. Davis, Z. N. and J. S. Thomson. 2001. Credit Card Use among Low-Income Households and the Role of Extension Programming. 15 pp. Journal of Extension. September. Davis, Z. N. and J.S. Thomson. 2000. Credit Card Use In our Supermarkets: What Are the Impacts on Urban Food Security? Department of Agricultural and Extension Education, Penn State University, University Park, PA. Donaldson, J.L. and J.S. Thomson. 1999. Interpersonal Communication Strengthens Web-Based Instruction. Journal of Applied Communications, 83 (3) 22-32. Eggerling, K. and H. Murray. 2001. Northland Food and Farming Initiative: Food Systems Assessment. Report available from the Minnesota Institute for Sustainable Agriculture, U of MN. Feenstra, Gail and Christopher Lewis. 1999. Farmers' markets offer new business opportunities for farmers. California Agriculture. 53(6): 25-29. Feenstra, Gail and Kozloff, Robin. 2000, June. Increasing connections between farmers and communities in Stanislaus and Merced counties. Davis, CA: UC Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program. Fidler, Frank. The Economics of Trout Production in West Virginia, M.S. thesis, West Virginia University (forthcoming). Fincham, Ryan. The Economics of Aquaculture Processing in West Virginia, M.S. thesis, West Virginia University (forthcoming). Godfrey, R.W. and G.E. D'Souza. 2001. Hair Sheep Production in the US Virgin Islands: Management Practices and Economic Analysis. Agricultural Experiment Station, University of the Virgin Islands, St. Croix. Guptill, A. y Carro Figueroa, V. 2001. La situacisn agrmcola de Barranquitas, PR. Leaflet printed and distributed in the seminar on Direct Marketing Alternatives for Small and Mid-sized farmers, Barranquitas, PR, July 5. Guptill, Amy E. and Jennifer L. Wilkins. 2000. Buying Into the Food System: Trends in Food Retailing in the U.S., and Implications for Local Foods. Agriculture and Human Values 19: 39-51.l. Hage, Rachel. Building Community Within a Local Foodshed: An Expoloratory Case Study of an Alternative Food System. Unpublished M.A. Thesis. Kansas State University. Hamm, M.W. Farmland, Farms, Farming, and Farmers: The Four F's of Food Production Gastronomique, Spring (2001) p.27-31. Hamm, M.W. and Bellows, A.C. Community food security and nutrition educators. (Submitted to Journal of Nutrition Education, Viewpoint Section; under review). Hamm, MW and M. Baron. 2000. Systemes alimentaires integres et durables en milieu urbain: l'exemple du New Jersey, aux Etats-Unis. in Mustafa Koc, Rod MacRae, Luc J.A. Mougeot, Jennifer Welsh (eds.) Armer les Villes contre la Faim: Systemes Alimentaires Urbains Durables. Centre de recherches pour le development international and The Centre for Studies in Food Security, Ryerson Polytechnic University. pp. 58-63. Harmon, A. H. 2000. Building youth awareness about the food system: Putting research to work for educators. Kids Can Make a Difference, a program of World Hunger Year (WHY). Levine, J. F and Levine, L., eds. Winter 2001:Vol. 6 (1)10-11. Harmon, A. H., Stefanou, S. E, and Zoumas, B. L. 2001. Definitions of food and agricultural systems. Submitted to United Nations Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems, January. Harmon, A.H. 1999. Food System Knowledge, Attitudes and Experiences. Ph.D. Dissertation, Intercollege Graduate Program in Nutrition, Department of Food Science, Penn State University, University Park, PA. Harmon, A.H., R.S. Harmon, and A.N. Maretzki. 1999. The Food System: Building Youth Awareness through Involvement (142 pages). Available from the Penn State College of Agricultural Sciences Publication Distribution Center, 112 Agricultural Administration Building, Penn State University, University Park, PA 16802. This guidebook is for parents and educators who carry out community youth development programs (AGRS-79: $15.). Harmon, A. H. and A.N. Maretzki. Youth Awareness About the Food System: A Pilot Study and Interviews. Submitted to Journal of Extension. Harmon, A.H. and A.N. Maretzki. Case Studies Of Food System Awareness Among Youth. Submitted to Journal of Extension. Harmon, A.H. and A.N. Maretzki. Food System Knowledge, Attitudes And Experiences: Results from a Survey of High School Students in Pennsylvania. In progress. Harmon, A.H. 1999. Food System Knowledge, Attitudes and Experiences. Ph.D. Dissertation, Intercollege Graduate Program in Nutrition, Department of Food Science, Penn State University, University Park, PA. Harmon, A.H. 2000. Assessing Food System Knowledge and Attitudes among Youth: Survey Design and Evaluation. Proceedings of Society for Nutrition Education Annual Meeting, Charleston, SC, p. 35, July 25. Harmon, A.H. 2000. Involving Youth in the Food System. Second Annual Future of Our Food and Farms Summit. Philadelphia, PA, (90 minutes), November 30. Hinrichs, C. Clare and Kathy S. Kremer. 2002. Social Inclusion in a Midwest Local Food System Project. Journal of Poverty 6(1): 65-90. Hinrichs, Clare. 2001. The Experiences and Views of Iowa Farmers' Market Vendors: Summary of Research Findings. Iowa State University, Department of Sociology. April. 4 pp. (available at: <www.soc.iastate.edu/Extension/ExtPubs.htm>; also reprinted in Iowa Cafi: Resource and Workshop Manual on Community Agriculture and Food Enterprises). Hinrichs, C. Clare. 2000. Embeddedness and local food systems: Notes on two types of direct agricultural market. Journal of Rural Studies 16: 295-303. Hinrichs, Clare. 2001. Observations and Concerns of Iowa Farmers' Market Managers: Summary of Research Findings. Iowa State University, Department of Sociology. April. 2 pp. (available at: <www.soc.iastate.edu/Extension/ExtPubs.htm>; also reprinted in Iowa Cafi: Resource and Workshop Manual on Community Agriculture and Food Enterprises). Hinrichs, Clare and Julie Tranquilla. 1998. A Multiple Stakeholder View of the Potential for Hoop Structures in Iowa Swine Production. Pp. 711-716 in Proceedings of the Conference on Animal Production Systems and the Environment, Vol. II. Des Moines, IA, July 19-22. Hinrichs, Clare. 1998. Sideline and Lifeline: The Cultural Economy of Maple Syrup Production. Rural Sociology 63(4): 507-532. Jussaume, Raymond A. Jr., Theresa Selfa, and Andrew Thomson. 2001. Gurobaruka no Moto de no Rokaru Agurifudo Shisutemu. (Local Agri-Food Systems Within the Context of Globalization) pp. 253-270 in Sugiyama, Michio and Isshin Nakano. Gurobarizashon to KokusaiNougyou Shijo. (Globalization and International Agricultural Marketing) Tsukuba, Japan: Tsukuba Shobo. Jussaume, Raymond A. Jr. and Lorie Higgins. 1998. Attitudes Towards Food Safety and The Environment: A Comparison of Consumers In Japan and The U.S. Rural Sociology. 63(3):394-411.} King, Shawn and Gail Feenstra. 2001 (October). Placer County Foodshed Report. Davis, California: University of California Sustainable Agriculture Research & Education Program. Kloppenburg, Jack Jr., Sharon Lezberg, Kathryn De Master, G. W. Stevenson, and John Hendrickson. 2000. Tasting Food, Tasting Sustainability: Defining the Attributes of an Alternative Food System with Competent, Ordinary People. Human Organization. Vol. 59, No.2: 177-185. Kloppenburg, Jack, Jr. 2000. Lettuce, Love, and Locality. Just Eating (Spring): 1-2. Lezberg, Sharon and Kathy De Master. 2000. The Foodshed Directory: A Compendium of Sustainable Farm and Food Organizations Serving Dane County, Wisconsin. The Wisconsin Foodshed Research Project, Occasional Paper No. 1. Lewis, Christopher. 2001, May. The Saturday Stockton Certified Farmers' Market: An Urban Community Market. Davis, CA: UC Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program. 2001. Lewis, Christopher. 2000, March. A case study of the Laytonville Farmers' Market: A rural community market. Davis, CA: UC Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program. Lewis, Christopher. 2000, March. A case study of the Laytonville Farmers' Market: A rural community market. Davis, CA: UC Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program. Lyson, Thomas A. (forthcoming). Advanced agricultural biotechnologies and sustainable agriculture. Trends in Biotechnology. Lyson, Thomas A., Robert Torres, and Rick Welsh. 2001. Scale of agricultural production, civic engagement and community welfare. Social Forces 80:311-327. Lyson, Thomas A. 2001. The promise of a more civic agriculture. Catholic Rural Life 43(2):40-43. Lyson, Thomas A. 2001. How do agricultural scientists view advanced biotechnologies? Chemical Innovation 31(4):50-53. Lyson, Thomas A. and Judy Green. 1999. The agricultural marketscape: A framework for sustaining agriculture and communities in the Northeast. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 15(2/3): 133-150. Lyson, Thomas A. and Annalisa Lewis Raymer. 2000. Stalking the wily multinational: Power and control in the U.S. food system. Agriculture and Human Values, 17:199-208. Lyson, Thomas A., Amy Guptill, and Gilbert W. Gillespie. 2000. Community engagement and dairy farm performance: A study of farm operators in upstate New York. Research in Rural Sociology and Development 8:309-323. Lyson, Thomas A. (forthcoming). Moving toward civic agriculture. Choices. Lyson, Thomas A. and Elizabeth Barham.1998. Civil Society and Agricultural Sustainability. Social Science Quarterly, 79(3): 554-567. Lyson, Thomas A., Charles C. Geisler, and Charles Schlough. 1998. Preserving Community Agriculture in a Global Economy. Pp. 181-216, in R.K. Olson and T.A. Lyson (eds.), Under the Blade: The Conversion of Agricultural Landscapes. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press. Mangan, F., R. Hazzard, and K. Johnson. 2001. Asian crops for Massachusetts. New England Direct Marketing conference. Nasua NH, February 27, 2001. Mangan, F., C. Kozower, A. Barker, W. Bramlage, H. Costello, M. Anderson, J. Baranek, L. Sullivan Werner, D. Anziani, F. Caminero, K. Johnson, M. Pearson, D. Webber. 1999. Effects of Organic Soil Ammendments, Seeding Density, Cultivar Selection, and Postharvest Practices on Cilantro (Coriandum sativum L) Yield and Quality. Proc. 1999 Proceedings of the Interamerican Society for Tropical Horticulture. Interamer. Soc. Trop. Soc. In Press. Mangan, F. A. Carter, M. Mazzola, M. Rulevich, R. Hazzard, R. Bernatzky, M.Pearson, A. Smith, J.Baranek, P. Harmsen, L. Dow, M. Anderson, L. Colangione, D.Webber, P. Belanger, C. Touchette, and P. Fischer. 2000. The Introduction of Latino Crops to Farmers in the State of Massachusetts, USA. 1998 Proceedings of the Interamerican Society for Tropical Horticulture. pp. 391-393. Maretzki, Audrey N. 2000. Our Food - Our Future: Sustainability and Impact of Selected Community Food Projects (13 pages plus Executive Summary). Submitted to USDA/CSREES. Available from the author anm1@psu.edu or Elizabeth Tuckermanty, ETUCKERMANTY@intranet.reeusda.gov. December. Thomson, J. S. and A. N. Maretzki. 2001. Expanding the Dialogue About the Food System: Using a Media Forum to Enhance Communications Among Food System Stakeholders. Year 3 Final Project Report. (7 pages plus appendices), February. Keystone 21 PA Food System Professions Education, W.K. Kellogg Foundation. Maretzki, A. N and J. S. Thomson. 2000. Edible Connections: Changing the Way We Talk About Food, Farm, and Community Strategic Action Plan (10 pages). Penn State College of Agricultural Sciences, University Park, PA. December. Maretzki, Audrey N., Jennifer Wilkins and Elizabeth Tuckermanty 2001. Our Food - Our Future. A community food security video (27 minutes). Produced and directed by Frances Mc Elroy, Shirley Road Productions, Narberth, PA. Available from Penn State Ag Sciences ICT, lah1@psu.edu or Cornell University resctr@cornell.edu for $19.95. (NY residents must add 8% sales tax if ordering from Cornell). Video highlights four community food projects in the Northeast (WV, NJ, NY, PA). For further information, check <www.whyy.org/ourfood>. Accompanying educational materials are under development. Maretzki, A.N. and J. Wilkins. Community Food Projects in the Northeast. Funding from W.K. Kellogg Foundation in cooperation with CSREES/USDA. In production by Shirley Road Productions, Philadelphia PA. This 27-minute video, which is being produced for possible PBS distribution, highlights community food security projects in New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. Maretzki, A.N., S. Nunnery, L. Wolf, and J. Greenstone. 2000. Edible Connections. Second Annual Future of Our Food and Farms Summit. Philadelphia, PA, (90 minutes), December 1. Maretzki, A.N. and S. Nunnery. 2000. Edible Connections: A Model to Facilitate Dialogue on Community Food Security. Community Food Security Coalition 4th Annual Conference. Santa Fe, NM, (90 minutes), October 30. Miller, Dan. A GIS Data Base for Spring and Mine Water Sources in West Virginia, Division of Resource Management, West Virginia University. Working paper. Nelson, Mary Katherine. 2000. Characterizing a food system: An analysis of the food and nutrition system of Tompkins County, New York. Unpublished thesis. Cornell University. Ithaca, NY. Norman, D.W., Bloomquist, L.E., Janke, R., Freyenberger, S., Jost, J., Schurle, B.W., and Kok, H. 2000. The Meaning of Sustainable Agriculture: Reflections of Some Kansas Practitioners. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture, Vol. 15: 126-133. Nunnery, S., J. S. Thomson, and A. N. Maretzki. 2000. Edible Connections: Changing the Way We Talk About Food, Farm, and Community: A Planning Guide for Conducting a Food Communications Forum (40 pages; 12:30 minute video). <http://agexted.cas.psu.edu/faculty/Flyer.pdf>. Available from the Penn State College of Agricultural Sciences Publication Distribution Center, 112 Agricultural Administration Building, University Park, PA 16802 (MISC-15: $30). Olson, Richard K. and Thomas A. Lyson (eds.). 1998. Under the Blade: The Conversion of Agricultural Landscapes. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Olson, Richard, Alan Olson, and Thomas A. Lyson. 1998. AA National Policy for Farmland Preservation. Pp. 247-268 in R.K. Olson and T.A. Lyson (eds.), Under the Blade: The Conversion of Agricultural Landscapes. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press. Mangan, F. C. Casey, A. Rogers, C. Rounds, R. Hazzard, C. Anderson, M. Verson, R. vanDriesche, K. Stoner, K. Johnson, J. Bosch, H. Joseph, A. Heiderman, S. Sun, H. Merheb, J. Patton, E. Grossman, P. Fischer, K. Graham, and D. Webber. 2002. Production and Marketing Activities on Asian Crops in Massachusetts, USA. Proceedings of the Interamerican Society for Tropical Horticulture 47th Meeting. Morelos, Mexico. Pp. 98-103. Peters, Christian J., Nelson Bills, Jennifer L. Wilkins, and David Smith. 2002. Vegetable Consumption, Dietary Guidelines and Agricultural Production in New York State - Implications for Local Food Economies. Report Series from Applied Economics and Management, Cornell University. Podoll, Heather. 2000, March. A case study of the Davis Farmers' Market: Connecting farms and community. Davis, CA: UC Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program. Raymond A. Jussaume Jr., Theresa Selfa and Andrew Thomson. (forthcoming) Local Agri-Food Systems within the Context of Globalization: Theoretical and Empirical Reflections. Sugiyama, Michio and Isshin Nakano (eds). Globalization and International Agricultural Marketing. Tsukuba, Japan: Tsukuba Shobo. Robinson, R., C. Smith, H. Murray, J. Ennis. Psychosocial and Sociodemographic Factors Associated with Consumer Purchases of Sustainably Produced Foods. Abstract, Society for Nutrition Education, July 2001 Annual Meeting. Robinson, R., C. Smith, H. Murray, J. Ennis. 2001. Associations Between Consumer Health Consciousness and Purchases of Sustainably Produced Foods. Poster presentation. AFHV/ASFS Annual Meeting. June 7-10, 2001, Minneapolis, MN Robinson, R., C. Smith, H. Murray, and J. Ennis. 2002. Promotion of Sustainably Produced Foods: Customer Response in Minnesota Grocery Stores. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture. Volume 17:2 San, Nu Nu. Economic Impacts of the Aquaculture Industry in West Virginia, Division of Resource Management, West Virginia University. Working paper. Sharp, Julie T. and C. Clare Hinrichs. 2001. Farmer Support for Publicly Funded Sustainable Agriculture Research: The Case of Hoop Structures for Swine. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 16(2): 81-88. Smith, J.A. and A. Maretzki. 2000. Citizen Dialogue: A Guidebook about One Group's Experience (61 pages). Available from the Department of Food Science, 205 Borland, Penn State University, University Park, PA, 16802. Stevenson, G. W., Sharon Lezberg, and Kathryn Ruhf. Warrior, Builder, and Weaver Work: Exploring Resistance Activities in Modern Food Systems. Draft. Stringer, S. B. and J. S. Thomson. 2001. The Importance of Agricultural News. Proceedings of Agricultural Communicators in Education Research Paper Presentations, Toronto, Canada. p. 71-79, July 30. Stringer S.B. 1999. The Gatekeeping Effect of Agricultural News: An Evaluation of Sources. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Agricultural and Extension Education, Penn State University, University Park, PA. Stringer, S.B. and J.S. Thomson. 2000. Sources of Agricultural News: An Evaluation by Pennsylvania Media. Proceedings of the Agricultural Communicators in Education (ACE) Research Paper Presentations, Washington, DC, p. 37-52, July 25. Stringer, S.B. and J.S. Thomson. 2000. An Applied Approach to Public Education and Outreach: Meeting Criteria for Local Media. Proceedings of the Eastern Regional Adult Education Research Conference, K.P. King and T.R. Ferro, editors. University Park, PA, p. 221-226, March 17. Stringer, S.B. 1999. An Evaluation of Sources of Agricultural News by Pennsylvania Daily Newspaper Reporters and Editors workshop. Cooperative Extension Annual Conference, University Park, PA, (40 minutes), November 18. Thomson, J. S., J. L. Abel, and A. N. Maretzki. 2001. Edible Connections: A Model to Facilitate Citizen Dialogue and Build Community Collaboration. Journal of Extension, 39:2 April (4 pages) <http://www.joe.org/joe/2001april/a5.html>. Thomson, J. S., J. L. Abel, and A. N. Maretzki. 2001. Edible Connections: A Model for Citizen Dialogue Used to Discuss Local Food, Farm, and Community Issues. Journal of Applied Communications, 85:1: 25-42 (March). Thomson, J.S. and S.B. Stringer. 2000. First-Year Seminar: Using Technology to Explore Professional Issues and Opportunities Across Locations. Journal of General Education, 49 (1) 66-73. Thomson, J.S. and A.N. Maretzki. 1999. Expanding the Dialogue About the Food System: Using a Media Forum to Enhance Communications Among Food System Stakeholders. Keystone 21 Year 2 Project Summary (7 pages plus appendices) November. Thomson, J.S., J.L. Abel, and A.N. Maretzki. Edible Connections: A Tool to Stimulate Public Discourse on Food, Farm, and Community. Submitted to Journal of Applied Communications. Thomson, J.S., J.L. Abel, and A.N. Maretzki. Edible Connections: A Model to Facilitate Citizen Dialogue on Food System Issues. Submitted to Journal of Extension. Thomson, J.S. and S.B. Stringer. 2000. First-Year Seminar: Using Technology to Explore Professional Issues and Opportunities Across Locations. Journal of General Education, 49 (1) 66-73. Thomson, J.S., J. Abel, and A.N. Maretzki. 2000. Edible Connections: A Model for Community-Based Education on the Food System. Preprints for Second Congress of the European Society for Agricultural and Food Ethics (EuroSafe 2000) Paul Robinson, editor; Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, Copenhagen, Denmark, p. 263-266, August 26. Thomson, J.S. and A.N. Maretzki. 2000. Edible Connections: A Planning Guide for Conducting a Food Communications Forum. Educational session, American Association of Family and Consumer Sciences, Chicago, IL, June 25. Thomson, J.S. and A.N. Maretzki. 2000. Edible Connections: Building Partnerships to Create Best Practices. Outreach and Cooperative Extension Systemwide Conference, University Park, PA, (60 minutes), February 8. Thomson, J.S., A.N. Maretzki, S. Nunnery, and S.B. Stringer. 1999. Edible connections: Forging Linkages Among Universities and Local Communities. Best Practices in Outreach and Public Service Conference, University Park, PA, October 12. Thomson, Andrew. 2000. Assessing the Potential Sustainability of the Local Food System on Lopez Island, Washington: A Case Study. Master of Science Thesis in Environmental Science: Washington State University.

Impact Statements

<li>The foodshed data collection template designed in California has been used in several other counties in the state interested in the connections between alternative agriculture, agri-tourism, and rural economic development.<li>This template will be used, through the Wallace Institute, in a project in Kentucky to revitalize rural counties formerly dependent on tobacco (fifty percent of Kentucky's share of the "tobacco settlement" money (3.45 billion dollars over twenty-five years) will be inv
olved).<li>Researchers associated with the project in Iowa have been asked to do an educational evaluation of a state-supported direct marketing venture, building baseline data for ongoing monitoring and evaluation.<li>Researchers in Kansas, Missouri, Iowa, and Minnesota have been involved in SARE PDP programs to educate Extension agents about the dynamics and benefits of local food systems.<li>Missouri scientists have also created computer databases to help farmers market to restaurants, and Ma
ssachusetts researchers have conducted applied market research that indicated acceptance of larger sized peppers grown by Asian farmers.<li>Missouri scientists studying place-based labeling systems have served as consultants to the state's Department of Agriculture and to new labeling organizations like the Midwest Food Alliance.<li>Knowledge generated by the project in New Jersey has been used to inform youth training programs designed to teach entrepreneurial skills related to vegetable produ
ction and sales.<li>Researchers in New Jersey are preparing to discuss with city planners and policy makers about the implications of research conducted on urban livestock production.<li>Project participants from Wisconsin are working directly with representatives from the Dane county executive's office on projects related to organizing farmers' markets in low income areas of Madison, and to sourcing more locally and organically grown food through the food services of county institutions.<li>R
esearchers in Puerto Rico continue to work with local farmers and consumers to organize organic food cooperatives, and have initiated new collaborations with scientists from West Virginia to apply some of these rural development strategies to the U.S. Virgin Islands.<li>Interest has been generated in the role of alternative agriculture in rural economic development and with other organizations involved in national food policy programs.<li>Information from the project has also been used in state-
wide agricultural publications, a range of reports, and professional articles and book chapters (See publications section).<li>Attempts were made to involve local non-governmental organizations in developing the methodologies, identifying key community stakeholders, and gathering data. The involvement of these groups was sought in order to ensure that the results of the project be disseminated widely and that the information is used. This effort will be strengthened in the subsequent project - N
E-1012.<li>Research conducted in Kansas included an assessment of how a community food systems project funded by USDA SARE can be organized effectively.<li>Research conducted in Kansas demonstrated how social science research procedures can be applied to evaluate the impact of USDA SARE funds on community food systems.