good food for good people: a field guide for better food practices

7/28/2019 Good Food for Good People: A Field Guide for Better Food Practices

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/good-food-for-good-people-a-field-guide-for-better-food-practices 1/53



A thesis in partial ull lment o the requirements or thedegree o Master o Science in Communications DesignSchool o Art and Design Pratt Institute

May 2013

Received and appRoved by

Antonio DiSpigna, Thesis Advisor Date

Je Bellantoni, Chairperson Date

ReseaRch,wRiting and design : Sarah Elizabeth S. Greene

typefaces: FuturaICG, ITC Caslon 224



TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER I

Too Big to Succeed? Success and Failure of theAmerican Food Industry

Birth o the American Food Industry Politics o Food

Price o Progress

CHAPTER II

Lost in the Supermarket: The Dissociation ofConsumers from Daily Food Items

A Star Is Born: History o the American Supermarket Price o Convenience

CHAPTER III

Building a Solution, Online Opportunities forConsumers and Small Business

Direction or Visual Solution Case Studies

CONCLUSION

I-IV

2

3

21

43

7

27

51

11

20

42

79



I II

I struggle to make decisions every day.

Shopping in the supermarket is a major

source o my indecision. Are these garlic cloves resh, how ar did they travel to

reach the shel? Which bag o rozen peas

is cheaper per volume, the hal-pound

or ull-pound? Which sorts o pesticides

were used on these beesteak tomatoes,

how much is the person paid who picked

them, is he or she treated well during the

workday? The supermarket is a physical

maniestation o inormation overload and, in our digital era, this overload has

become prevalent.

My indecision is rooted in an odd coupling o knowing too much and knowing too little. Over theyears I have learned a great deal about how to makesustainable, healthy, and humane ood choices. With all this knowledge, I still nd mysel lost in thesupermarket aisles. Many important questions are

INTRODUCTION

let unanswered, as there is little transparency in oodproduction. We live in an incomplete system, one thatdoes not utilize the best eatures made possible by digital

platorms. Through interactive design, we can harness theoverwhelming sea o inormation, and direct consumersto more transparent methods o ood production.

Over the years I have also struggled with whatto eat. Experimenting with a variety o diets, I’vebeen an omnivore, vegan, vegetarian, fexitarian,and pescatarian. Recently, I made my way back tovegetarianism and rom there I went back, ull circle tobecome a vegan that eats bivalves. Through the yearsI’ve been overweight, underweight, and everywherein between. I’ve been anemic, protein deprived, andhave elt run down and lousy. Today I take great careto choose delicious and healthy meals as oten aspossible. My main aim is satisaction. I work to getcomplete proteins, iron, calcium, and B12. Physically,I eel the best I have in memory and I owe it all toeducated decisions. My diet is not healthy because o its “ore,” “an,” or “ism,” it is healthy because o myvigilant goal to eat balanced meals. This balance can



III IV

HYPOTHESIS

come rom a wide range o sources. Single notes orindividual ingredients do not have long lasting eectson your body, what truly matters is the way these notesharmonize with one another and whether they work tocreate a symphony o good, lielong ood choices. Theimportance o this balance makes understanding what

we eat an essential part o our daily decisions.

Today’s consumer is disassociated rom the ood theypurchase. When buying items in the supermarket, thenarrative behind the production o various optionscan oten be misleading and even nonexistent. Thesupermarket shopper is let with an end product andtheir imagination. This disassociation is problematicbecause Americans’ ood habits have deep impactson sustainability, public health, and animal welare. Modern changes to the Amer ican ood industry

have greatly contributed to global climate change,deorestation, and water contamination. Over nutritionhas caused epidemic rates o obesity and type-IIdiabetes as well as other chronic diet-related healthproblems such as heart conditions and stroke. Thestandard treatment o animals as commodities hasled to inhumane conditions in the mass connement,transportation, and slaughter o livestock. Bydeveloping these ood habits, Americans have not onlycaused damage nationwide, a standard has been set

which developing countries strive to emulate. Thesebehaviors must be reversed as soon as possible beorethese issues o sustainability, public health, and animalwelare are pushed to the breaking point.

Through the use o innovative design, Americans canbe reintroduced to the ood they consume. Theremust be transparency in production and this is madepossible through a thoughtul and direct connectionbetween vendors and purchasers. Through study o thepast, present, and desired conditions o the currentood industry and the supermarket construct, a un,easy to use, and inormative network can be developedor online and mobile use. This tool will al low theuser to connect directly with ood products. Today’sconsumer increasingly strives to be more consciouso the products they purchase and there is a great

demand or commercial transparency. Creating alarge network o local ood producers will also supporta grassroots structure o small businesses—a vitalpart o the American economy. Providing a local oodnetwork that acilitates access to products outside o the supermarket—the point o most ood purchases—will pave the way or more sustainable, healthy, andhumane ood choices. This network will support thechange that must bloom across the United States and,hopeully, around the globe.

HYPOTHESIS

The average American has

become disassociated from the

food they consume. Through

the use of innovative design,

new and powerful connections can be forged with our food.



TOO BIG TO SUCCEED?

THE SUCCESSES AND FAILURES OFTHE AMERICAN FOOD INDUSTRY



3 4

Food production is a simple matter o

arithmetic; total population must equal less

than the total amount Earth can support. Malthusian theory proposes that population

growth, i let unrestrained, will exceed our

ability to produce ood and other means

necessary or survival. So, i these matters

o balance are so simple, why do ood crises

occur time and time again?

At the turn o the 19th Century, Thomas Malthusaddressed the potential or population to grow

exponentially. A rapidly increasing population thatcorrelated with the beginning o the IndustrialRevolution inspired his theory. Through the combineduse o ossil uels, streamlined methods o production,and chemical ertilizer, the increasing demands onood production were met. Industrialism continued tofourish and the growth o population kept pace untilanother breaking point was reached ater WWII. Scienceand advances in technology were once again soughtater to nd a solution. The Green Revolution was this

SECTION A

BIRTH OF THE AMERICANFOOD INDUSTRY

solution and while able to stave o hunger, it proved tobe another temporary x. Once again, population hasrisen, surging to new levels, and we ace an additionalbreaking point. From the 1960s to the start o the 21stCentury, the global population has doubled, rising romapproximately 3 billion to more than 6 billion (Mosier,4). It is clear that while generations have managed toside step Malthusian results, this possible consequence

continues to loom increasingly closer. I new, longlasting, and sustainable solutions are not developed, thisend will become a reality.

The origin o chemicalertilizer, which was sointegral to the aversiono previous ood crises,can be credited to workcompleted by the chemistJustus von Liebig in

19th Century. The basisbehind his development isrooted in the concept thatagricultural practices areable to deplete nutrientsin the soil. Liebig made atwoold discovery—rst,nitrogen is essential orplant growth; second,when ertilizer is

inused with nitrogen, ittransorms soil that was once depleted o nutrients andunable to support crops into soil that supports the quickand hearty growth o crops.

While these developments supported ood productionduring the 19th Century, the Green Revolutionrequired more advanced ertilizer in order toaccommodate an even larger demand. According to Agr iculture and the Nitrogen Cycle, “The principal

Justus von Liebig



5 6

technology used to produce nitrogen (N) ertilizertoday is traced to the Haber–Bosch synthesis o ammonia. The rst ammonia plant using thistechnology began operating in 1913, but inorganic Nertilizer use did not begin to expand dramaticallyuntil a ter World War II” (Mosier, 233). Without theseadvancements made during the beginning o the 20thCentury, the increased demand or ood ollowing

WWII would not have been able to be met.

The Green Revolution was also made possible throughthe combined use o the hybridization o corn andother crops. According to a journal article recentlyeatured in Science Magazine, Food Security: TheChallenge o Feeding 9 Billion People, the GreenRevolution also “succeeded by using conventionalbreeding to develop F1 hybrid varieties o maize andsemi-dwar, disease-resistant varieties o wheat andrice. These varieties could be provided with more

irrigation and ertilizer without the risk o majorcrop losses due to lodging (alling over) or severe rustepidemics” (Godray, 815). The advances in ertilizerand the hybridization o crops worked symbioticallyto ll demands made by a rapidly growing population.Both were necessary or success and without thesediscoveries, the increased need or ood would nothave been met.



7 8

The current state o the American ood

industry is largely infuenced by subsidies

provided to armers by the ederal government. According to historian Burton

Folsom, the very concept o the ederal

government providing support to the arming

industry was alien to the nation until the 20th

Century. At the onset o the Great Depression,

President Hoover instituted the Farm Board

via the Agriculture Marketing Act o 1929.

President Roosevelt then ollowed suit by

continuing support or armers through the Agricultural Adjustment Act made possible by

the New Deal in 1933.

Folsom’s stance is based on the lack o provisions inthe Constitution or the ederal government to overseearming practices. He explains “American armersdominated world markets under the ree-enterprisesystem. They were ever creative in guring out how togain larger yields o crops through mechanization or

SECTION B

POLITICS OF FOOD

through improving crop strains, such as hybrid corn”(Folsom, 34). He also asserts that during previous timeso nancial austerity, “the ederal government largely

stayed out o the arm business,” going on to state thatsubsidies were used neither to support armers during therecession o the 1890s nor ollowing WWI, both o whichwere times marked by economic diculty. (Folsom, 34).

The ederal government changed its position ollowingthe Stock Market crash at the end o the 1920s.Spurred urther by the Great Depression and the DustBowl, support generated rom subsides continuedto increase. Folsom describes that Hoover’s Farm

Herbert Clark Hoover Franklin D. Roosevelt Migrant worker in 1939

HOOVER’S FARM BOARD

HAD DISASTROUS

CONSEQUENCES FORALMOST EVERYONE



9 10

Board “had disastrous unintended consequences oralmost everyone. For example, many armers whotypically grew other crops shited to wheat or cottonbecause they were protected and now provided asecure income” (Folsom, 35). This caused a glut o production and the government was orced to buy thesurplus. He continues to say “Ater about two years

o buying surpluses, the government nally just gavethem away or sold them on the world market at hugelosses” (Folsom, 35).

These trends continued into the 21st Century andthe US government and arming industry continueto lock in a conusing tangle o surplus, losses, andan increasing burden on taxpayers. Folsom describesthis development stating, “American politicians,under pressure during hard times, sacriced the

Constitution and economic sense or votes at theballot box” (Folsom, 35). Politicians remain underpressure to support subsidies that benet actoryarms, agribusiness, and other results o theindustrialization o ood production. Subsidies inthe arm industry, in turn, have a large impact on Amer ican politics. Not only do polit icians receive

large contributions rom lobbies related to actoryarms and agribusiness, a plethora o legislationprotects current ood production practices, preventingquick and eective action rom taking place.

Agriculture equipment buried in the Dust Bowl Farm during the Dust Bowl



11 12

Agribusiness, a popular term or current

industrial arming practices, has roots in the

Green Revolution. With the surplus o grains and other crops in the US, it became possible

to support larger amounts o livestock. This led

to the development o actory arms. Currently,

“about one-third o global cereal production is

ed to animals” (Godray, 816). Battery cages, a device

used to collect eggs rom mass populations o

chickens, were developed as early as the 1930s.

The majority o chickens in America are raised

in these cages, a structure which has been developed to pack more and more chickens

into an excruciatingly small space.

Agribusiness has spread to more than just theproduction o eggs. Increasing amounts o bee originaterom cows crammed into desolate eedlots and most

pork products come rom pigs that spend the vastmajority o their lives in gestation crates, a space sosmall they are unable to even turn around.

It is well known that Americans are aced with anobesity epidemic and other diet related diseases. Whenthese trends in public health are compared to nationalpatterns o rising meat consumption, the parallels arealarming. In Bittman’s recent New York Times articlehe states, “grain-ed animals…are contributing tohealth problems among the world’s wealthier citizens—heart disease, some types o cancer, diabetes.” Hecontinues to disclose that the large portions o meat,which are so predominant in the American diet, are a

The mass confinement of pigsMaryland pig farm in 1939

Laying hens in battery cages

SECTION C

PRICE OF PROGRESS



13

lead contributor to these health issues. The Center orDisease Control, CDC, also agrees that typical portionsizes are excessively large and are increasing over time.Larger portions lead to more consumption. In theirrecent online publication, The New (Ab)Normal, theCDC claims that “the average restaurant meal is ourtimes larger than in the 1950s.”

14

It is clear that consumption o meat and other animalproducts has become severely o balance. The intakeo meat has increased rapidly between the 1960s andtoday. Century o Meat—a visual study by JonathanCorum or the New York Times—illustrates that theaverage American’s annual consumption o bee, percapita, increased 10 pounds rom 1960 to 2000 (Yoon).Chicken consumption rose even more drastically, rom

20 to 60 pounds (Yoon). Levels o obesity and diabeteshave also risen sharply during a similar time period. According to the CDC in another online publication, Adult Obesity Facts, “more than one third o Americansare obese.” Not only does this cause a number o healthrisks or the individual, including “heart disease, stroke,type 2 diabetes and certain types o cancer,” the CDCalso notes that “medical costs associated with obesitywere estimated at $147 billion” which creates a hugenancial drain on the country.

Aside rom public health concerns, the issue o livestocksuering in the production o meat and other animalproducts has become increasingly popular in America.Rollin discusses this concern in his keynote address tothe annual meeting o the Journal o Animal Science,asserting, “20 [years] ago one would have ound nobills pending in the US Congress relating to animalwelare. Ater the late 1990s and into the early 2000s,there have been “50 to 60 such bills annually, witheven more prolierating at the state level.” Rollin goeson to dene the aspects o suering into dierentcategories, “Production diseases” which “arise rom thenew ways the animals are produced…, the physical andpsychological deprivation or animals in connement,”and nally, the producer’s inability to aord or provideone-on-one, specialized care or the animal.

Rollin goes on to discuss the current state o animalsuering as having roots in the dramatic changerom the practice o animal husbandry to animalscience. He states, “For virtually al l o human history,animal agriculture was based…in animal husbandry.Husbandry…meant taking great pains to put one’sanimals into the best possible environment one couldnd to meet their physical and psychological natures.” Heplaces the moment o this change ater WWII at which

1 OUT OF3AMERICANS ARE

OBESE

$ 147BILLION

SPENT ANNUALLY ON

OBESITY RELATED ILLNESSES



1615

time the “Departments o Animal Husbandry becameDepartments o Animal Science.” The change wentbeyond language and became a shit in thought process.

Unortunately, so-called animal science does not striveto care or the animal, instead it employs “industrialmethods” or the purpose o the mass production o animals, displacing them “into environments wherethey [suer]” or the purpose o higher yields. Throughthe “mechanization, technological advancement, and

the consequent capability o conning large numberso animals in highly capitalized acilities” signicantchanges were possible. While most livestock were once“kept in environments or which they had evolved” theywere now being kept “in environments that are contraryto their natures but benecial to increased productivity.”Such drastic changes in environment were made possiblethrough the use o antibiotics and severe changes indiet. With more and more industrial methods in use, therates o agricultural production increased, “doubling…

between 1820 and 1920” and again “between 1920 and1950,” and then doubling yet once more rom 1965to 1975. While production increased, the amount o armers decreased and smaller amounts o “workers wereproducing ar more ood.” Each o these actors relate tothe commodication and mass production o animalsand have contributed to the now-commonplace sueringo livestock in these industrial settings. (Rollin).

Without thinking o public health or animal suering, we

nd ourselves, once again, with a matter o arithmetic.The increase in population over the centuries is clear,but ollowing Malthusian theory, the Earth’s capacityto support items needed or human subsistence is alsointegral to the equation. Unortunately, demands madeby the current population are close to exceeding thiscapacity and many projections nd that a breaking pointis near. Agribusiness and actory arms are a massivedrain on natural resources, an integral actor to thehappiness and health o Americans.

Maryland cow in 1935 Cattle in a CAFO (concentrated animal feeding operation)



17 18

our previous ood crises. According to Mosier “Excessiveuse o [nitrogen] can lead to numerous problems directlyrelated to human health” including “respiratory diseases

induced by exposure to high concentrations o ozone andne particulate matter” (Mosier, 3). Too much nitrogencan also increase “ecosystem vulnerability” including the“acidication o soils and algae blooms” (Mosier, 3). Heelaborates on nitrogen’s eect on “water quality” statingthat the “excessive growth o algae” leads to “oxygendepletion, and the production o a range o substancestoxic to sh, cattle, and humans” (Mosier, 6).

While advances in ood technology allowed Americansand many other countries to stave o starvation, it is

clear that these methods are detrimental or numerousreasons. Increased consumption o meat and otheranimal products correlates to epidemic rates o obesity,diabetes, and other diet related diseases. In addition,inhumane treatment o animals has become aninsidious part o the ood industry. Finally, the systemo production is unsustainable and has caused severedamage to the environment on all levels. It is clear thathealthier, more humane, and sustainable methods areessential or the uture o ood production.

According to Bittman, “The environmental impact o growing so much grain or animal eed is proound. Agriculture in the United States—much o which now

serves the demand or meat—contributes to nearly three-quarters o all water-quality problems in the nation’srivers and streams….” Demand or this grain increases asrapidly as the population itsel. Between the 1960s andstart o the 21st Century, “grain production has morethan doubled” yet “the amount o land devoted to arableagriculture globally has increased” less than 10 percent.The development o new arable land is unlikely because, asBittman states, it “has been lost to urbanization and otherhuman uses, as well as to desertication, salinization,soil erosion, and other consequences o unsustainable

land management” and it is oreseen that not only isthe gain o land unlikely, continued and proound loss isprobable. In terms o seeking additional sustenance romshing and sea lie, a possible alternative to ood yieldedrom agriculture, “Virtually all capture sheries are ullyexploited, and most are overexploited” (Godray, 812-3).Clearly, we are standing at the brink o a breaking point.

Damage to our natural recourses is also caused rom thenitrogen inused ertilizer that was developed to solve

NEARLY75% OF

WATER QUALITY PROBLEMS

IN AMERICA SPRING FROM

AGRICULTURE

The murky waters of an algae bloom



LOST IN THE SUPERMARKET

DISASSOCIATION OF CONSUMERSFROM DAILY FOOD ITEMS



21 22

American l ie, the business itsel is a relatively new construct. Sara Wimberley investigates the origins o this unique commercial setting and its relation to theindustrialism o America in her article, SupermarketSavvy, eatured in A Journal o History.

Beore the rise o the supermarket, the general store wasthe main point o purchase or ood items. These smallshops provided a wildly dierent experience than themegastores today and carr ied dramatically ewer productsin comparison, selling “a variety o household andpersonal items and only the most basic ood staples” suchas “salt, four, and sugar” (Wimberley, 179). There waslittle demand or agricultural items due to the act thatthe majority o “amilies grew and preserved their own

Norman Rockwell’s “Freedom from Want”

A&P storefront in 1938

AMERICANS FIRST SHOPPED AT

GENERAL STORES

THAT SOLD CHOICE STAPLES

Eating is both a personal and powerul

experience. We consume ood—taking it into

our bodies, breaking down the material, andtransorming it into essential nourishment.

Food is an imperative part o many spiritual

rituals and plays great importance in a vast

array o traditions across the globe. The

phrase “dinner table” conjures unique and

intimate images to mind, inviting us to recall

times spent with amily and riends. Eating

itsel is a social and uniting act. The term

“breaking bread,” which literally means to share a meal, has come to mean much more,

describing camaraderie and togetherness.

Eating is also an extremely common experience. Weeed ourselves multiple times a day and the majorityo this ood is purchased in the supermarket. As themain source o these personal, powerul, and necessarypurchases, the space itsel takes on great importance. While the supermarket has become ubiquitous to

SECTION A

A STAR IS BORN: THE HISTORYOF THE AMERICAN SUPERMARKET



23 24

vegetables and meats” (Wimberley, 179). As discussed inthe previous section on the American ood industry, thisonce widespread practice o amilies maintaining their

own means o production o ood did not last long into the20th Century and has become nearly obsolete.

During the Industrial Revolution, waves o mechanizationswelled through many vocational elds. The practiceo agricultural was greatly aected. Food productionbecame more industrialized and removed rom humanlabor. In addition, communities became more urban.This combination meant that “ood culture changed”and general stores, the place ood items were purchased,

changed as well. In its place rose the grocery store, which“began to oer arm produce and canned ood products,which became a primary ood source or amilies”

(Wimberley, 179). Americans in turn started to becomedisassociated rom the ood they consumed and mosthouseholds no longer produced agricultural products.

The most successul grocery stores, which can still bevisited today, began as “specialty stores that…grew overtime to include numerous products, rom staple items andcanned and processed oods to ‘luxury’ items.” (Wimberley,178). Some o the these stores include Giant Foods,H-E-B, and Piggly Wiggly, and the Great American TeaCompany which later became the Great Atlantic & Pacic

Tea Company and is now, simply, A&P (Wimberley, 178).Each one o these stores has remained relevant due totheir ability to adapt. The grocery store was also redenedwhen aced with advances in industry. As the general storegave way to the grocery store through the mechanizationo agriculture, the ood sellers were revolutionized by theintroduction o the car. Wimberley explains the change,stating that, at the beginning o 20th Century, “grocerystores operated under a charge-and-delivery system” which

General store still standing in 1942 Butcher with customer in 19431921 packaging

AUTOMOBILES PAVED THE

WAY FOR THE BIRTH OF THE

GROCERY STORE



25 26

means that the shopper “requested goods by bringing a listo needs to the store or by calling in an order” (Wimberley,181). Employees “then gathered and delivered items tocustomers’ homes” (Wimberley, 181). As the requestand receipt o each item was oten separate, “customersusually charged their groceries. Bills were delivered withthe selected items and were due at the end o the month”(Wimberley, 181). In essence, the consumer’s gratication

through making the purchase was delayed, as they hadto wait or receipt o the product. This delay remained ineect until the introduction o the car.

Ater the advent o the automobile, greater access tourther distances became possible and by the 1920s,“more amilies owned automobiles” and grocery storeollowed suit to match the changing desires o thecustomer. No longer burdened by the need to deliveritems to each customer’s home, businesses were ree to letshoppers roam the store, “select items rom the shelves,

pay cash up ront, and carry purchases home themselves”(Wimberley, 181). With the instant receipt o items, billswere no longer necessary and “within a ew years, grocersacross the nation had converted to the economical cash-and-carry ormat” (Wimberley, 182). In many ways, theautomobile allowed or the mechanization o the domestic American liestyle and allowed the consumer to receiveinstant gratication rom their purchases.

The grocery store ultimately lost its prominence ollowing WWII. Events leading up to and during the Great

Depression as well as events during the war caused a“Lack o domestic resources [that] all but shut down small,locally operated ood producers” (Wimberley, 183). Thismeant the loss o many grocery stores. Ater a post-warperiod o strict scal restraint and belt-tightening, the American economy experienced rapid growth. Wimberleyattributes this growth to “conspicuous consumption and abooming population” (Wimberley, 183). During this periodo expansion, wages increased, the birth rate skyrocketed,

and new products were introduced to the market at anexponentially increasing rate.

With many small, local grocery stores now closed, largerbusinesses were able to increase in number and size. Inaddition, international trade also increased dramaticallywhich allowed or a deluge o new commercial items. According to Wimberley, “the market was fooded with

approximately [200] new ood products each year. In1962 an estimated [6,000] ood products were availableor purchase, about one-third o which had come intoexistence in the” 1950s (Wimberley, 183). This switincrease had a dramatic eect on ood sellers. In orderto keep up with the food o products, stores expandedrapidly in size and number and the grocery storetransormed into the supermarket.

While the shits rom general store to the grocery storeand grocery store to supermarket have roots in Americanhistorical events, these commercial spaces also had massiveimpacts on American culture over time. Gigantic increasesin store size and product availability, the decrease in varietybetween stores, rise o the chain, and development o in-store advertising and marketing strategies have all hadmajor eects on the American home. While the story o the supermarket was molded by circumstances, it has alsoshaped uture events, simultaneously reacting to presentstates and actively orming uture conditions.

INCREASED USE OF CARS

LED TO THE CREATION OF THE

SUPERMARKET



27 28

The supermarket epitomizes convenience.

Each aisle provides a plethora o products

all year round regardless o local agricultural limitations or the current

season. Preservatives allow or slues o

well-stocked shelves and products are able

to withstand exceedingly long durations

o delivery. Dietary supplements and other

added nutritional elements make it easier or

consumers to obtain essential nutrients rom

snacks and meals.

The most distinguishing characteristic o the supermarket,however, is its ability to provide the consumer with anenormous variety o products. This is made possibleby the mass transportation o items that have beengrown and manuactured at distances ar and wide.These items are moved to a single point o access, thesupermarket, having been driven on truck beds alonginterstate highways as well as shipped aboard reightersputtering across vast expanses o ocean. This convenience

is not without consequence, however. While much hasbeen gained—benets rom consolidating ood into onecommercial space, increased access to ood varieties, andprevalence o nutritional supplements—a great deal hasbeen lost in terms o sustainability and public health.

What we eat has changed over the years and mucho this relates products sold in the supermarket. Thischange is connected to an explosion o diet related

health problems including obesity, heart disease andstroke, high blood pressure, diabetes, and some orms o cancer. Lee Fulkerson’s documentary, Forks Over Knives,addresses concerns regarding changes in American oodconsumption and public health. An increasing amount o Americans suer rom these problems linked to ood andan astounding “40% o Americans are obese” and “1 outo 3 people born in the US today will develop diabetes”(Fulkerson). Both o these illnesses directly connect with

1 OUT OF 3AMERICANS

WILL DEVELOP DIABETES

500,000 RECEIVE

BYPASS SURGERYEACH YEAR

SECTION B

PRICE OF CONVENIENCE

Condiment aisle in a contemporary supermarket



29 30

diet. Other illnesses, such as heart disease and someorms o cancer can coincide with ood choices. Every 60seconds, “1 person dies…rom heart disease” and “more

than 1,500 people die each day rom cancer” (Fulkerson). Again, while not always related to diet, these illnessesare associated with ood choices and a great deal o Americans may benet by making changes to their diet.

High levels o cholesterol are a matter that directlycoincides with ood. Bypass surgery is perormed onpatients with lie threatening levels o cholesterol. According to Forks Over Knives, “more than 500,000 Amer icans receive bypass surgery each year” puttingmany Americans in a possibly atal situation as

they go under the knie. This surgery moves beyondmortality and comes at a high monetary cost as well,adding up to approximately “$100,000 per surgery”or a “total cost o $50 billion” annually. Other dietrelated health concerns come at a high monetarycost with “$120 billion spent annually on diet relatedhealth issues.” Clearly, both the individual and thestate o the nation suer rom illnesses linked to oodconsumption. (Fulkerson).

Many o these diet related issues correlate to the growingsize o portions sold to consumers. The packagingo processed ood available at the supermarket has

increased in both weight and volume over the years. Whole oods including ruits and vegetables have alsogrown in girth, sometimes doubling or tripling in size.Increased portions are not solely appearing in productssold in the supermarket, however. Portions have grownin restaurant servings and the amount o ood preparedin the home during mealtime as well (Crane). Accordingto nutrition proessor at NYU, Lisa Young, “Portion sizesor oods across the board have gotten two to ve times

PORTIONS

HAVE GROWN

2-5

TIMES IN SIZE

FOOD PRODUCTS ARE

INCREASINGLY PACKED WITH

FATAND SUGAR

White Trash Fast Food , a Berlin take on American food



31 32

STUDIES SHOW WHEN

GIVEN LARGER PORTIONS,

CONSUMERS EAT MORE

larger” and when added to the act that there is anincreasing “abundance o cheap, sugar-loaded, at lledoods,” Americans “are ingesting more calories thanever beore” (Crane). This increase in consumption isa direct and proound contributor to the increase indiet related illnesses.

In his article or Science World, Plumped up Portions,Cody Crane illuminates the trend o increased portionsand ood consumption. “Americans…consume hundredsmore calories per day than they did only a generation ortwo ago. At the same time, most people haven’t increasedtheir daily activity to burn o that extra energy.” It is asimple matter o math: people are taking in many morecalories than they expel during the day and they arelet a glut and a growing gut. At the root cause o thisdevelopment sits basic human psychology and consumerbehavior. Crane interviewed Brian Wansink, “the directoro the Food and Brand Lab at Cornell University in

New York” regarding his investigations on consumptionpatterns. Wansink ound that participants who were“given ‘bottomless’ soup bowls” ate “73% more thanthose given regular bowls o soup.” So, individuals thatreceived limitless portions consumed exceptionally morethan those that received limited portions. Wansink alsoconducted a study that ound “serv[ing] larger portionsactually increases people’s appetites. He studied this byinviting test subjects to watch a movie and oering them

a ree snack.” He gave individuals either a medium orlarge size and “those given larger containers” consumed“much more.” Food production companies are no strangerto this behavior. They utilize these tendencies o basicpsychology to drive sales and increase consumption. Withincreased sales, American waistlines have also increasedand public health has suered.

Portion size is just one actor o current diet relatedhealth concerns. Where ood comes rom is alsoessential to the problem and contributes to the stateo the environment as well. Yvona Fast discusses theimportance o eating seasonally in her article, What’s InSeason? While we have a wide range o products withinarm’s reach along the aisles o the supermarket, thisconvenience comes at a price.

Fast weighs the benets o the supermarket withimpacts on the environment, proposing the availability

o “cheap ood rom around the world” has created anunsustainable system that has had deeply negativeeects on the environment. She supports “eatingseasonally” in order to lower ramications on theenvironment and reduce “pollution and packagingwaste.” She goes on to use produce as an example,stating “imported tomatoes travel an average 1,569miles to the supermarket, whereas a tomato rom yourarmers’ market travels less than 60 miles and needs nopackaging.” She also cites author Anna Lappé, stating“rom seed to plate to landll, the ood sector accounts

or 18% o greenhouse gases, one-third o methane andtwo-thirds o nitrous oxide emissions.” Essentially, the



33 34

practice o crossing long distances to transport ood isdamaging yet required in our current ood distributionsystem. Eating both seasonally and locally can

dramatically reduce this damage.

Eating out o season also has negative eects onquality o taste, nutritional content, and public health.Fast cites author and nutritionist Jackie Newgentwho claims “eating seasonally means produce waspicked when ripe” and that this yields “nutritionallydense and more delicious ood.” The longer an itemis transported or stored, the more opportunity arisesor the “loss o nutrients, especially vitamin C.” A study ound that ater “eight days o storage, spinach

lost most o its vitamin C, olate and carotenoids.”Loss o vitamins is not the only point o concern; risko contamination is also a actor when ood travelsgreat distances. There are many “opportunities orood contamination even or so-called ‘resh’ produce.In the past ew years, Americans have seen manyrecalls,” most notably “spinach in 2006, peanuts in2009, eggs in 2010” and “cantaloupe in 2011.” Each o these recalls was required due to the contamination

o ood during preparation or transportation o theindividual product. (Fast).

There is need or concern outside environmentaland consumer issues as well and it is also essentialto consider the small armer. Through agribusinesspractices, consumers have become disconnected romthe ood they eat. Fast proposes that by “eat[ing]seasonally, your ood dollar goes directly to the armerwho raised the crop, not a large national corporation”and that through local ood purchases, the consumercan reconnect to the ood producer and thereore theood itsel. (Fast).

It is impossible to discuss eating seasonally without alsolooking into the relationship between local and organicoods. Damien Adams compares the local movementto the organic movement in his article, Local VersusOrganic, written or the Renewable Agriculture andFood Systems Journal. The United States Departmento Agriculture (USDA) denes organic as “a labelingterm that indicates product has been produced throughapproved methods.” These labeling practices strive tocombine “cultural, biological, and mechanical practices”

UNRIPE PRODUCE HAS LESS

NUTRITIONAL

VALUE THANRIPE PRODUCE



35 36

in order to “oster cycling o resources, promoteecological balance, and conserve biodiversity.” The USDA goes on to dene what practices are not organic, stating,“synthetic ertilizers, sewage sludge, irradiation, andgenetic engineering may not be used” (ams.usda.gov). Ina sense, the term is dened by a str ict standardizationo production steps. The act o standardizing was aslow process that took over a decade to ully develop.

The USDA spent two years working “to adopt nationalstandards or the production, processing and marketingo organically labeled ood under the Organic FoodProduction Act o 1990” and it was not until October2002 that “the USDA ocially adopted the ederal organicstandards” also known as The Organic Rule.

At rst glance, the concept o organic ood may seemsimple, but the standards are complex. “The OrganicRule denes the minimum production, processing andinput standards” however, these are “much lower than

many organic advocates strive or.” There is also a “our-tier organic labeling scheme” which includes “‘100%organic’, ‘organic’, ‘made with organic ingredients’ and‘product contains some organic ingredients.” So, while aproduct may appear to be entirely organic, it may verylikely be only partially so. In 2002, when the ederalgovernment set its organic standards, the term was“dened as an input-driven technical process rather than

a concept based in sustainability.” This denition led tothe dissatisaction o many who once saw organic oodproduction as a method or producing sustainable, healthy,and sae ood options or American consumers. (Adams).

This dissatisaction led to the pursuit o other meanso ood production, the most successul being the local

movement. The term local in reerence to ood is muchnewer than the organic label. Local has been assignedto neither ederal standards nor regulation. While TheOrganic Rule was established to help consumers clearlydene whether a product is or is not organic, local oodhas not been dened in such a way. Adam states “Manydene local to be within a certain geographical distance,such as 100 miles and others dene it “to mean somepolitical boundary, such as a state border.” Local canalso be dened as dealing with matters o “ethics,community and other actors not directly corresponding

to ood miles.” (Adams).

Ater the inception o The Organic Rule, organic oodas a business increased rapidly. This was due in part tothe involvement o agribusinesses which was attractedto the market because o large “price premiums” and“public demand.” With the addition o big businesspractices, revenue skyrocketed and by “2006, sales o organic products reached $16.7 billion” and comprised“an annual growth rate o 20.9%.” When compared to

FEDERALSTANDARDS

ADOPTED IN

2002

ORGANIC PRODUCTS

GENERATE BILLIONS AND

GREW 21% BY 2006



37 38

The popularity o local ood movement is growingquickly as well. The number o armers markets hasincreased dramatical ly, “the USDA’s Agricultural

Marketing Ser vice,” ound that “in 1994 there were1,755 registered armers’ markets” and this number“grew to 4,685 in 2008.” Revenue made rom armersmarkets has also increased and the “Total value o sales at armers markets in 2007 was $1.2 billion,up rom $404 mill ion in 1992.” The overall “valueo local ood in the US market” has also increaseddrastically, leaping “rom an estimated $4 bill ion in

2001’s revenue o “$7.4 billion,” this was a signicant jump. The rise in protability has also come with a priceand many ideals associated with organic production have

allen to the wayside as big business benets. In 2002,ater the adoption o The Organic Rule, the movement“undamentally changed” due to “marketing campaigns”which “co-opted the central themes o the organicmovement to increase” prots “while the productswere largely grown on arms that either abandonedthe sustainable agronomic practices” or employedmethods o “conventional agriculture.” In addition tothis, with the introduction “o large corporations…andthe consolidation o ood retail outlets…small armers”were essentially removed “rom the benets o the boomin demand or organic oods.” Ater the adoption o TheOrganic Rules, “the organic market” now operates with just a “small number o very powerul…’organic giants’who limit armer income” with approximately “80% o the organic ood market” now being “handled by just twonational distributors.” This imbalance has resulted in adramatic shit rom the movement’s ideals, pushing smallarmers out and embracing big business. (Adams).

Farmers market post 1980

FARMERS MARKETS

EXPLODED FROM 1,755 IN 1

1994 TO 4,685 IN 2008



39 40

excessive packaging waste. Failure to eat seasonallyalso results in lost quality o taste, nutritional content,and opens the door to possible contamination. Inaddition to this, the organic movement’s takeoverby big business has resulted in the industrializationo organic ood production. In reaction, more andmore consumers have been supporting the localood movement and armers markets have increased

in both scale o operation and sales. Clearly, thedominant system o the supermarket is in need o change. Through the use o interactive design, anonline network o local ood providers can be ormedto help connect consumers with alternative oodoptions, opening to door to resher, healthier, andmore sustainable diets.

2002 to about $5 bil lion in 2007” and was projected“to increase to $7 billion by 2012.” So, not only aremore and more markets springing up, consumers arewilling to pay more or the local products. Clearly,demand is high. (Adams).

When compared to the organic movement, the localtrend has many similar driving ambitions and it maycause one to wonder whether the local movementwill ollow a similar path. This is very unlikely as theessential “concept o local ood” hinders the takeovero “large agribusinesses that now dominate the marketor organic oods.” Local ood “leave[s] no room orindustrial arming, organic or otherwise” and themovement “stress[es] the importance o eating closeto home….” (Adams).

While the supermarket provides a great deal o convenience, this comes at a price. Increasing cases

o diet related illness have skyrocketed as portionsincrease. As waistlines also expand, more Americanssuer and the nation is orced to spend taxpayers’money on medical expenses. In order to providesuch a vast selection, the supermarket must shipproducts rom ar and wide without consideration ornatural limitations such as season. This contributesto pollution related rom mass transportation and

Maryland supermarket in 1964 Seeds for sale in 1939

FARMERS MARKETS

WERE PROJECTED TO MAKE

$7BILLION IN 2012



BUILDING A SOLUTION

ONLINE OPPORTUNITIES FOR CONSUMERSAND SMALL BUSINESS



43 44

There is a growing demand or ood education

and advances in technology acilitate

connection between small businesses and

the consumer. It is now possible to provide

an online and mobile service that connects

interested customers with locally produced

ood while also providing many o the

conveniences once held solely by supermarkets

and ood delivery services. My visual solution

will establish a new online network—one

which caters both to the needs o the armer (a

small business owner requiring help to brand products) as well as the customer (a savvy

shopper interested in getting a bargain as well

as getting to know their ood).

Chapter I established that the American ood systemis bloated. It has grown to gargantuan proportionsthrough technological advances, corporate savvy, andgovernment support. But this Behemoth has highly

SECTION A

DIRECTION FOR VISUAL SOLUTION

negative eects on a global, national, and individuallevel. Chapter II established that the supermarket, the

location o most ood purchases, ails to tell the storybehind various items or sale. The narrative o how ood makes it to supermarket shel—the many stepsbetween production and shipping—is not told. Once theshopper passes through the market’s automatic doors,they are presented with aisle ater aisle o end products.The questions o who made the ood, where it camerom, and what impact it can have are rarely asked oranswered. In the instances these questions are posed,

WHO, WHERE, & WHAT OFTEN GO ANSWERED IN

SUPERMARKET AISLES

Fred Myer in 2004



45 46

it is dicult to discern the validity o claims made bylabels and packaging.

Recently, consumers have called out or new methods o commerce and there is growing demand or ood education.Consumer aids such as mobile apps help shoppers uncoversteps o production as well as decode nutritional content.This is made possible by programs that users downloadto compatible smart phones. Once set-up, the phone

can scan listed items’ barcodes and display additionalinormation not visible on the packaging. These tools helpconsumers make more insightul decisions inside the wallso the supermarket but they ail to completely drain theood industry bloat that continues to stock our shelves.The items that can be scanned are oten processed,manuactured oods. Meat, produce, and other whole oodscontinue to slip under the radar and the consumer remains

dea to the narrative o their origins. The questions o who,where, and what continue to go unanswered.

Addressing these questions is also time consuming and,oten, ood shoppers want to get in, out, and back to theirday. This is why the major theme o the supermarket,and they main actor that attracts shoppers to each megastore, is convenience. Hours o operation tend to rangeacross each day o the week, rom early morning intothe evening, making it easy to t into most customers’schedules. Some markets are even open 24-hours a day,

seven days a week, but this depends on consumer demandand tends to occur only in densely urban areas. Deliveryservices such as Peapod and FreshDirect cater to aneven increased degree o convenience when it comes toaccessing merchandise. Shoppers don’t even have to leavetheir home—they are able to make selections online andhave items delivered as soon as the ollowing day. Foundedin 1989, Peapod claims to be the rst online home deliveryservices. According to their website, they operate “24U.S. markets in the states o Illinois, Wisconsin, Indiana,

FOOD DELIVERY SYSTEMS

HAVE YET TO FULLY COMPETE

WITH THE SUPERMARKET



47 48

Maryland, District o Columbia, Virginia, Massachusetts,Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, New York,New Jersey and Pennsylvania.” FreshDirect—oundedlater in 2002—has a smaller market, delivering ood tothe ve boroughs o New York City, the entirety o LongIsland, New Jersey, and parts o Pennsylvania.

While supermarkets and ood delivery services ocusprimarily on convenience, these ood merchants arealso attracted to the popular and increasingly protableorganic and local ood movements. Corporate entities areollowing suit and organic labels are proudly brandished onpackaging. Advertising or organic and local traits has alsobecome so commonplace that the shopper must be careuland alert to distinguish between alse claims known asgreen washing and the real deal. Many supermarkets haveeven established organic sections in their stores to allow consumers easy access to the products they crave. Deliveryservices are adapting to the demand as well. Peapod

claims to be working towards more local as well as organicoptions. FreshDirect, on the other hand, has establishedboth in their online services, going so ar as to provideusers with proles o the local arms they work with.However, neither supermarket nor ood delivery serviceconnect the consumer directly to the armer, a relationshipthat a growing number o Americans are seeking out.

Farmers markets and CSAs (Consumer Supported Agriculture) are two alternative ood sources that allow

FARMERS MARKETS

& CSAS OFFER EVEN

LESS CONVENIENCE

Haul from a CSA



49 50

investor. Instead o setting up shop and once a week,and waiting or customers as with a armers market,CSAs have the security benet o already knowing theiraudience as well as having received advanced payment.On the other hand, investors also have the benet o picking the date and time they want to receive theproduct and are not orced to adapt to a predeterminedset o hours. Unortunately, this model means that

the consumer is not able to pick individual items—essentially, you get what you are given. It is importantto note that there is selectivity between which armsthe CSA chooses to operate with. It is also essential tounderscore that arms and investors predetermine whatsorts o products will be delivered.

While oering many benets, it is clear that armersmarkets and CSAs ail to make up or all the eaturesmade possible by supermarkets and ood deliveryservices. Supermarkets were designed to increase the

ease o shopping and encourage as many purchases aspossible. People are also extremely accustomed andattached to this method o shopping. With online storesthat deliver, this convenience is amplied. Anotherselling point o the supermarket model is the abilityto compare price and value between similar items.Competing products oten stand side-by-side on marketshelves. Again, this comparative shopping is also presentin online models. However, in a armers market, itemsare displayed on a arm-by-arm basis and it is moredicult to compare price and overall value o purchases.Understandably, the conveniences and useul servicesoered by supermarkets and online services hard topass up. My visual solution will strive to bring theconsumer the best o both worlds. I will create an onlineand mobile network that looks to the benets o bothpre-existing systems steering clear o the negatives.

Americans to more deeply connect with the origins o theirood… short o growing it themselves! Farmers marketsallow the consumer to speak directly to a representativeo the arm. As shoppers continue to patronize the specicmarket, they have the opportunity to build a relationshipwith the vendor. These alternatives are benecial or smallarmers as well. The typical path ood ollows to makeits way into the consumer’s home is rom arm to ood

distributor and then rom ood distributor to supermarket.These middlemen pocket large portions o the prot o each sale. By connecting armers directly to the consumer,these middlemen are side stepped and armers are able tohold onto larger prots.

Farmers markets are the primary source o locallyproduced ood. They connect armers directly tothe consumer and vice versa. But they also allow the shopper to handle and pick items, which is notpossible in online shopping services. Farmers markets

oer other positives such as the opportunity to hostcommunity building activities. The armers market isno replacement or the supermarket, however. There islimited availability; they tend to operate one day a weekor a set period o time. There is also limited productvariety and comparison shopping opportunities whencompared to supermarket and ood delivery services.

CSAs are becoming increasingly popular, and, likearmers markets, target consumers who are interestedin locally produced ood. Just as with armers markets,

they too connect the producer o the ood directly tothe consumer and vice versa. In contrast, they oerthe benet o more fexible and customized hours toreceive goods. CSAs operate o the unds (shares) paidby a group o customers (investors). These shares arebought during the arm’s o-season and once crops areharvested, baskets o ood are delivered directly to the



51 52

Shoppers are ravenous or inormation about

ood. This hunger is most visible in the rapidly

growing number o products that acilitate

ood education. There is such high demand

that by the summer o 2012, Apple added

a special genre to their iTunes app store

titled Food & Drink. Mere months later, there

were more than 2,500 apps or the iPad and

an astonishing 8,400 apps or the iPhone.

Consumer interest is high and developers are

racing to meet the needs o this new market.

A growing sea o web browsers and mobile devicesstrive to instantly answer diet and health relatedquestions, providing valuable ood education.Consumers are able to augment their shoppingexperience by scanning items with smartphone andcorresponding apps—instantly retrieving detailednutritional inormation as well as content regardingallergens and potentially dangerous ingredients. Manyapps even tailor to specic dietary needs whether

SECTION B

CASE STUDIES

related to weight loss or general health concerns. It isas i we can wield hand-held nutritionists, dieticians,and health proessionals as we navigate the increasinglycomplex aisles o the supermarket.

FOOD IS TRENDY WITH OVER

8000 APPS UNDER APPLE’S

FOOD & DRINKCATEGORY

Nutrition may be the largest draw or those interestedin ood education. foodfacts is an extensive online

database equipped with detailed inormation or avariety o ood products. Material on allergens, additives,and up to date listings o recalled ood are also available.Products are given an overall letter-grade based onvariables o health. A color-coded system or ingredientsis also used to quickly and clearly call attention tocontroversial and harmul ingredients. In addition,foodfacts provides tailored dietary inormation. A section is devoted to making healthy choices orchildren and provides “kid-riendly” recipes. There isalso specialized attention or individuals looking to lose

weight and many “low calorie recipes” are available aswell as health and diet related articles.

While there is a membership eature to augment theuser’s experience, it is not an interactive service. Userscan benet rom the eatures that track product andood choices; however, an opportunity is lost. Users donot interact and cannot learn rom one another and ormotivate each other to learn more and act healthier.



54

A slew o apps also deliver extremely targeted, nicheservices. Many developers are striving to satisy a growingdemand or local, ethical, and sustainable oods. Eatingseasonally and locally are very popular themes. LocavoRe and seasons are two o the most used apps that caterto local ood. Both connect interested consumers toseasonal items as well as point towards nearby armersmarkets which are a major source o locally produced

ood. LocavoRe has a unique recipe eature which helpsthe user easily add reshly bought items to home cookedmeals. While seasons does not have a recipe eature, itsets itsel apart by pointing towards imported ood thatis seasonal within its region o origin, expanding itsbase o products. Both apps help the consumer locatearmers markets with map eatures. Neither allow or userinteraction within the platorm itsel.

Mobile apps can also be tailored to a specic demographic.One example is AgLocal that aims to provide users the

ability to trace cuts o meat back to the originating arm.The company’s mission is to reconnect consumers withsmaller armers and “pasture-raised” livestock.agLocaL will build on user generated content rom the armersthemselves, ood service providers, and customers.seafoodwatch is another company that strives to educatethe ethically minded oodie about the animals they eat.Through a combination o their app and website, they areable to connect consumers to sustainable seaood. Twomajor services are available. One is an updated databasethat provides “recommendations or ocean-riendly sea-

ood.” The other is a user-generated map called FishMap that is built rom user logs regarding locations they havebeen able to purchase sustainable seaood. While bothapps are built on user-generated content, neither allowsmuch interaction between the users themselves.

goodguide is perhaps the most complete location orconsumer education. Not only does the site eature animpressive set o ood categories—ranging rom the

LocavoRe, “the easiest way to find local, in-season food.Pinpoint nearby farmers’ markets & farms.”

LocaL diRt, “your place to find and buy fresh, local food directly from the family farm.” In partnership with Localdirt.

seasons “brings all the information you need to make the right decisions when choosing your [local, seasonal] food.”

agLocaL, “an exchange platform for the buying and selling of

responsibly raised meats. “

seafood watch’s “recommendations help you choose ocean-friendly seafood at your favorite restaurants & stores.”



55 56

nutritional content o whole oods and vegetables toadditives and harmul chemicals in processed ood—many other products outside o the ood-world have beenreviewed including household items, apparel, electronicsand more. goodguide has rated more than 100,000items and grows everyday. The rating system is scaledrom 1 to 10 and breaks down into three categories,“Health,” “Sustainability,” and “Society.” The systemuses a spectrum o color to indicate the dierent levels.It starts with a dark red or the lowest rated items,moves towards yellow as products reach more neutralratings, and settles on a dark green or the saest, mostsustainable, and kindest products. The user is also ableto tailor their experience by marking a list o pointsby personal importance. In addition, the site providesa variety o methods o service, traveling with theconsumer to the store by way o mobile app. The user canscan an item’s barcode with their smartphone andgood

guide displays a rating o the product as well as many

points o additional inormation. Online shopping is alsoaugmented. The guide creates a log o bought items aswell as automatically providing ratings or items you areinterested in purchasing, all within your web browser.

In terms o design, the site is clear and easy to use. Thegoodguide logo is a made with a riendly, round sansseri. Devoid o right angles, it appears approachable,human, and sae. The color palette is comprised o crispcyan and dark blues on a bright white background. Popso color such as violet, emerald, and marigold are usedthroughout the site as a highlight or buttons and eatures.By avoiding the cliché o green hues to illustrate a “green”service, it appears new and its blue hues evoke resh, clearand overall clean eect. As a whole, goodguide worksto cast light on methods o production and aims to orceindustries to become more transparent by creating a singlesource o inormation or a wide range o product types. Itis important to note that while goodguide provides the

user with a great deal o inormation, its scope o service islimited to the consumer who chooses to seek it out. Evenas it continues to add to its lengthy list o rated products,the service does little to reach out to the disinterested orapathetic shopper. While goodguide members are ableto make their purchases public to the online community,non-members are not exposed to the site. The servicecould benet greatly by opening up to new demographicsand connecting potential users that just need a little nudge.

It is clear that there is a plethora o mobile apps and

web tools available to interested consumers. This doesnot address, however, a wide variety o people who donot have a preexisting investment in making healthy,sustainable, and ethical ood purchasing decisions butwould be interested in ood education i introduced.In order to truly impact current consumer trends, itis imperative to increase visibility and transorm theapathetic shoppers into consumers that want to learnmore and believe that their actions can have an impact.

“Find safe, healthy, green & ethical products based on scientific ratings.”

AS A HOLISTIC CONSUMER

AID, GOOD GUIDE GOES

BEYOND FOOD EDUCATION



57 58

A. Farmigo Case Study

Farmigo combines benets o new, digital eatures withthe pre-existing CSA system. The service is growingquickly and, according to their site, currently “works withmore than 300 arms in 25 states.” The company beganby ocusing on two distinct locations: San Francisco and

Brooklyn. From this starting point, they collected a userbase as well as a network o local armers. This has allowedthem to branch out and continue expanding their service,collecting more users and armers along the way. Marketedas an “online armers market,” Farmigo supports both theconsumer and the vendor. Following the same model asa CSA, consumers create community-based groups and,as the site suggests, groups can range rom work-based to

riends or even vary by school district. Farmigo then assistsgroups to communicate with local armers and other smallood producers. Once a relationship is established, thegroup can make an online market that displays variousitems which range rom whole to prepared oods dependingon the armer or small business.

Figure 1



59 60

Figure 2

The benet o having a group o customers with the CSA model is twoold. First, the small business owner hasguaranteed payment or items beore investments aremade in the production and transportation o goods. Ina armers market model, there is no assurance that any

item will be purchased once it has been brought to themarket. In the ood distribution and grocer’s model, whilepurchase is guaranteed, a large percentage o the protsare lost to the distributor/store. According to a recentarticle on Farmigo by Bonnie Cha eatured in the Wall



61 62

Figure 3

Street Journal’s All Things D, the groups o customersallow armers to “scale production” as well as providesupport or small operations “that only specialize in oneor two products.” With Farmigo’s model, “Farms receive80 percent o the sales, compared to the 9 to 20 percentthey get when going through a traditional grocer.” Thisassistance comes with a price, though, and Farmigo“receives 10 percent or each transaction.” (Cha).

A second benet to having groups and ollowing theCSA model is that a single delivery point or many goodsis established. Ater consumers make their weeklyorders” the “Farmers then deliver orders to…selecteddrop-o point within 48 hours o harvest” (Cha). Thismeans that the vendor is solely responsible or makingtrips on a group-to-group basis, eliminating the needor time consuming and costly deliveries to be made toindividual customers.

However, even with these benets, Farmigo ails to addresstwo essential consumer needs—variety and fexibility. When compared to pre-existing CSA models, Farmigois vastly improved. They have a large network o armsthat spans 25 states, they provide support or the smallbusiness needs o armers, and oer many useul eaturesor customers. One such eature is an online armersmarket that allows members o a group to view productsposted by the arms they have invested in. However, groupsmay only view products that are oered by these select ew arms that were chosen in advance. This limits the breadth

o products a user can compare. In addition, the matter o delivery, which is benecial to the vendor, can be negativeor the consumer. Delivery to a single point o access or alarge group limits the access to the receipt o goods. It isimportant to investigate alternative methods and seek outmore delivery options that are prove ruitul or customers.



63 64

B. Pick-a-Pepper Case Study

The website Pick-a-Pepper ollows a model o direct accessbetween the consumer and vendor. The site acts as ameeting point or the two entities to nd one another. Onthe About section o their site, the service markets itsel as “a user riendly website that connects local armers,gardeners, and ood artisans with local consumers,restaurants, and institutions.” Premiering in the all o 2011, the site currently works to build a network o localarmers and other small business owners. By expanding

this network, they hope to ulll their mission which isto “allow users to easily purchase seasonal, local goods insmall or large quantities at air prices.”

While the ounders o Pick-a-Pepper have a wholesomemission, there is large decit o business acumen. Thereare little to no criteria as to who can become a vendor.In the words o the ounders themselves, they describepossible sellers as ollows on their Frequently AskedQuestions page: “anyone who has a bounty to share can join, no matter how large or small—be it a backyard

garden, a home kitchen operation, or a hundred acre arm.”This lack o quality control is problematic or two reasons.First, potential customers are attracted to high qualityproducts rom a reliable source; this is neither guaranteednor supported by the Pick-a-Pepper sta. Thus, potentialcustomers are let wanting more and ail to sign up.

The second problem o quality control springs rom theact that vendors are attracted to services that boast largenumbers o customers who make reliable purchases. The

customer base on Pick-a-Pepper is relatively small. Withsuch a small base, new vendors are less likely to becomepart o the site. In turn, the lack o customer growth isdirectly related to this absence o vendors. This cycle haslet the site in a plateau. It has been nearly 18 monthssince launch and there is still a small user base: only 66arms and other small business in total.

Pick-a-Pepper does oer some eatures in hopes o

attracting vendors rom competing services. Similarsites make prots by claiming a percentage o the sale.Pick-a-Pepper, on the other hand, claims that they “willnever charge vendors a commission or a membershipee.” The service makes money by providing a premiumeature with a price tag. At the cost o “$15 per month”vendors are able to “share a rotating spot with up to 10other armers” on select pages. This allows the site tomake a maximum prot o $150 per month and $1,800annually. This income likely supports the domain

name and hosting o the website, but beyond that,there is l ittle reward. (FAQ).

Figure 1



65 66

Visitors to the site are greeted by an eective landingpage (Fig. 1). Pick-a-Pepper immediately separates itsuser base, sorting out customers rom vendors. Thiseectively manages trac and helps the user movequickly and eciently through the site. This tracmanagement is continued as new and returning vendorsare also separated. The landing page makes sure totarget prospective sellers and invites them to join thewebsite. It also welcomes returning users and provides

a highly visible, accessible login. This ease o use is alsotranslated to prospective and returning customers. Inthis case, however, customers are not separated. Bothare directed right to the online store and are promptedto search via vendor or product type.

Users that opt to search by vendor are greeted by a list(Fig. 2) displaying various arms and small businesssorted by location. The approximate distance between

you and the vendor is posted and the closest vendor isat the top. Two key pieces o inormation are providedhere—a short description o the arm and a brie list o the products sold.

Once a user makes a selection, they are brought tothe Farm Prole (Fig. 3). This provides prospectivecustomers with additional inormation on each vendor.Unortunately, these proles do not go into much detail.

Vendors may only post a business name, location(limited to city and state), description, website, andcontact inormation. Aside rom the specic itemssold, these are the only parameters that distinguishone vendor prole rom another. Important identiyingmaterial such as a logo or marketing materials (photos,a short lm o the grounds, and so on) are nowhere tobe ound. A powerul opportunity to present eectivemarketing has been missed.

Figure 2



67 68

In addition to searching by vendor, users are also able tobrowse by product types (Fig. 4). This is the portion o the site that should allow comparison shopping but dueto two faws in data, this is nearly impossible. The rst islack o content. There are simply not enough vendors todisplay a wide range o products to compare. In addition,there is also a faw in the input o inormation. There isno apparent structure or data entry as it is posted to the

site. The rst instance is the process o naming products.Pick-a-Pepper has not established a set o guidelines ornaming or categorizing items. This hampers the user asthey search or a specic item and orces them to guesswhat sort o keywords the vendor used to name a product.Pick-a-Pepper would highly benet rom a more thoughtout system, one which rst prompts the vendor to selecta category (e.g. produce, dairy, baked goods) and thenprovide a system or secondary characteristics.

The second faw is the pricing o products. As Fig. 4

illustrates, there is a wide range o pricing per volumeoptions (10 lbs., 1 lb., each). A better system establish

a more intelligent pricing structure, one which limitsthe vendor as they post items and in return acilitatesprospective buyers as they compare products andsearch or bargains.

In terms o design, the landing page is most successul.It directs trac well and eatures an unsophisticatedyet welcoming design. The quality o subsequent pages,however, is much lower in comparison. Farm prole and

product pages are poorly designed. There is no hierarchy o inormation. The service would be much improved i moreplanning went into the design o how data is entered intothe site. This would allow users to nd inormation moreeasily and provide more visual variety as they searched.

Other points o interest are the methods Pick-a-Pepperuses to work out delivery and payment o items. According to the site, each “vendor chooses to eitherdeliver (sets the date and time range o delivery) ordesignates a pick-up location (sets a time and pick-uplocation).” These options are available or the customer

Figure 3



69 70

to view prior to purchase. Pick-a-Pepper does not act as amiddle man and does not address concerns over delivery,pickup, or receipt o items. This methodology is also usedin the payment o items—each customer and vendor isexpected to maintain a Paypal account. This allows Pick-a-Pepper to stand clear o liability issues. (FAQ).

Finally, customers are told they have the option toleave and/or view eedback or various vendors andspecic items. The website states that users may “leaveeedback about your purchases rom a par ticularvendor or the vendor and others to read” but I wasunable to nd comments on any o the prole orproduct pages that I surveyed (FAQ). Either it’s notin eect or no content has been generated. In eithercase, there is no system or rating in place which wouldcomplement this supposed eedback eature. Commentsas well as an overall rating system allow potentialcustomers to see, at a glance, whether it is worth doing

business with a potential vendor. This is especiallyimportant because, as established above, Pick-a-Pepperneither supports nor guarantees the receipt o goodsthat have been paid or and the customer must be extrasavvy to ensure receipt o goods.

Overall, this direct access services has a great deal o potential but, in the end, leaves much to be desired. While the site manages trac well, directing customersand vendors eectively, the content users nd ismediocre at best. Ater investigation, I ound onlyone arm within 50 miles o my home address andas little as ve arms within 200 miles. This is not aservice I, or anyone in the New York-Metropolitan area,would be able to use. These areas o inadequacy—lack o content, lack o qual ity control, and lack o astructured system or data entry—that hold Pick-a-Pepper back and prevent it rom establishing a largenetwork o arms and customers.

Figure 3



71 72

C. FreshDirect Case Study

FreshDirect ollows a ood delivery model. Customersshop online and purchases are delivered as soon asthe ollowing day. FreshDirect has a limited scope o services and, as o now, only delivers to the New York- Metropolitan area. In addition to their wide selectiono ood products, the online delivery company alsoprovides specialty oods on their main page whichinclude “organic and all natural, Kosher, gluten-ree,and locally produced” options. Users are able to

select the local portal and are then able to choose tosearch by type o ood or by state.

Local sources are limited to the states o New York,New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Vermont. The oodsthemselves are broken into nine categories (Fig. 1)including “Vegetables, Fruit, Dairy & Juice, Cheese,Seaood, Meat, Specialties & Beer, Baked Goods, Wine.” Each o these categories are broken intosubcategories, or example Vegetables contains oursections: “Lettuce & Micro Greens, Cucumbers, Corn

& Herbs, Roots & Onions, Tomatoes.”

FreshDirect also allows the user to jump directly toa list o the local ood providers as well as to view a Google map marking surrounding ood. On themap, icons (Fig. 2) illustrate the nine categories o ood. While the essence o this service is helpul andinormative, there are a ew problems with the iconsthemselves. As you can see, an egg has been usedto symbolize the dairy and juice icon while eggs are

neither. In addition, the cheese icon, which is anorange wedge, looks ar too similar to the vegetablecounterpart, which is a carrot.

Again, aside rom this map, users are also able toview a list o ood producers. As o January 2013,FreshDirect eatured a total o 49 local producers. Many o these include vendors that I am ableto purchase at my local supermarkets such as

Bread Alone, Brooklyn Brewery, Cabot Creamery,Ronnybrook Dairy, and Sixpoint Brewery. Once theuser has entered the producer portal (Fig.3), they areprompted to select rom the list o local aliates.

When users click various links, a prole (Fig. 4)appears eaturing the producer’s logo, a short tagline,and the various products that are available. There isalso the option to “Click here to learn more” whichopens a new, smaller page or the user (Fig.5). Thispage eatures a longer description as well as theoption or the vendor to display promotional photos aswell as list “Featured Items.”

Figure 1



73 74

These producer proles are eective in many ways.First, they allow FreshDirect aliates to promotethemselves with potential customers. They also provideconsumers with more details about the ood producerthan is ound in tradition ood shopping methods. Thisthirst or knowledge behind production is characteristico the local movement, so by introducing the user toadditional details is a smart move on FreshDirect’s

part. There are a ew missed opportunities, however. More marketing inormation or each producer couldbe provided. The physical address is also omitted. Inaddition, the web address o each producer is also letout. These are pieces o inormation that would bevaluable to both the producers and the consumer.

In regards to the shopping experience itsel,FreshDirect goes ar and beyond Pick-a-Pepper andFarmigo. There is a level o selectivity that is v isiblylacking in the other models. Users have access to a

wider range o selection between ood type. Pick-a-Pepper’s ood vendor pool is miniscule in comparisonwhile Farmigo l imits customers to a select ew vendorsupon setup. Additional options which FreshDirecteatures relate to comparison shopping. A sophisticatedsystem to compare prices is available as well as aeature to view products based on user rating. Theseadditional options are not surprising as the companywas ounded on principles o convenience.

As Fig. 6 displays, all o additional eatures are evidenton each product page. In the smaller column to the let,the ollowing inormation is d isplayed: producer’s logo,product name, product weight, and price and volumeindicator. These are the key pieces o inormation thatassist the user in determining a selection. Additionalinormation is also displayed in this column, includinguser ratings (above) and the ability to add an item to

the cart (below). The rst helps the user to solidiytheir choice while the second acilitates the user inmaking a quick and easy purchase.

The larger column on the right serves as theinormation a user would encounter i shopping at anactual store. First, a prominent image o the productis displayed to give the viewer a clear sense o thepurchase. Below is an about or Nutrition Facts display.The deault view is “About” which provides a productdescription. Once the user clicks “Nutrition Facts,”

however, the recognizable black and white tableexpands on the page. I the user chooses to view thedescription again, they just have to click “About” andthe blurb reappears, replacing the Nutrition Facts label. Again, these are pieces o inormation that the userwould encounter in a store and help them to makesmart purchases. Two additional services are locatedat the bottom o the page. One is a link to relevantrecipes the other is a “You May Also Like” eature.

Figure 2



75 76

local arm and other small ood production businesseswith a nearby customer base. Online and mobileservices have yet to be ully tapped in this commercialarea. The market is sorely in need o a completenetwork o local ood providers and shoppers.

Both encourage the user to continue shopping andpush them to view more products. This encouragementis vital in an online ood store and will be importantelements in my visual solution.

FreshDirect was built to provide users access toood without the need to leave their home computer.

Access to local oods as well as other specialty itemssuch as organic and gluten ree are reactions topopular demand. However, it is this very act thatan alternative model is necessary, one that supportsconnectivity between smaller ood producers andnearby, potential customers. FreshDirect works withlarger ood producers, many o which are alreadyavailable at many supermarket across the US. Myproposed visual solution will work to directly connect

Figure 3 Figure 4

To help you more easily compare apples to apples, we’ve added approx-

imate pricing. This means you’ll see an “about” price on the category

page which relates to the approximate weight of the 4-piece pack. Click

into any apple product page to see the exact price per pack.

Click here to learn about Red Jacket Orchards.

MY SOLUTION WILL CONNECT

LOCAL VENDORS

AND CONSUMERS

Figure 5



77 78



79 80

It was a shock the morning o November 17,

2012 as I puttered around my room preparing

or the day to hear National Public Radio

announce that Hostess Brands, the creator o Wonder Bead and other edible Americana

or the past 85 years,(Feintzeig) was liquidating

the company. While a new, more recent

announcement has been made that Apollo

Global Management, the company who bought

a major portion o deunct brand’s assets, is

rolling out the Twinkie once again, (Chumley) the

root o the matter remains the same. There is

a strong change in the ood-world wind.

Shortly ater the initial liquidation o Hostess wasannounced, the Wall Street Journal crated a airlydetailed article on the subject, explaining the company’snancial woes. According to the article, “employeesin [Hostess’] bakers union went on strike Nov. 9 inprotest o a court-imposed labor contract that cut wages,commissions, and health care benets and changed

CONCLUSION

the structure o pension plans.” The article goes on toclaim that the union “strike aected roughly two thirdso Hostess’s 36 plants, and made it impossible or the

company to continue producing its baked goods.”

While many decry so-called “union busting” as the culpritand have called out the Bakery, Conectionery, Tobacco Workers & Grain Millers Union (BCTGM) or the demise o American staple, it is important to note that Hostess wasexperiencing extreme hardship prior to the strike. Eventssurrounding the union were likely the straw that broke thecamel’s back and while the company could have extendedit’s liespan a ew years by keeping employees in less thanideal working conditions, the end was neigh.

The real center o the issue here is that demand or theseproducts is at an all time low. Wonder Bread is a symbolo the shit in the post-war American ood industry.The product boasts “enriched” ingredients to appeal tomoms, a staggering shel-lie or extended shipping, anda convenient, easy-to-use, pre-sliced orm. While not therst o its kind, Wonder Bread became one o the mostrecognizable industrial oods—a product o Americans’desire to simpliy and improve daily lie through

provides both access to local ood or consumers andmechanized practice and science As Wonder Bread rose



81 82

provides both access to local ood or consumers andsupport or small vendors, it applies the CSA modeland denies shoppers the luxury o variety. It limitsconsumers to consumers to a small range o providersand large batches o picked-or-you goods. The systemas it stands cannot support a network o diversityproducts or comparison-shopping. Sites that do oerthese services like Pick-a-Pepper or Local Dirt do soin a poorly designed and unattractive manner makingit dicult to view the very products that are thelieblood o online stores. While customers can shopcomparatively and access a wider range o vendors, theuser experience is cumbersome and dicult to navigate.It can be unclear what is exactly or sale and how to getit rom the online store to the user’s kitchen.

From my survey o local ood providers, there is a clearand immediate need or design and marketing support. A hodgepodge o haves and have not’s exists on all

ronts. Some vendors have a website (oten poorlyexecuted) while others have solely utilize social media.Some may employ neither but utilize third-party oodservices. None in this swirling hodgepodge eatureinnovative design. It is as i the small ood vendor hasbeen let behind in the most recent wave o web andmobile-based developments. Undoubtedly, all wouldbenet rom an increased online presence as well aaccess to a network o buyers. These two eaturesare integral to Greenhorn, my proposed online oodnetwork. Greenhorn serves to connect local armers and

small ood producers with a wide, nearby consumer-base. By assisting the vendor with an easy to useinterace that can be accessed online or mobile, it helpsthe busy business owner establish an attractive store aswell as post products on the go.

mechanized practice and science. As Wonder Bread rosein popularity a new era was ushered in, an era devoido reshness and whole ingredients. What once seemedendless is now, at last, perhaps coming to pass.

The Twinkie, another iconic Hostess product, has beenthe butt o jokes or decades. Studies have been made onthe dessert that i llustrate the product’s entirely unnaturalqualities. The ingredients list is so long and dicult to

pronounce that a linguist major would get tongue-tiedtrying to orate the Nutrition Facts. While existing as aguilty pleasure or many years, it seems American culturehas shited enough to sink the Hostess ship.

I grew up in a home that barred Wonder Bread rom thepantry. There were many trips to the organic ood store,holding my mother’s hand as she scooped whole grains,nuts, and dried ruit into small paper baggies. My brotherand I jumped to join her on voyages to Coll’s Farm, nestledon the outskirts o bucolic Jarey, New Hampshire. Coll’sFarm eature a large store with many items stocking theirshelves with grown directly on site. Our excitement wasnot in seeing the sprawling beauty o local produce (whichI long or now as I squeeze through the compact aisles o the prototypical New York City supermarket), it was thefavored honey sticks and ruit leather that awaited us atcheck-out i we behaved. We were a product o my mother’sshopping ethic, something which has obviously ueledmy interest as I began and completed work on this veryimportant topic—reconnecting Americans to the ood they

consume. Growth o the American ood industry along withthe dissociative properties o the supermarket o lead toconsumers that do not know where their ood comes rom.Food awareness is trendy and consumers are ravenous ormore inormation and connection to what they eat.

The most practical outlet or this connection is throughthe promotion o local ood purchases. While sites likeFreshDirect oer convenience to the consumer, thereis a limited selection o local ood providers. Farmigo



83 84

REFERENCES

Crots, Linda. Crots Homestead. Personal interview.31 Mar. 2013.

Godray, H. Charles J. et al. “Food Security: TheChallenge o Feeding 9 Billion People.” Science327.5967 (2010): 812–818. www.sciencemag.org.ezproxy.cul.columbia.edu. Web. 20 Sept. 2012.

“[Farmigo:] About.” Farmigo. <http://www.armigo.com/ about>. 2013. Web. Farmigo.com. 1 Jan. 13.

Fast, Yvona. “What’s In Season?” E: the Environmental Magazine Feb. 2012 : 35. Print.

Feintzeig, Rachel, Mike Spector, and Julie Jargon.“Twinkie Maker Hostess to Close.” Wall Street Journal16 Nov. 2012. Wall Street Journal. Web. 16 Apr. 2013.

Folsom, Burton. “The Origin o American FarmSubsidies.” Freeman Apr. 2006 : 34–35. Print.

“[FreshDirect:] About.” FreshDirect. <https://www.reshdirect.com/category.jsp?catId=about_overview>.2013. FreshDirect.com. Web. 1 Jan. 13.

Adams, Damian C. “Local Versus Organic: A Turn inConsumer Preerences and Willingness-to-pay.” Ed.

Matthew J Salois. Renewable Agr iculture and FoodSystems 25.4 (2010): 331–331. Print.

“Adult Obesity Facts.” Centers or Disease Control andPrevention. Centers or Disease Control and Prevention,13 Aug. 2012. Web. 12 Oct. 2012. <http://www.cdc.gov/ obesity/data/adult.html>. 22 Sep. 2012.

Bittman, Mark. “Rethinking the Meat-Guzzler.” TheNew York Times 27 Jan. 2008. NYTimes.com. Web. 18Sept. 2012.

Cha, Bonnie. “Farmigo Opens Doors to Online Farmers Market.” AllThingsD. Web. 7 Jan. 2013.

Chumley, Cheryl K. “The Twinkie’s Back! Snack toReappear in Stores This Summer.” The WashingtionTimes. Web. 16 Apr. 2013.

Crane, Cody. “Plumped up Portions.” Science World 9Nov. 2009 : 8–11. Print.



85 86

jsp>. 2013. Peapod.com. Web. 1 Jan. 13.

“Pick-a-Pepper, About.” Pick-a-Pepper. <https:/ /pick-a-pepper.com/about.php>. 2013. Web. Pick-a-Pepper.com.4 Feb. 13.

“[Pick-a-Pepper:] Frequently asked Questions.” Pick-a-Pepper. <https://pick-a-pepper.com/aq.php>. 2013. Web.Pick-a-Pepper.com. 4 Feb. 13.

Rollin, B E. “Annual Meeting Keynote Address: Animal Agriculture and Emerging Social Ethics or Animals.”Journal o Animal Science 82.3 (2004): 955–955. Print.

Tonjes, Tim. Tones Dairy. Personal interview. 6 Apr. 2013.

Wimberley, Sara L., and Jessica L. McClean.“Supermarket Savvy: The Everyday Inormation-Seeking Behavior o Grocery Shoppers.” Inormation& Culture: A Journal o History 47.2 (2012): 176–205.Print.

Yoon, Carol Kaesuk. “No Face, but Plants Like Lie Too.”The New York Times. 14 Mar. 2011. NYTimes.com. Web.13 Apr. 2013.

Fulkerson, Lee, dir. Forks Over Knives. Monica Beach Media, 2011. Film. 1 Oct. 2012.

Houck, Lee. Deep Mountain Maple. Personal interview. 6 Apr. 2013.

“New (Ab)Normal, The.” MakingHealthEasier.org.Centers or Disease Control and Prevention. Centers orDisease Control and Prevention, n.d. Web. 12 Oct. 2012.<http://makinghealtheasier.org/newabnormal>. 22 Sep.2012.

Leubkeman, Karen. Stone Broke Creek. Personalinterview. 7 Apr. 2013.

Louise, Mary. Violet Hill Farm. Personal interview. 6

Apr. 2013.

Mosier, Arvin R. ; John John Keith Syers; John RaymondFreney: Editors. “Agriculture and the Nitrogen Cycle: Assessing the Impacts o Fertilizer Use on FoodProduction and the Environment.” Island Press, 2004.296 p. Book.

“[Peapod:] Our Company.” Peapod. <http://www.peapod.com/site/companyPages/our-company-overview.



87 88

12 http://discovermagazine.com/2013/jan-eb/71-pig-arms-breed-resistant-staph#.UWjQPit35Z8, 3/21/13.

11–12 http://www.armsanctuary.org/wp-content / gallery/eggs/batthens10_300_1.jpg, 3/21/13.

14–15 http://img2.etsystatic.com/000/ ̀ 0/5640084 / il_570xN.337911510.jpg, 3/20/13.

15–16 Crabbs, Gary. “Cattle Holding Facility.”Enlightened Images. www.enlightphoto.com.1998., 3/21/13.

16, center http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/ sa1997000024/PP, 3 /22/13.

17 http://nwsportsmanmag.com/wp-content/ uploads/2012/02/trout-2.jpg, 4/10/13.

18, let http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/ sa1998020973/PP, 3/22/13.

19, right http:/ /hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/cph.3c31530,3/22/13.

19–20, 43–44 http://www.fickr.com/photos/lyza/ 49545547/ sizes/o/in/photostream, 2/20/13.

21 http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/ sa1997018360/PP, 3/22/13.

1, let http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/ sa1997000063/PP, 3 /22/13.

1, right http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/

sa1998003413/PP, 3 /22/13.1–2 http://www.vycc.org/about/programs/arm-

and-ood, 2/20/13.

3, 6 http://img0.etsystatic.com/000/0 /5663576/ il_ullx ull.285664764.jpg?re=l2, 3/26/13.

4 http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/File:PSM_ V03_D243_ Justus_von_Liebig.jpg, 3/20/13.


8, let http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ File:HerbertHoover.jpg , 3/20/13.

8, right http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:FDR_in_1933.jpg, 3/20/13.

9 http://www-tc.pbs.org/kenburns/dustbowl/ media/photos/s4383-lg.jpg, 3/21/13.

10 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dust_Bowl_-_ Dallas,_South_Dakota_1936.jpg, 3/21/13.


IMAGE GUIDE

page addRess and dateaccessed page addRess and dateaccessed



89 90

39–40 The Super Giant supermarket in Rockville, Maryland – 1964. http:/ /www.shorpy.com/ node/4959?size=_original, 4/01/13.


42, let http://www.loc.gov/pictures/ item/2011633038 , 3/22/13.

42, right http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/sa.8c28812,3/22/13.

45 http://www.greenerpackage.com/sites/ deault/les/Peapod.jpg 4/11/13.

46 http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-lQnJ1RoKuHs /T2ebIxuvO0I/AAAAAAAAAE8/977X3aMOJkA/s1600/Over%2Bpackaging.JPG,4/11/13.

47 http://www.neighborhoodoods.org/assets/

img/produce-share.jpg , 4/11/13.

55–61 Screenshots captured rom armigo.com,1/28/13.

63–70 Screenshots captured rom pick-a-pepper.com, 1/28/13.

71–78 Screenshots capututed rom reshdirect.com, 1/28/13.

22 http://www.artrenewal.org/pages/artwork.php?artworkid=3301, 4/01/13.

23 http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/ owi2001040247/PP, 3/33/13.

24, upper let http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/cph.3b45365, 3/22/13

24, upper right http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/ oem2002007833/PP, 3 /22/13.

24, lower right http://www.madviolinist.com/myblog/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/ord-model-t.gi,4/01/13.

25 http://www.curbsideclassic.com/wp-content/ uploads/2012/05/56-Capri-sedan.jpg, 4/01/13.

27 http://kansasgrains.les.wordpress.com/2012/03/aisle.jpg , 4/01/13.

29–30 http://andberlin.les.wordpress.com/2012/11/table-o-ood-at-white-trash-ast-ood.jpg , 4/01/13.

30–31 http://bronxbanter.arneson.name/ wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/ heinz.jpg , 4/01/13.

31–32 http://www.cheeriosandlattes.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/cherry-tomatoes-on-the-vine-pre-pack.jpeg, 4/01/13.

33–34 http://turmericandtwine.les.wordpress.com/2012/11/green-tomatoes.jpg , 4/01/13.

34 http://ketchuptochutney.les.wordpress.

com/2009/07/tomatosams_tomatoes.jpg,4/01/13.

35 http://www.macalester.edu/academics/ environmentalstudies/students/projects/ citizenscience2010/organiclabeling/usda%20copy.gi, 4/01/13.

37–38 http://lcweb2.loc.gov/master/pnp/highsm /13500/13500u.ti, http://w ww.loc.gov/ pictures/item/2011631694, 3/22/13.

page addRess and date page addRess and date

good food for good people: a field guide for better food practices

Documents