Brief Summary of Minutes of Annual Meeting

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.)

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.

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) .

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).