research summary: historical & current food plans from ... · maine food strategy project:...

Maine Food

Strategy Project: Phase I

Maine Food Strategy Project – Phase 1

November 2012

(updated 12.23.12)

Research Summary: Historical & Current Food Plans from Maine &

Other Places

November 2012 Research Summary: Historical & Current Food Plans from Maine & Other Places

Acknowledgements

Research Summary: Historical & Current Food Plans from Maine & Other Places was produced with generous support and assistance from

Broad Reach Fund

Henry P. Kendall Foundation Maine Community Foundation

John Merck Foundation Sandy River Charitable Foundation

Donald Sussman University of Southern Maine Muskie School of Public Service

We would also like to recognize, with deep gratitude,

Russell Libby of the Maine Organic Farmers & Gardeners Association, for providing access to numerous historical reports from his personal archives.

Phase I Coordinating Team Members

Dr. Mark Lapping, Distinguished Professor, Muskie School of Public Service

Dr. Sam Merrill, Associate Professor, Muskie School of Public Service Barbara Ives, Project Co-‐Director, Muskie School of Public Service

Tanya Swain, Project Co-‐Director Amanda Beal, Research Coordinator

Lisa Fernandes, Outreach Coordinator, Eat Local Foods Coalition Robin Alden, Penobscot East Resource Center

Shelley Doak, Maine Grocers Association and Maine Food Producers Alliance Mary Ann Hayes, Maine Rural Partners

Carol Martin, consultant in network development

The Maine Food Strategy Initiative is headquartered at the Edmund S. Muskie School of Public Service. For copies of this report, visit www.mainefoodstrategy.org or

contact :

Barbara Ives, Project Co-‐Director Edmund S. Muskie School of Public Service

34 Bedford St, Rm 332A Portland, Maine 04104-‐9300

207-‐228-‐8594 or [email protected]


Introduction In 2011, funders and nonprofits, government agencies and small business began discussing how to more effectively coordinate efforts in food systems to improve impact and return on investment, in both the public and private sectors. Their conversations led to the Maine Food Strategy Initiative, a nascent effort officially launching in 2013 to lead a research-‐based, participatory planning process that will identify shared statewide goals, and a collective path forward towards building a stronger, more sustainable food system in Maine. Food systems planning is not new to the State. Recognizing the thoughtful work of individuals involved in past efforts, the Maine Food Strategy Initiative began its work by taking stock of what we already know. A review of past reports indicates that successful food plans have the following characteristics: • Metrics and a systematic assessment process that quantitatively links progress to the vision. • Grounding in data and an understanding of the current conditions of food production

(seafood as well as land-‐based foods), distribution, marketing and processing infrastructure, labor in the food system, waste management and consumer preferences.

• Makes the case for outcomes that improve the well-‐being of the larger community, for

example, jobs that provide livable wages, better community health outcomes, enhanced access to food, sound stewardship of resources, appropriate regulatory reforms, a food system research agenda, and education and training priorities.

Research Summary: Historical & Current Food Plans from Maine & Other Places is a foundational document that was produced in Phase I of the Maine Food Strategy project. The report provides an overview of planning efforts in Maine and nationally, and highlights core and emerging issues for food systems. The process and results of past initiatives suggest that implementation of a new strategy for Maine will require significant personal investment and commitment from diverse stakeholders, and a process that accomplishes the following: A sense of ownership and legitimacy; An inclusive framework that facilitates the exchange of diverse ideas and perspectives; Best use of existing networks to advance the work, and the creation of new ones where needed; The identification of “targets for change.” Maine has some critical assets. Among these are growth in the number of farms and farmers; a strong entrepreneurial culture; a substantial land base and unparalleled shoreline with fishery assets; leadership from various farm, fishery, and community groups; and a recognition that Maine’s food culture can contribute in substantial ways to economic development. Many have already rolled up their sleeves to realize fresh opportunity for food in Maine – we hope this report will inform that journey.


2

TABLE OF CONTENTS Summary of Plans From Maine 3 Summary of Plans from Other Places 5 Policy Summary 7 Core & Emerging Issues 10 Appendix A: Plans From Maine Reviewed Agricultural Council of Maine: Growing Maine ‐ Strategies for Expanding Maine's Food

and Farm Economy (2012) 12 Agricultural Council of Maine: A Strategic Plan for Maine Agriculture (1998) 13 Agricultural Council of Maine: Strengthening Maine Agriculture Today for a Healthier

Tomorrow (Date not specified) 15 A Food Policy for the State of Maine (2006) 16 Revitalizing Maine Agriculture (1979) 19 Appendix B: Plans From Other Places Reviewed Assessing the San Diego County Food System: Indicators for a More Food Secure Future (2010) 21 Cultivating Resilience: A Food System Blueprint that Advances the Health of Iowans,

Farms and Communities (2011) 24 Vermont Farm to Plate Strategic Plan (2011) 27 From Farm to Fork: A Guide to Building North Carolina’s Sustainable Local Food Economy (2010) 29 Michigan Good Food Charter (2010) 32 Planting Prosperity and Harvesting Health (2008) 34 Resetting the Table: A People’s Food Policy for Canada (2011) 37 The 25% Shift – The Benefits of Food Localization for Northeast Ohio & How to Realize

Them (2010) 39 The Good Food for All Agenda – Creating a New Regional Food System for Los Angeles (2010) 43 Appendix C: Catalog of Historical and Current Food Plans, Assessments and Reports 47

Nearly 200 documents were reviewed in Phase 1 of the Maine Food Strategy project (from MayNovember 2012), which have all informed the Maine Food Strategy project to date, as well as all aspects of this summary. The MFS: Catalog of Historical & Current Food Plans, Assessments & Reports (NOT printformatted), which lists and categorizes these documents, can be accessed at: http://tinyurl.com/br45h4t. A printformatted version can be found as Appendix C at the end of this document. Note: In many cases, language was directly cut and pasted from the reports to populate the fields in this document.

Cover Photo: The lobster feast, Castine, ME. Photo by: Amanda Beal, 2010.


3

Summary of Plans from Maine

Five plans were reviewed for this section (see Appendix A for full summary of each). AGCOM Plans Three of the Plans reviewed for this analysis were strategic plans of the Agricultural Council of Maine (AGCOM), which is a group of commodity representatives that meet monthly throughout the year. These plans provide a good snapshot of priorities in Agriculture, from their perspective, through the past few decades. One of the plans (1998) involved a more comprehensive outreach effort to solicit input from producers and other stakeholders. The most recent plan (2012) was assembled by an internal working group based on AGCOM members’ perceptions of current priorities. The priorities set forth in the AGCOM plans do not include fisheries, nor do they approach broader food system issues such as supply chain management, waste reduction or hunger. They do consistently address ecological and natural resource conservation, health, economic development, the need for new farmers and the importance of youth education. Looking back: In terms of success, the AGCOM plans are a unifying tool for member organizations, which are primarily responsible for carrying out the work to implement priorities. They appear to be good tools for creating momentum around a few core goals. Due to the diverse nature of the members, it seems that the priorities must remain somewhat broad in order to maintain relevance and not get into territory where members can’t agree. These plans are designed to look at one specific part of the food system (agriculture), and are generally not assembled in a way that is meant to produce widespread public input or generates public support. The most recent plan is targeted toward policymakers; the success of this plan is to be determined, as it was just released. A Food Policy for the State of Maine This plan, which was actually a report to the Joint Standing Committee of Agriculture, Conservation & Forestry during the 2nd regular session of the 122nd Legislature, was produced in 2006. It was intended to be a first step in setting policy goals for Maine’s food system, and was to be built upon through the work of a state level Food Policy Council. There was some stakeholder input from organizations and state departments involved in writing this document, with the intent of a broader outreach phase to be conducted on a statewide level by this Council once their work formally got underway. This is the most comprehensive, food‐system‐wide plan‐type document that has been produced in Maine in recent decades. It includes fisheries and agriculture, and addresses broad issues such as processing, distribution, economic and environmental sustainability, food security and availability, hunger, health, community well‐being, farmland and working waterfront access and conservation. Looking back: The process from which this plan was produced began in an energized way and showed promise. The Eat Local Foods Coalition of Maine spearheaded early conversations that resulted in this document and process, and many still‐relevant goals and issues are addressed in this report. A downfall of the design of the Food Policy Council may have been the top‐heavy nature of the designated seats – most council members were either organizational representatives or state employees. Another deficit was the fact that there was no budget attached to this initiative, therefore


4

the resources to move the work forward were largely voluntary or expected to come from participating state departments whose budgets have been increasingly pinched over the years. Unfortunately, this Council became defunct; however, this document has been a useful advocacy tool for numerous organizations and has also sparked the development of various local and regional level Food Policy Councils, and the coordinating entity, the Maine Network of Community Food Councils. Revitalizing Maine Agriculture This plan, written in 1979 by a sole author on behalf of the Audubon Society of Maine, is quite interesting in that is illuminates the fact that we are still facing many of the same issues. Written by Lucy Gorman, this is actually a quite through analysis of the state of Maine’s food system and the need to focus on strengthening its components. In this document, Ms. Gorman discusses both agricultural and fisheries issues, and focuses on challenges such as energy prices and volatility, hunger, food security, increasing the producer share of the food dollar, land and natural resource conservation. Looking back: Because this is an older document, there was no information available about how well received it was at the time it was published. As it appears to have been researched and written by one person, it does not represent a participatory goal setting‐process, therefore buy‐in may have been minimal. In addition, our ongoing national policies to prop up cheap oil and subsidize food costs may have overshadowed the findings and recommendations of the author at that time.


5

Summary of Plans from Other Places

Nine plans were reviewed for this section (see Appendix B for full summary of each).

Due to the volume of information included in the nine plans reviewed, this section will provide a bulleted summary of relevant recommendations that may help to inform and strengthen the Maine Food Strategy process: Economic:

• Analyze wage distribution in the food production chain; set strategies to increase wages for those with the lowest share, likely producers (farmers & fishermen/farming & fishing laborers) and food service workers.

• Look at costs of waste disposal; investigate the impact of community and/or statewide composting programs on waste disposal costs.

• Locate or create a database of food system financing options. • Develop energy reduction strategies for food production, as well as identify promising

technologies for renewable energy with maximum benefit for application at points within the food system.

• Identify key products/markets for production expansion (to offset tendency for people to overcrowd already successful markets).

• Include a strategy to encourage consumers to shop at Maine/locally owned businesses and restaurants vs. chains (North Carolina study est. that: “spending $100 at a local restaurant results in $79 in additional income to local businesses, while spending the same $100 at a chain restaurant results in just $31 being re‐spent locally”).

Production/Infrastructure:

• Encourage branding/marketing that highlights Maine grown/produced/processed foods. • Encourage food hub development where businesses are complimentary to one another, for

example: outputs of one business are inputs of another, strong co‐marketing/co‐distribution potential, etc.

Health & Nutrition:

• Acknowledge that breastfeeding is an important element of food security and health. • Increase access to healthy, local foods through USDA programs by increasing utilization of

federal nutrition benefits by eligible persons while also increasing retail access to local foods (Example: expanding farmers markets capacity to accept EBT payments, increasing local food in schools, etc.).

• Also, increase access through community‐level food assistance programs and education and re‐skilling around household‐level food production.

Policy:

• Advocate for a state‐level Food Systems Specialist to build linkages with relevant state departments, identify and facilitate ongoing opportunities for outreach and assistance to local


6

food system development activities, and enhance overall food system resiliency to threats of external food supply interruptions.

• Support local and regional food system council work. • Engage policymakers in planning and implementation. • Strengthen Farm/Boat to School/Institution policies at institutional and state level. • Encourage state and municipal policies that incentivize local ownership and utilization of

working farmland and working waterfront properties.

Research: • Verify baseline number of how much food (processed and unprocessed) is currently

imported/exported and track over time (stated as 80%/20% in A Food Policy for Maine). • Consider using a report card framework (see: Iowa plan) to assess and communicate progress

on key elements of food system. • Conduct analysis of food production inputs; develop strategies on how to localize inputs,

enhance nutrient recycling loops (on‐site, locally and regionally), and to more effectively manage nutrient flows (within farming and fishing, and between sectors).

• Map baseline and track: processing, manufacturing, storage facilities, and wholesale distribution patterns. Also, identify underutilized facilities that already exist with potential for repurposing to meet processing and production needs.

• Identify areas of worker education and re‐skilling needed to enhance food production and processing in‐state.

• Assess existing and future potential for urban agriculture to contribute to local food production needs.


7

Policy Considerations for the Maine Food Strategy (MFS) Project

Summary:

Numerous reports, papers and journals have presented policy recommendations for moving the development of Maine’s food system forward over the past few decades. Many produced within the past several years still offer highly relevant suggestions that should be looked at more closely as we explore ways to expand and strengthen existing efforts and fill key gaps in our food system infrastructure. In reviewing these documents, reoccurring statements indicate that there are general area’s where policy can play a pivotal role, including:

• Clarifying and streamlining existing regulations. • Assuring that regulatory measures acknowledge and match varying scales of operation. • Protecting access to Maine’s most productive (and most potentially productive) land. • Prioritizing and protecting access to the sea for Maine‐based owner‐operator fishing boats. • Protecting our natural capital and ecosystem services. • Accessing capital to help jump‐start value‐added and innovative food businesses, as well as

solving key gaps in the food system. • Setting priority spending policies for local food purchasing with public monies (state

departments, schools, etc.). • Assessing and monitoring ongoing measures of food system and food security development,

and supporting continuous research that identifies oncoming challenges, gaps and opportunities.

Maine Policy Examples: In 2011, the Margaret Chase Policy Smith Center at the University of Maine published a special issue of the Maine Policy Review (MPR) journal dedicated solely to one topic: Food. Among the pages of the largest issue of the MPR published to date, many leading experts on elements of Maine’s food system shared their perspectives on what policy actions could benefit the food producers, processers, distributors, retailers and consumers of Maine. A full catalog of over 100 policy recommendations, along with justifications and references to the articles & authors, can be viewed at: http://tinyurl.com/d8eh8yw. Following is a snapshot of some recommendations from the catalog that cover the realms of production, processing, financing, natural resource use, food security and nutrition: Fisheries:

• Prioritize development of versatile, small‐scale processing. • State leadership should work with the Maine Working Waterfront Coalition to secure funding

to meet an annual need of $1.5 million to preserve a total of $25 million of key working waterfront properties along the coast.


8

• Create permit banks to mitigate the effects of federal permit policies that do not constrain consolidation or the migration of federal fishing rights out of Maine ownership. These purchases should be done with private funds and support permit banks that provide the rights to younger fishermen rooted in coastal communities.

• Start practicing fishery management the way landscape ecology is done, recognizing the importance of different places in the ocean and the interrelationships between forage and fish.

• Support municipal clam management. Public health monitoring and technical assistance should be made available to support clam management. Maintain adequate General Fund support for the Maine Department of Marine Resources (DMR) red tide and bacterial monitoring of clam flats.

• Require state of origin and method of harvesting labeling at the retail level. Farms:

• (Allocate resources to conduct) Full‐scale nutrient analysis—how much land can be farmed with the resources we have available now? What will we need to do to make up the difference? How do we do that? If we’re going to do large‐scale nutrient cycling, we’ll need better systems and strategies for getting shellfish into compost operations, handling leaves in large quantities, and moving manure from livestock farms to crop farms.

• (Support/incentivize) More composting businesses. Help with training, siting, and capitalization.

• Increase fiscal resources dedicated to farmland preservation/Reinvest in Maine’s Farms for the Future program (operated by the Maine Department of Agriculture), which began in 2003 and has used $2,000,000 in public bond financing to support the development of new enterprises among farmers and value‐added grants for various enterprises building on the voter‐approved bond 39 last year that included $1,000,000 for agricultural‐processing enterprises.

• Increase resources to assist entry into farming for new farmers, including immigrant and refugee farmers, for business training, land access and other needed areas of support to improve economic development opportunity and improve food security.

• Link state level efforts to and support engagement in community‐based strategic planning that promotes agriculture related economic development opportunities, assesses food system infrastructure needs and identifies existing underutilized facilities with potential for repurposing, and addresses local food security and nutrition needs.

Farms & Fisheries (Overlapping):

• Develop a cohesive vision for Maine's food landscape that builds a robust, localized food system based on regenerative practices, recognizing the natural resource, economic, structural and other inherent connections between the farming and fishing sectors and create a strategic plan to incrementally implement policy based on this vision. (NOTE: Because this is the purpose of the Maine Food Strategy, it would be most advantageous for the corresponding state departments to engage in this process fully and let it inform their future goals and structure).

• Expand information exchange between farming and fishing. • Assess existing and potential opportunities to develop regional food‐hubs that increase value‐

added opportunities and expand local and regional market opportunities for food producers. • Support clean watersheds. Fishing interests should link with and support the efforts of

(farming organizations) and local watershed associations to protect the quality of watersheds. / (Develop mechanism to facilitate) Maine farmers and fishermen…in regular communication so that farmers are more aware that what happens upstream affects the systems downstream. Maine Department of Agriculture (DOA) and farm organizations partner with USDA’s Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) to make sure at least 95 percent of Maine farms become


9

active cooperators and 10 percent of each farm is managed for appropriate ecological values—buffer strips, wildlife habitat, and other conservation practices. (Potential funding source: Primarily USDA‐NRCS, with active participation of local Soil and Water Conservation Districts.)

Food Security & Nutrition:

• Establish state level Food System Coordinator integrated with Ag, Marine, Planning, Econ & Community Development, Education, DHHS, Tourism (etc) Departments.

• (Examine) What…is on the typical Maine plate today? • Support widespread consumer education about the value of kitchen gardens, from both a

nutritional and economic point of view, including growing and storage techniques. Also, encourage municipalities to develop and maintain community garden infrastructure.

• Increase utilization of available dollars to provide summer feeding programs in regions of high child poverty rates in Maine by mandating that schools with over 50% student qualifying for free and reduced lunch have a summer program (Strengthen the Act to Reduce Student Hunger passed in 2011).

• Include Farmers’ markets and other organizations that promote access to local foods in state outreach plans, along with food banks.

• (S)tudy the feasibility of the (current food rescue) charity model, to test its capacity (and) its ability to improve the health and well‐being of those forced to rely on it.

• Promote healthy worksite policies and employee incentives to make healthy nutrition choices. • The state should (1) develop a strategic three‐year program to enable at least two percent of

Maine’s annual allocation of SNAP funding to provide incentives for the purchase of healthy, affordable food from local farmers; (2) encourage local community foundations, health care organizations and their foundations, and the medical teams at Maine hospitals and clinics to expand innovative pilot programs such as the farmers’ market fruit‐and‐vegetable‐prescription program; (3) encourage Maine nonprofit organizations to apply for funding from the USDA’s specialty crop program and Farmers’ Market Promotion Program, from SNAP‐Ed and CDC’s Community Transformation Grant Program (Communities Putting Prevention to Work) to support staff needed to deploy such incentives at local direct‐marketing outlets with access to existing federal food‐assistance benefits; and (4) continue to support and fund infrastructure technology at farmers’ markets, CSAs, and roadside markets that underpins these innovative nutrition incentive programs.

Additionally, the report titled: A Food Policy for the State of Maine, submitted to the Joint Standing Committee on Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry during the 2nd regular session of the 122nd Maine Legislature in January, 2006, provides a list of policy actions in its Appendix C (pp. 17‐20) that are precursory to and mirror many of these and other recommendations from the MPR, and offer additional recommendations worthy of consideration, as well. (See electronic copy of report at: http://maine.gov/agriculture/mpd/information/foodpolicydraft.pdf) The By Land and By Sea: Connecting Maine's Farming & Fishing Communities 2010 Regional Forums Report also includes numerous policy recommendations offered up by farmers and fishermen through community‐based forums. These policy recommendations span the topics of production, processing, distribution and consumer education. (See: http://tinyurl.com/ca3bb96)


10

Core & Emerging Issues in Maine’s Food System

The following is a list of current core and emerging issues that exist within Maine’s food system. These issues have been culled from a variety of papers, reports, assessments and topical plans that were reviewed during Phase 1 of the Maine Food Strategy (MFS) project. During Phase 2 of the MFS project, these issues will need to be looked at more closely, compared with issues raised in the Phase 1 Engagement/Stakeholder interviews, and discussed with new stakeholders to assist in determining priority areas and best strategies for addressing challenges or enhancing opportunities. Due to ongoing funding constraints, it is expected that there may be extended fiscal challenges impacting the ability of the Department of Agriculture and the University of Maine Cooperative Extension to respond to producer and consumer needs, including diminishing research capacity. Agriculture

• Climate Change o Changing pest profile o Changing hardiness zones o Increasing weather/heavy precipitation events (potential for greater soil erosion)

• Inputs o Energy – costs/volatility/access

Dependence on synthetic fertilizers & pesticides (costs tied to energy costs) Water – quality: bitumen/tar sands (oil) pipeline proposal; quantity: extraction impacts (bottled water companies/increasing worldwide water stress)

• Markets o Increasing competition in urban/southern Maine in premier wholesale and direct to

consumer markets o Access to larger institutional and grocer markets

Aggregation & distribution • Costs/transportation

o Farm to Institution o Expanding direct to consumer markets

• Processing Capacity • Waste (from production through consumption) • Farm transition

o Special considerations for dairy and other producers with highly capital intensive infrastructure

• Land use change o Farmland preservation o Scaling up agriculture to meet regional food planning needs/potential impact on

fisheries


11

Fisheries

• Climate Change o Warming water o Acidity o Increasing weather/heavy precipitation events (potential for greater non‐point

pollution) o Lobster (increased population, shell disease) o Groundfish population/recovery (implications?)

• Inputs o Energy – costs/volatility/access o Bait imports (potential for disease introduction)/herring depletion

• Pollution in the Gulf of Maine and other waterways • Fishery management

o Landscape ecology model vs. sector management o River restoration/dam removal

• Markets o Access to larger institutional and grocer markets

Aggregation & distribution • Costs/transportation

o Boat to Institution o Expanding direct to consumer markets

• Waste (from production through consumption) • Processing capacity • Licensing • Waterfront access/preservation

Overarching

• Hunger/Food Insecurity o Local trends o Impacts of projected global trends on local

• Access to capital for production and processing infrastructure • Worker Issues

o Health & safety o Social justice issues o Wages o Access to Healthcare

• Need for consumer education o Re‐skilling (cooking, handling, personal food production, etc.)


12

Appendix A: Plans From Maine Reviewed

Agricultural Council of Maine: Growing Maine Strategies for Expanding Maine's Food and Farm Economy (20122020)

Citation: The Agricultural Council of Maine (AGCOM). 2012. Growing Maine ‐ Strategies for Expanding Maine's Food and Farm Economy. AGCOM, Augusta.

Weblink: To be scanned. Who was Involved?: Agricultural commodity representatives. List priorities and action steps: Goals & Policy Priorities:

1) Create profitability in farming; 2) Increase R&D investment; 3) Support the next generation; 4) Connect local food with healthy eating; and, 5) Lead advocate and protect Maine's farm resources.

Any key economic impact statements?: Sidebar ‐ Farming: Essential to Our Economy and Our Quality of Life (2007 and 2011 reports cited)

• $718 million in farm gate cash receipts • 28,534 full‐ and part‐time farm employment • Over $24 million in annual property taxes • $1 million – Key to our state’s $1 million agri‐tourism industry • $2.7 billion – direct impact of food production (farming, fisheries and food processing sales

revenue) • $7.5 billion – direct impact of food industry (food producers, restaurants and grocery store

revenue) Also:

• A primary objective is to increase total farm income by 5% per annum over the next decade with the target of a billion dollars by 2020.

Underlying philosophies/values: Intro: As the world around us changes – from markets to climate to energy policy – our farm and food businesses must continuously adjust and adapt. To succeed, we need to create new growth


13

opportunities for Maine’s farmers and value‐added food businesses. The goals and policy priorities summarized here will move Maine agriculture forward and ultimately benefit the health and well‐being of all Maine people. Audience: AGCOM stakeholders & policymakers. Guiding (research) question(s) and methodology: Not specified. Common themes: Economic Development, R&D, New Farmers, Markets, Infrastructure, Technology, Energy, Natural Resource Protection Key people involved in writing plan: Not specified. Contact Linda Titus: 207‐873‐2108 or [email protected] Includes fisheries?: No.

Agricultural Council of Maine: A Strategic Plan for Maine Agriculture

Citation: The Agricultural Council of Maine (AGCOM). 1998. A Strategic Plan for Maine Agriculture. AGCOM, Augusta.

Weblink: http://efc.muskie.usm.maine.edu/docs/Food%20report%20scans/strategic_plan_for_me_ag_1998 Who was Involved?: Agricultural commodity representatives, farmers. List priorities and action steps: Goals:

1) To increase market opportunities for Maine agricultural products; 2) To provide Maine farms with access to the research, information, and training needed for

continued growth and success; 3) To enable Maine farmers to produce high quality agricultural products in economically‐

sustainable and environmentally sound production systems;


14

4) To heighten public awareness of the contribution of a viable agriculture industry to the State; 5) To sustain the state's agricultural industry by keeping farmland in production and supporting

the next generation of Maine farmers

Any key economic impact statements?:

• Maine's agriculture and food processing industries directly contribute over $1.5 billion annually to the state's economy. Maine produces more food crops for human consumption than any other New England state, except Vermont.

• Agriculture is second only to forestry in terms of land use in the state, and Maine farmers own nearly 1.34 million acres of Maine land, or 7% of the state's total landbase.

• Maine farmers pay more than $21.3 million annually in property taxes and are generally the largest taxpayers in the state's rural communities.

• In addition, a healthy agricultural industry ensures the rolling fields, forests, croplands, wild blueberry barrens, orchards, and livestock that enhance the scenic character of the state and supports its $3 billion dollar tourism industry.

Underlying philosophies/values: The impact of Maine agriculture goes well beyond simple economics. While economic data is important, it fails to capture the social and environmental impact of an industry which is a vital thread in the fabric of Maine communities and a key to our quality of life. In addition to providing food and fiber, agriculture has far‐reaching benefits for the state's rural and urban citizens. Farmers play a tremendous role in the responsible management of Maine's soil, water, and wildlife resources. This stewardship ensures that current and future generations will enjoy open spaces, biological diversity, recreational opportunities, and clean air and water. Audience: AGCOM stakeholders Guiding (research) question(s) and methodology: Key questions:

1) How can the industry best position itself for future growth? 2) Where do opportunities lie for expansion and new agricultural enterprises? 3) How can the industry build upon its competitive advantages? 4) What barriers discourage the expansion or creation of agricultural businesses? 5) What private and public sector initiatives could be created to strengthen the industry's long term viability?

Convened farmer focus groups; surveyed farmers; surveyed financial institutions to determine their agricultural lending practices; outreach to agriculture experts and marketing specialists; Maine State Planning Office lent economic modeling expertise. Common themes: Economic Development, Land Use/Preservation, New Farmers, Expansion, Finance/Access to Capitol


15

Key people involved in writing plan: Not specified. Contact Linda Titus: 207‐873‐2108 or [email protected] Includes fisheries?: No.

Agricultural Council of Maine: Strengthening Maine Agriculture Today for a Healthier Tomorrow

Citation: The Agricultural Council of Maine (AGCOM). Date unknown. Strengthening Maine

Agriculture Today for a Healthier Tomorrow. AGCOM, Augusta. Weblink: http://efc.muskie.usm.edu/docs/Food%20report%20scans/agcom_strategic_plan.pdf Who was Involved?: Agricultural commodity representatives List priorities and action steps: Priorities:

1) Better Health of Maine's People through Agriculture: Link the health of Maine's citizens with healthy Maine food and healthy Maine farms and farmers and other healthy life choices; 2) Economic Impact Across Maine: Realize the full economic potential of Maine food production and value added processing throughout Maine; 3) Environmental Benefits: Ensure the long term environmental benefits of healthy and productive farm lands and resulting open space; 4) Perpetual Youth: Ensure Maine's youth understand the benefits of Maine produced food and state of the art agricultural practices and that youth, other new farmers, and "young thinking" producers have the information and training for success.


• Agriculture in Maine is the "Rural Land Manufacturing Mill", with over 20,000 individuals employed directly with a 5x economic multiplier effect on the surrounding community and businesses. Recent impact studies by the Dairy and Potato industry prove the point that farming in Maine is the economic driver in many rural communities.

Underlying philosophies/values: Not specified.


16

Audience: AGCOM stakeholders Guiding (research) question(s) and methodology: Not specified. Common themes: Health, Economic Development, Youth/Education, Farmland Preservation, Farmer Healthcare, Reduce Environmental Regulation, Processing Key people involved in writing plan: Not specified. Contact Linda Titus: 207‐873‐2108 or [email protected] Includes fisheries?: No.

A Food Policy for the State of Maine

Citation: A Food Policy for the State of Maine ‐ Submitted to the Joint Standing Committee on Agriculture, Conservation & Forestry, Second Regular Session of the 122nd Legislature. 2006. Maine Department of Agriculture, Food & Rural Resources, Augusta.

Weblink: http://maine.gov/agriculture/mpd/information/foodpolicydraft.pdf Who was Involved?: Working Group and Advisory Committee members convened by the Agriculture Department Commissioner representing the following: State Planning Office, Eat Local Foods Coalition, Partners in Ending Hunger, Maine Grocers Association, Cultivating Community, Maine Organic Farmers & Gardeners Association, Agricultural Council of Maine, Coastal Enterprises, University of Maine Cooperative Extension, Maine Food Network, Maine Legislature, University of Maine, Laughing Stock Farm, State Departments of Education, Health & Human Services, Corrections, Agriculture, Marine Resources, Division of Purchases, Bureau of General Services & the Governor's Office . List priorities and action steps: Summary of Recommendations:

1) Food Policy ‐ The Working Group developed a new Food Policy that is succinct, yet comprehensive and establishes clear principles to guide the State. 2) Food Policy Council ‐ The working group recommends that a Food Policy Council be established to oversee implementation of the state’s food policy. The council should include


17

legislators and consumers, represent all aspects of the food system, include the involvement of state agencies, the university and other entities whose policies and actions have significant roles to play in the viability and sustainability of Maine’s food system. The group also recommends that the council should be funded at least at a level to provide one full time staff equivalent so that the work of the council can be effectively carried out. The council shall report directly to the agency that is designated by the Legislature. 3) Stable and Consistent State Policies ‐ Stable and consistent state policies, appropriate rules and regulations, and adequate funding of programs to support and promote development are central to the success of any policy. The coordinated efforts of state agencies are an essential component of implementing the state’s food policy. (See "Goals" list, p.11; There is also a compiled list of recommended policy actions in Appendix C).


• Maine consumers spend over $3 billion on food products and services each year. Maine farmers and fishermen receive less than 4% of that $3 billion. Within the state, producers have just started to tap the enormous economic potential offered by local markets. As local foods become more available to citizens through farmers markets, CSAs, and wholesale and retail outlets that feature local foods, income to producers should increase as well.

• Maine is currently producing only 20% of the food needs of her citizens. The rest is imported. • In spite of the loss of farmland and water access, recent data indicate that gross farm sales

alone contribute $553 million to the state's economy. • Fishing (including all species) adds another $404 million annually in gross sales. • Maine farming and fishing industries employ about 25,000 workers directly and up to 45,000

when secondary employment is included. Thousands more people are involved in transporting these commodities to market by truck, rail, air, and ships. These industries are still critical to the health of rural Maine communities.

• National studies show that poor diet, along with physical inactivity, is a leading cause of premature death or disability. One study estimated that total costs for diet‐related disease including lost productivity due to illness and premature death approached $70.9 billion.

Underlying philosophies/values: It is in the best interest of the State to ensure the availability of an adequate supply of safe, wholesome and nutritious food to its citizens. To this end, the State of Maine supports a food supply system that:

1) Ensures Maine residents have a safe and stable food supply; free of interruption by natural or human events;

2) Enhances the access, availability, affordability and quality of food for all its citizens; 3) Maintains a safety net to ensure food security from hunger for its most vulnerable citizens; 4) Contributes positively to the nutritional, economic and social well‐being of its citizenry and its

rural communities; 5) Is economically and environmentally sustainable; 6) Recognizes that Maine is a unique place with a diverse land, soil, climate and fishery conducive

to the production of a wide array of food products; 7) Promotes a fair return to all participants, provides entrepreneurial freedom and allows access

to opportunity to participate in the food supply system;


18

8) Increases food self‐reliance through increasing production of food in Maine and increasing the

consumption of Maine produced fish and farm products; 9) Is recognized as a vital sector of the Maine economy, enhances rural economic development

and contributes positively to Maine's rural quality of life; 10) Is supported with assurance of an adequate supply of farmland and access to working

waterfronts to sustain Maine’s food and fisheries industries and provide for their future growth;

11) Is accompanied by public and consumer information on the health values of a proper diet, healthy lifestyle and access to Maine produced agricultural and fish products; and,

12) Is supported by stable and consistent state policies and programs. Audience: Policymakers (state) Guiding (research) question(s) and methodology: Intended (page 5‐6; NOTE: process has since stalled and council has dissolved):

1) Purpose. The council shall be charged with responsibility for developing a strategic planning process that is data driven and outcome oriented, oversight of the implementation of Maine’s food policy and with ensuring effective interagency coordination of the State’s policies, programs and activities regarding Maine’s food system.

2) Duties. The council shall develop and maintain a strategic plan, conduct research and analysis, review state policies, programs and procedures, and regulatory systems, recommend changes to improve the role of government in ensuring the efficiency and productivity of Maine’s food system and consumer access. In so doing, shall work collaboratively with agencies to resolve conflicting or burdensome policies and requirements. Further, the council shall advise the Governor, Legislature, state agencies and the public in the formulation of policies and programs to further the purpose of Maine’s Food Policy, coordinate to develop collaborative relationships at all levels to address issues and find solutions, seek a broad level of public input, hold hearings and informational meetings, and seek to be as inclusive as possible of the interests of consumers and the food system. The council shall report biennially to the legislature on activities and progress, including recommendations for action.

3) Membership. The council may consist of up to 35 members and shall include representatives from all aspects of the food system, representation from state agencies whose policies, programs and actions have significant impact on the food system, legislators, consumers, and the university. The council is further encouraged to engage a broad base of individuals, advocacy and stakeholder groups, governmental and non‐governmental entities as appropriate through subcommittees, working groups and through other ad hoc task forces.

Common themes: Economic Development, Food Security, Access to Healthy Food, Obesity, Land/Working Waterfront/Natural Resource Use/Access, Farmers Markets, Direct Marketing, Institutional Food Purchases, Crop Diversity, Production, Distribution, Processing, Consolidation, Healthy Environment Key people involved in writing plan: Joyce Benson, Roger Doiron, David Hartley, Dianne Holcomb, Amie Joseph, Paul Kuehnert, Craig Lapine, Russell Libby, Frank Miles, John Piotti, John Rebar, Eric Rector, Rep. Nancy Smith, Stewart


19

Smith, Lisa Turner, Walter Beesley, Jody Breton, Richard Davies, David Etnier, Deanne Herman, Mary Ellen Johnston, Betty Lamoreau, Christine Lyman, Janet McLauglin. Includes fisheries?: DMR rep on Advisory Committee. Fisheries included in Resolve language and also wild‐caught & aquaculture included in policy goal (page 17).

Revitalizing Maine Agriculture

Citation: Gorham, Lucy S. 1976. Revitalizing Maine Agriculture. Maine Audubon Society, Portland.

Weblink: http://efc.muskie.usm.maine.edu/docs/Food%20report%20scans/revitalizing_me_ag_1976 Who was Involved?: Maine Audubon Society List priorities and action steps: 5 Areas of focus:

1) Taxes; 2) Farm Finances and Credit; 3) Transportation; 4) Marketing; and, 5) Fertilizers and Energy


• …lack of new farmers entering the business…(due primarily to)…the overwhelming initial investment to start a farm operation, estimated to be $50,000‐$120,000.

• Whereas a year ago the American farmer received an average of 46 cents out of every food dollar, he is now receiving only 40 cents.

Underlying philosophies values: In the ten years from 1959 to 1969, the total farm acreage in Maine dropped by more than 42%, and the number of farms from 17,360 to 7,971…the result of a number of socioeconomic factors…The most crucial role that farms play is in providing food. The world food situation is worse than it has ever been...We have a moral obligation to grow as much food as possible and preserve agricultural land for future generations...Maine currently imports 70% of its food compared to only 30% fifty years ago.


20

Audience: General Guiding (research) question(s) and methodology: Key informant interviews; lit review. Common themes: Economic Development, Food Security, Farmland Preservation, Loss of Farmers/Need for New Farmers, Energy/Oil Access Key people involved in writing plan: Lucy S. Gorham Includes fisheries?: No.


21

Appendix B: Plans From Other Places Reviewed

Assessing the San Diego County Food System: Indicators for a More Food Secure Future Citation: Ellsworth, Susan & Gail Feenstra, EdD. 2010. Assessing the San Diego County Food

System: Indicators for a More Food Secure Future. UC Davis. Weblink: http://aginnovations.org/images/uploads/SDFSWG_Final_Report_optimized.pdf Who was Involved?: In May of 2009, Working Group members who had been collaborating extensively, yet separately, for many years, began a formal collaboration on the Food System Assessment and Action Plan included here. WG members included representatives of: County Childhood Obesity Initiative, numerous Community Health representatives, County Health & Human Services Agency, San Diego Farm Bureau, International Rescue (refugee) Committee, San Diego Hunger Coalition, Tierra Miguel Foundation, Lemon Grove School District List priorities and action steps: Goal 1.1: San Diego County Residents Know Where Their Food Comes From, How It Is Grown and

Who Grows It Goal 1.2: San Diego County Residents, From Infants to Seniors, Consume More Healthful Foods Goal 1.3: All San Diego County Residents Have Access to Affordable, Healthful, Culturally Desirable

Foods at all Times Goal 1.4: Initiation and Duration of Breastfeeding, the Healthiest First Food, Increases in San Diego

County Goal 1.5: San Diego County Has Local, Accessible, Adequate Food Supplies for Emergency

Preparedness Goal 2.1: San Diego County Increases its Working Lands for Urban and Rural Food Production Goal 2.2: San Diego County Improves its Waterways as Healthful, Sustainable Food Sources for San

Diego County Residents Goal 2.3 San Diego County Food Producers and Processors Employ Practices that Support Animal

Welfare Goal 2.4: San Diego County Prioritizes Food Production in its Allocation of Available Water

Resources Goal 2.5: San Diego County Recycles its Organic Wastes Locally and Makes Compost Available for

Local Food Production Goal 2.6: San Diego County Reduces Food System‐related Greenhouse Gas Emissions Through its

Food System Goal 3.1: Local and Regional Procurement and Sale of Food Grown in San Diego County Increases Goal 3.2: Fishing, Farming, and Ranching Increases for Diverse Groups in San Diego County Goal 3.3: The San Diego County Food System (Production, Distribution, Processing, Disposal)

Provides Safe, Fair, Meaningful Work


22


• Across the nation the value of direct (agricultural) sales increased 26 percent between 1997 and 2007 by comparison with overall farm sales, which increased only 17 percent. The rate of increase in direct sales for Western States, including California, tops the national average at 134 percent.

• San Diego County spends an estimated $3 billion on healthcare costs related to overweight, obesity, and physical inactivity each year.

• The price of water in San Diego County has climbed steadily for the last 25 years and now sits at approximately $922 per acre‐foot…the increased cost of water means that farmers are spending increasingly more for a steady gross return...there has been a significant move away from lower value food crops towards the ornamental crop sector, in which the rate of return is high enough to offset the cost of water.

• As measured by total weight, (fisheries) landings have declined by approximately 450 thousand pounds over the last decade from 2.9 million pounds per year in 2000 to 2.4 million pounds in 2008 with a number of significant fluctuations in intervening years (see Figure 2.10). The value of these landings, as measured in total dollars, has followed a similar trend, ending in 2008 about $744,991 lower than in 2000.

• In 2009, the annual mean wage for food preparation and serving occupations (including fast food), the third largest private sector occupation in the nation, was $17,190 which is below the federal poverty guideline for a family of three ($18,310). The mean for waiters and waitresses, the fifth largest occupation, was $20,380. Occupations in farming, fishing and forestry, by comparison, have the lowest percent of total employment of all major occupational groups at less than 1 percent, as well as one of the lowest mean hourly wages, at $11.53 an hour ($23,990 annually). At the same time, the average age of farmers (principal operators) is on the rise, suggesting further decline in employment figures in the future. By comparison, temporary farmworkers, of which there are more than 700,000 currently in the state of California, earn a median annual income of $7,500‐$9,999, despite providing 85 percent of the labor required for the state’s agricultural output.

• Wages within fishing and farming reflect the challenges faced by both industries. For fishing, what few fishermen and fishing related workers remain in San DiegoCounty, earn approximately $40,026 a year, reflecting the increased value of domestically caught fish as a result of heightened regulations and growing consumer awareness. By comparison, the average farmer earns only $28,000 a year, up from $26,000 just nine years ago. Food service workers, however, despite a steep increase in the overall number of jobs, earn the least of all food system sectors, at approximately $17,500 a year or $9.50 an hour. Both temporary farmworkers and those employed in food service, which make up the majority of food system employment, tend to be under‐compensated while working in unstable and often physically labor intensive environments that rarely offer benefits such as health insurance or retirement savings.

• San Diegans spend approximately $14.1 billion a year on food, and nearly half of those dollars in fast food chains. The prevalence of inexpensive, unhealthy foods in many communities is related to the type of jobs, wages, and working conditions that are increasingly prevalent in the food sector.

• Food preparation and serving jobs, which are the third most prevalent across the nation, have the lowest mean hourly wages of any sector at approximately $10 an hour…Farming, fishing and forestry, by comparison, is the smallest of the major occupational groups, making up less


23

than one percent of total employment across the nation with the second lowest mean hourly wage of $11.53 an hour.

• The highest paying jobs within the San Diego County food system after diet and weight reducing centers are located within the following sub‐sectors: agricultural market and commodity regulation ($59,589/year), alcoholic beverage merchant wholesalers ($57,349/year) and solid waste collection ($51,573/year). Despite relatively high wages in a few small sub‐sectors of the food system, the majority of jobs are low paying with few benefits and little stability. Food production jobs, by comparison, are on the decline despite some limited improvement in annual wages.

• Food system jobs overall have experienced a decline in annual wages likely tied to the decline of wages within its largest sub‐sector, food services and drinking places. The current weighted annual average wage within the food system of $21,540 is less than half that of the average wage across all sectors, of $49,240, and 100 percent of federal poverty level for a family of four.

• Food system employment in San Diego County makes up about 12 percent of total employment (151,000 jobs). The total number of jobs grew about 11 percent in the last nine years, but annual wages overall have declined, mostly due to the largest and growing sub‐sector—food services and drinking places. Almost two thirds of jobs in the San Diego food system fall within this sub‐sector as defined by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which grew by 15.5 percent between 2001 and 2009. Wages in this sub‐sector were the lowest of all, however ($17,400 per year in 2009) and experienced the greatest overall decline.

• Agriculture, fishing and forestry, by comparison, despite an 18.5 percent decline in total employment, experienced a modest increase in annual wages from $25,000 per year in 2001 to $29,000 per year in 2009. Currently, agriculture, fishing and forestry is the third largest job category in the food system with agriculture making up about two thirds of employment therein. Employment within the fishing sub‐sector continued to experience ongoing and dramatic declines.

• The fastest growing job sector in the food system was diet and weight reducing centers, increasing more than 300 percent (to 560 jobs) in nine years. Wages in this sector were also the highest at approximately $60,000/year. The second fastest growing sector was solid waste collection with wages at almost $52,000/year.

Underlying philosophies/values: Vision 1: Better Health and Well‐being of San Diego County Residents (Note: Includes section on breastfeeding as an important link in food security and health). Vision 2: Agricultural Stewardship of San Diego County’s Environmental Resource Base. Vision 3: Thriving Communities and Sustainable Economic Growth. Audience: Primarily policymakers, state departments, NGO's and institutions Guiding (research) question(s) and methodology: Excerpt from page 3: Multiple methods were employed in the generation of this report. First, a collaborative process was used, wherein a Working Group of diverse stakeholders from the County was established to provide the authors with primary input and feedback on report format, goals and indicators. Numerous foodshed studies from a growing body of work were examined and shared with the Working Group to assist in indicator identification and data sourcing (see list of compiled assessments in Appendix H). The gathering and graphic depiction of data over time stands as the


24

primary methodology underpinning the report. After compiling and organizing data for each indicator, phone interviews were conducted with Working Group members and technical experts identified by the Working Group, to assist in contextualization and analysis of trends. Finally, site visits were conducted to provide an in‐depth look at noteworthy programs or processes within the county’s foodshed. Major state and national level data sources used in this report include the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) which conducts a Census of Agriculture every five years thus generating national, state and county level data on numerous topics of value to this study. The authors of this report recognize that all data sources have limitations, and have taken care to note any of those limitations necessary for accurate interpretation of data herein. Limitations specific to a particular piece of data will be included along with the citation or in a footnote on the same page, while limitations with overall data sources (i.e. data collection methods) can be found in Appendix G at the conclusion of the report. In some cases, the data necessary to most effectively measure progress towards the goals identified by the Working Group was not available. In order to address this deficiency, indicators were modified to match the best available proxy data and in some cases, where proxy data was not available, desired indicators were eliminated. For a list of initial indicators prior to revision for data availability see Appendix E. Common themes: Sustainability, Economic Development, Health, Stewardship of Natural Resource Base/Environment, Water Key people involved in writing plan: Project Manager: Gail Feenstra, Ed.D; Authors: Susan Ellsworth & Gail Feenstra, EdD; Edited By: Michelle Kuhns Includes fisheries?: See pages 40‐42 – wild‐caught; 67‐78 – wild‐caught/aquaculture employment; 76 ‐ "Fewer Fish from San Diego Waters"

Cultivating Resilience: A Food System Blueprint that Advances the Health of Iowans, Farms and Communities

Citation: Tagtow A, and S. Roberts. Cultivating Resilience: A Food System Blueprint that

Advances the Health of Iowans, Farms and Communities. 2011. Weblink: http://iowafoodsystemscouncil.org/cultivating‐resilience/


25

Who was Involved?: Coordinated by Food Systems Vision Council, with extensive list of participants ‐ this was a far‐reaching participatory process (see page 45 of report). Board of council included: Food System Sectors and Domains: Production (2), Transformation, Distribution, Marketing & Retail, Consumption, Waste Management, Economic, Environment, Education, Food Access, Health, Social Justice / At‐Large (3) , Student (1) / Ex‐Officio Government (Nonvoting) (8) List priorities and action steps: Extensive chart of recommendations can be found on pages 48‐53 of this report.

Cross cutting recommendations include:

i. Establish an Office of Iowa Food Systems directed by a food system professional. ii. Enlist the Iowa Food Systems Council as the advisory agency to the Governor, Iowa

Legislature, and Office of Iowa Food Systems. iii. Establish regional food system councils appointed by county Boards of Supervisors and

Boards of Health

Categorical recommendations are organized by: ‐ Production: Economic/Environment/Food Access & Health ‐ Transformation/Processing: Economic/Fair Food & Farming ‐ Distribution/Marketing/Retail: Economic/Food Access & Health ‐ Accessibility & Consumption: Economic/ Fair Food & Farming/ Food Access & Health ‐ Waste Management: Environment


• More than $8.1 billion is spent on food in Iowa each year ($4.8 billion in food and beverage stores and $3.3 billion in the food service). It is estimated that more than 85 percent of the food consumed by Iowans is imported in to Iowa. • More than $600 million was spent on food within federally funded food and nutrition assistance programs within Iowa in 2009. This includes school lunch and breakfast programs, fresh fruit and vegetable program, summer feeding program, SNAP, WIC, WIC Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program, Senior Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program, and Child and Adult Care Food Programs. • In 2009, almost 50 percent of the Iowa farmers’ markets accepted SNAP EBT with sales of $62,000. • It is estimated that the total annual economic cost of overweight and obesity in the United States and Canada caused by medical costs, excess mortality and disability is approximately $300 billion. In 2009 Iowa’s direct costs attributable to obesity are estimated to be more than $783 million, of which Medicaid and Medicare pay 34 percent, or $263 million.

Underlying philosophies/values: Guided by "Principles of a Healthy, Sustainable Food System": “A healthy, sustainable food system emphasizes, strengthens, and makes visible the interdependent and inseparable relationships between individual sectors (from production to waste disposal) and characteristics (health‐promoting,


26

sustainable, resilient, diverse, fair, economically balanced, and transparent) of the system." In June 2010, the American Dietetic Association, American Nurses Association, American Planning Association, and American Public Health Association initiated a collaborative process to develop a set of shared food system principles. The following principles are a result of this process and have been collectively endorsed by these organizations. (See Appendix D of report, page 47). Audience: Iowa Food Systems Council, government agencies, organizations, industries Guiding (research) question(s) and methodology: Excerpt (page 6‐7): The objective of the Iowa Food System Blueprint is to measure the health of Iowa’s food system through a report card leading to recommendations for research, programs and policies to ensure a food system that supports healthier Iowans, communities, economies, and the environment. The Iowa Food System Blueprint has two parts: 1. Report card on the health of Iowa’s food system; (and) 2. Recommendations for Iowa’s food system. The report card framework was constructed using a matrix with food system sectors (production, transformation, distribution/marketing/retail, food access/consumption, and waste management) on a vertical axis and key domain areas based on a series of goal statements (economic, environment, fair food and farming, and food access and health) on the horizontal axis. Indicators: Using a participatory process, food system stakeholders identified key indicators within each domain crossed with each food system sector that best supported the goal of ensuring a just and diverse food system that supports healthier Iowans, communities, economies and the environment. In addition, the indicators had to meet the following criteria:

• Valid and measurable; • Reliable and credible source; • Timely and collected and reported consistently to establish trends; • Publicly available, transparent and understandable; • Available at the state level (county level also preferred); and • Relate to the Iowa Food Systems Council goal statements.

Numerous indicators were considered in examining the Iowa food system. However, a majority of indicators were not included in the report card because of data unavailability and/or not meeting above criteria. Common themes: Health, Sustainability, Resilience, Diversity, Fair, Economically Balanced, Waste Reduction/Nutrient Recycling Key people involved in writing plan: Health, Sustainability, Resilience, Diversity, Fair, Economically Balanced, Waste Reduction/Nutrient Recycling Includes fisheries?: No.


27

Vermont Farm to Plate Strategic Plan (2011 Report)

Citation: Vermont Sustainable Jobs Fund. 2011. Farm to Plate Strategic Plan ‐ Executive

Summary, Montpelier. Weblink: http://www.vsjf.org/project‐details/5/farm‐to‐plate‐initiative Who was Involved?: Led by VT Sustainable Jobs Fund; 1200 participants in forums/focus groups; 250 initial interviews. Process Team included representatives of: Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets, Farmers (5, incl. 1 dairy), Foundations, VT FEED/Shelburne Farms, Vermont Council on Rural Development, Attorney, Financial/Management Consultant, Business, NOFA VT, University of Vermont College of Agriculture and Life Sciences List priorities and action steps: Numerous goals and strategies (including identification of high priority strategies ‐ see pages 37‐45 of report for detail) have been identified in the following categories:

3.2. Farm Inputs 3.3. Food Production 3.4. Food Processing and Manufacturing 3.5. Wholesale Distribution and Storage 3.6. Retail Distribution 3.7. Nutrient Management 4.1. Food Security in Vermont 4.2. Food System Education 4.3. Food System Labor and Workforce Development 4.4. Food System Technical Assistance and Business Planning 4.5. Financing the Food System 4.6. Food System Energy Issues 4.7. Food System Regulation 4.8. Leadership, Communication, and Coordination Across the Food System

Working groups formed around six key leverage areas: Consumer Education and Marketing; Education and Workforce Development; Farmland Access and Land Use; Aggregation and Distribution; Dairy Development; and Technical Assistance to Producers and Processors. Any key economic impact statements?:

• (Est) the direct economic impact of just a 5% increase in farming and food manufacturing in VT would generate $135 million in annual output. When the multiplier effect is considered, total output would increase by an average of $177 million per year from 2011 to 2020. A 5% increase in production would also boost total food system employment by an average of 1,500 jobs over the 10‐year period.


28

• VT leads the nation in direct agricultural products sales, with $36.77 spent per capita at farm

stands, farmers’ markets, and CSAs...Total direct sales increased from $4 million in 1992 to $22.9 million in 2007.

• ...chefs reported approximately $16 million in food purchases from VT farms in 2009…(Est) VT public schools spent over $2‐3 million on purchases from local food businesses in 2010…Many of VT’s largest institutions…are making substantial local food purchases...(and)...many of VT’s grocery stores carry local food products but we do not know the exact value of their sales. Taken together, we conservatively estimate that locally produced food accounts for at least 5% of total food purchases (over $50 million) in VT.

• In 2007, VT farmers spent almost $550 million for inputs, mostly from out of state. VT dairy farms account for the majority of farm input expenses (e.g., 89% of feed purchased). Animal feed constituted 26% ($144 million) of total farm production expenses, with hired labor ($72 million) and liquid fuels ($32 million) making up an additional 19%. The cost of liquid fuels and fertilizers increased by 137% and 94%, respectively, from 1997 to 2007 in Vermont.

• ...the highest‐paying jobs are for agricultural engineers, technicians, scientists, butchers, chefs, and supervisors and managers of food preparation and food service enterprises, while lower paying jobs include restaurant cooks, food servers, dishwashers, and food preparation workers...Only 25% of these jobs have median wages over $15 per hour, and those are associated with management, science, or wholesale delivery. The other 75%, which have a median wage of about $12.25 per hour, include cashiers, packers, salesclerks, and retail salespeople.

• According to grant‐making data collected by the VT Community Foundation… funders collectively made 739 grants totaling $12.1 million between 2006 and 2009.

Underlying philosophies values: The primary goals of the Farm to Plate Investment Program (F2P) legislation are to:

1) Increase economic development in Vermont’s food and farm sector. 2) Create jobs in the food and farm economy. 3) Improve access to healthy local foods

The F2P Plan’s ultimate purpose is to encourage policies and strategic investments that accelerate the movement toward strong local and regional food systems. Audience: Policymakers, state departments, NGO's, institutions, business sector Guiding (research) question(s) and methodology: Executive Summary Excerpt (from page 5): To develop the F2P Strategic Plan, VSJF staff worked with nine researchers, a Geographic Information Systems (GIS) specialist, and several interns and volunteers to assemble and analyze food system data and to conduct in‐depth stakeholder interviews and new research on the major elements of Vermont’s food system. The F2P team spent 18 months conducting research and consulted with over 1,200 Vermonters, ranging from interested consumers to experts in the field. Specifically, the F2P team examined and analyzed existing data sets, conducted interviews, and organized a number of focus groups and summits to gather feedback and information about how the food system operates today and how it can and should be strengthened into the future. The F2P team examined studies, reports, articles, and websites for each component of Vermont’s food system. Public feedback from interviews, focus groups, local food summits, web surveys, a statewide


29

food summit, working sessions, and meetings informed the “Analysis” component of each section of Chapters 3 and 4. The F2P Strategic Plan goals, objectives, and strategies described in Chapter 2 were developed through this public feedback process. Six in‐depth working sessions were conducted to bring together key stakeholders who had knowledge, influence, and commitment in particular subject areas to review the initial research findings and to comment on draft goals, objectives, strategies, and priority investment recommendations. Common themes: Economic Development, Processing, Distribution, Fair Wages, Health, Sustainability, Waste Reduction/Nutrient Recycling Key people involved in writing plan: The Farm to Plate Strategic Plan was prepared by the Vermont Sustainable Jobs Fund: Ellen Kahler, Kit Perkins, Scott Sawyer, Heather Pipino, and Janice St. Onge. Developing the Farm to Plate Strategic Plan was a real team effort and a number of skilled people conducted research, collected data, and wrote sections of the Farm to Plate Strategic Plan: Linda Berlin, Louise Calderwood, Dan Erickson, Greg Georgaklis, Doug Hoffer, Helen Labun‐Jordan, Ginger Nickerson, Nic Rockler, Rachel Schattman, and Holly Tippett. Includes fisheries?: See page 15 ‐ Aquaculture.

From Farm to Fork: A Guide to Building North Carolina's Sustainable Local Food Economy

Citation: Curtis, Jennifer, et. al. April 2010. From Farm to Fork: A Guide to Building North Carolina’s Sustainable Local Food Economy, a Center for Environmental Farming Systems report, Raleigh, N.C.

Weblink: http://www.cefs.ncsu.edu/resources/stateactionguide2010.pdf Who was Involved?: Extensive list of 75 Advisory Committee members included in report (pages 86‐89), includes representatives of: Public Health, Native American community, Hunger & Food Security, Universities, Youth Education, Co‐op Extension, Farmers, Consultants, Institutional Food Service, Rural Development, Commodity Groups, Restaurants, Environmental Groups, Energy, Attorney, Retail, Permaculture, Farming Advocacy (conventional & organic), Horticulture, Policymakers, Economic Development, Nutrition, Land Conservation, Journalists. In addition, 1,000‐plus individuals participated in the Center for Environmental Farming Systems (CEFS) 2008‐2009 Farm to Fork initiative.


30

List priorities and action steps: Recommendations with details on activities are on page 29 of report. Categorical goals areas are:

1. Engage Decision Makers in Strategic Food‐Systems Planning and Implementation 2. Coordinate Food‐Systems Policies and Regulations 3. Grow New and Transitioning Farmers and Secure Prime Farmland 4. Expand Local Market Opportunities 5. Cultivate Community Gardens Statewide 6. Strengthen Local Government Initiatives 7. Address Public Health and Food Access Disparities 8. Increase Consumer Education and Outreach 9. Promote Farm‐to‐School Programming and Engage Youth


• Direct‐market venues continue to increase in popularity as consumers seek healthy foods that allow them to support agriculture and fisheries in their local communities. Our state is home to 3,712 farmers selling directly to consumers, for a total value in direct sales of over $29 million.

• If all North Carolina residents spent 10 percent of their food dollars on local foods ($1.05 per day), approximately $3.5 billion would be available in the local economy every year, and part of that would flow back to farmers and food businesses.

• In 2003, health care expenditures for chronic diseases in North Carolina were $40 billion, the majority of which, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), was for the treatment of preventable chronic diseases.

• Organic food sales have increased steadily for the past 25 years, even during the recent economic downturn. (National) sales of organic products grew over 17 percent in 2008 and are now close to $25 billion.

• Overall, local food in the United States is estimated to be a $5 billion industry, with expected growth to reach $7 billion in 2011. Demand for local foods in the Appalachian region of the state, including produce, dairy, eggs and meat, has been estimated to be over $450 million, with 82 percent of survey respondents in western North Carolina willing to pay more for local food if it were labeled as local. In 2009, North Carolinians spent over $35 billion on food, about half of which was for foods consumed at home and the remainder for dining out.

• In a study conducted in the Central Puget Sound region of Washington, it is estimated that spending $100 at a local restaurant results in $79 in additional income to local businesses, while spending the same $100 at a chain restaurant results in just $31 being re‐spent locally.

• Furthermore, when farmers in the region grow food for export, each dollar of sales generates $1.70 of income for the region’s economy, while every dollar spent at a farmers’ market generates $2.80 in income for the region’s economy.

Underlying philosophies values: Objectives for this initiative:

• Articulating shared values and components of sustainable local food systems; • Identifying and helping to network existing local and regional organizations; • Learning from existing initiatives and identifying best practices and potential models; and,


31

• Developing and prioritizing actions at the state and local levels, including needed policy

recommendations and program initiatives. Audience: Policymakers, state departments, NGO's and institutions Guiding (research) question(s) and methodology: Executive Summary Excerpt (from pages 7‐11): In 2008, the Center for Environmental Farming Systems (CEFS) launched its Farm to Fork initiative...The intent was to: articulate shared values and components of sustainable local food systems; identify and promote collaboration among existing local and regional organizations; learn from existing initiatives and identify best practices and potential models; and, develop and prioritize actions at the state and local levels, including needed policy recommendations and program initiatives...More than 1,000 North Carolinians participated, including those working in the fields of agriculture, commercial fishing, community organizing, education, faith, finance, nutrition, philanthropy, planning, public health, public policy, state and local government, and youth outreach. The Farm to Fork initiative identified nine major issue areas as challenges to be addressed:

1) Engage Decision Makers in Strategic Food‐Systems Planning and Implementation; 2) Coordinate Food‐Systems Policies and Regulations; 3) Grow New and Transitioning Farmers and Secure Prime Farmland; 4) Expand Local Market Opportunities; 5) Cultivate Community Gardens Statewide; 6) Strengthen Local Government Initiatives; 7) Address Public Health and Food Access Disparities; 8) Increase Consumer Education and Outreach; and, 9) Promote Farm‐to‐School Programming and Engage Youth.

The Farm to Fork initiative was designed to engage a broad cross‐section of interests and also to advance a collective sense of priority actions…To prioritize action ideas, the Farm to Fork initiative focused on identifying recommendations that help us move forward at the state level, and in many cases, strengthen locally driven efforts. This process involved 11 different time‐limited, topic‐specific Working Issue Teams (WITs)… Each WIT included a small group of experts with experience in the particular issue who were charged with identifying at least one “game changer.” Game changers are ideas considered to be important to implement at the state level and doable within a short time frame (one to two years). Each WIT also identified possible local action ideas. On May 11‐12, 2009, CEFS hosted...a statewide summit… an exciting and energizing event attended by more than 420 people. WIT leaders presented their game changers and local action ideas to the participants, and these ideas were further discussed and fine tuned in breakout sessions. Speakers at the summit included notable politicians, academic leaders and industry representatives...Our next step is to leverage this activity in support of new partnerships and focused statewide action. (See logic model in report on page 10) Common themes: Health, Economic Development, Policy & Regulations, Farmland Preservation, Community Gardens, Hunger & Food Security, Consumer Education


32

Key people involved in writing plan: Prepared by: Jennifer Curtis with Dr. Nancy Creamer and Tessa Eliza Thraves Includes fisheries?: No.

Michigan Good Food Charter

Citation: Colasanti, K., et al. 2010. Michigan Good Food Charter. C.S. Mott Group for Sustainable Food Systems at Michigan State University, Food Bank Council of Michigan, Michigan Food Policy Council, East Lansing, MI.

Weblink: www.michiganfood.org/assets/goodfood/docs/MI%20Good%20Food%20Charter%20Final.pdf Who was Involved?: Michigan Food Policy Council, The C.S Mott Group for Sustainable Food Systems at MSU, Food Bank Council of Michigan List priorities and action steps: Overarching Goals ‐ By 2020, we believe we can meet or exceed the following goals:

1) Michigan institutions will source 20 percent of their food products from Michigan growers,

producers and processors. 2) Michigan farmers will profitably supply 20 percent of all Michigan institutional, retailer and

consumer food purchases and be able to pay fair wages to their workers. 3) Michigan will generate new agri‐food businesses at a rate that enables 20 percent of food

purchased in Michigan to come from Michigan. 4) Eighty percent of Michigan residents (twice the current level) will have easy access to

affordable, fresh, healthy food, 20 percent of which is from Michigan sources. 5) Michigan Nutrition Standards will be met by 100 percent of school meals and 75 percent of

schools selling food outside school meal programs. 6) Michigan schools will incorporate food and agriculture into the pre‐K through 12th grade

curriculum for all Michigan students and youth will have access to food and agriculture entrepreneurial opportunities.

Categorical goals and actions (described in detail on pages 14‐30 of report) are organized as:

Local Agenda Priorities: Community‐based/Land use‐based/Market‐based.


33

Statewide Agenda Priorities: Business or non‐profit‐based/Legislation‐based/State Agency‐based/Research‐based


• The School Nutrition Association estimates that it costs $2.90 to prepare a school meal, but the current federal reimbursement for a “free” meal for qualifying students is only $2.57. • USDA food safety good agricultural practices (GAP) and good handling practices (GHP) audits cost $92/hour, including travel time for auditors to get to farm locations. Total costs in 2009 ranged from about $92 to $1,600 per farm. • Michigan’s 2009 benefits through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) (formerly known as food stamps) were $2.1 billion, of which $293,000 was redeemed at farmers’ markets. • Given the more than 140 million school lunches served every year, the addition of a mere 10 cents per meal spent on Michigan‐produced food could mean upwards of $14 million for Michigan farm communities. If this were matched by existing school lunch funds, it would be $28 million. • A portion of such funds could come from state designation of economic development funds to match the 20 to 30 cents that schools typically spend on fruits and vegetables for school lunches with an additional 10 cents intended specifically to purchase Michigan‐grown fruits and vegetables. If such a program were fully funded, it would contribute millions of dollars annually to local economies across Michigan and would circulate through the state’s economy. The 10 cent increase to the per meal budget for fruits and vegetables, if applied to the 142 million lunches served in Michigan in the 2008‐2009 school year, would represent $14 million for Michigan farmers. If the full 30 cents per meal budget for fruits and vegetables were designated for Michigan‐grown produce, it would represent more than $42 million. • We can establish an Agriculture Individual development Account Trust Fund (AgIDA) to be endowed by philanthropic and public funds and subsequently self‐funded through application fees and interest on the initial endowment. A $2 million endowment that generated 3‐4 percent annually would generate up to $80,000…This AgIDA Trust Fund would assist beginning and limited‐resource farmers to acquire collateral for farm loans by matching their personal savings on a 2:1 basis with endowment funds and federal dollars. • We can create a Michigan beginning farmer loan fund through bond sales. Once established, the program would be self‐funded with borrower application and closing fees. Beginning farmers with a net worth less than $500,000 would be eligible.

Underlying philosophies values: Good Food Principles:

Healthy – It provides nourishment and enables people to thrive. Green – It was produced in a manner that is environmentally sustainable. Fair – No one along the production line was exploited during its creation. Affordable – All people have access to it.

Vision: We envision a thriving economy, equity and sustainability for all of Michigan and its people through a food system rooted in local communities and centered on good food. Audience: Policymakers, state departments, NGO's and institutions


34

Guiding (research) question(s) and methodology: Excerpt (from page 6): Starting in September 2009, work groups began examining Michigan’s current situation and developing future opportunities to advance good food in Michigan in five arenas. At the Michigan Good Food Summit in February 2010, each work group presented a draft action agenda and invited discussion from approximately 350 summit participants. The website www.michiganfood.org has a continually expanding set of archives, tools for providing comments and links to a listserv for people to remain up‐to‐date on events around charter development. Several funders have supported this process; foundational funding came from the W. K. Kellogg Foundation. Twelve co‐conveners led the work groups, and the overall process was stewarded by a planning committee and supported by an honorary advisory committee. Next, the charter will be the focus of regional meetings across Michigan where advocates will inform and engage policymakers in advancing policies and practices that support good food in Michigan. Common themes: Health, Fair Wages, Green/Environment/Economic Development, Policy & Regulations, Institutions Key people involved in writing plan: Colasanti, K., Cantrell, P., Cocciarelli, S., Collier, A., Edison, T., Doss, J., George, V., Hamm, M., Lewis, R., Matts, C., McClendon, B., Rabaut, C., Schmidt, S., Satchell, I., Scott, A., Smalley, S. Includes fisheries?: No.

Planting Prosperity and Harvesting Health

Citation: Martin, Sheila, et al. 2008. Planting Prosperity and Harvesting Health. Institute of Portland Metropolitan Studies, Portland State University, Portland, OR.

Weblink: http://www.pdx.edu/sites/www.pdx.edu.ims/files/media_assets/ims_foodsystemsfinalreport.pdf

Who was Involved?: Institute of Portland Metropolitan Studies Nohad A. Toulan School of Urban Studies and Planning College of Urban and Public Affairs, Portland University, Oregon State University, Kaiser Permanente, Food Innovation Center; began the assessment by asking a group of food system stakeholders from Oregon and Washington to define broadly supported goals for a sustainable food system.


35

List priorities and action steps: Stakeholders requested assessment and defined these goals for the regional food system (summary of Suggested Strategies for Food System Goals can be found on page 44 of report):

• Resource Stewardship: Food production, processing, distribution, and disposal practices

contribute to ecological health. • Economic Prosperity and Diversity: All sectors of the food system foster innovation, diversity,

new economic opportunities, profitability, and new distribution linkages for the region. • Food Access: All individuals have easy year‐round access to a diversity of culturally

appropriate, healthy, affordable foods from non‐emergency sources. • Food Choices Support Personal and Community Health: Government policies, programs and

economic market infrastructure enable people to make food choices that support personal health.

• Regional Market Expansion and Infrastructure Support: Public and private investment supports regional food market expansion.

• Agriculture Land‐Base Maintenance: Access and ability to farm productive land is maintained. • Opportunity and Justice for All Food Workers: A regional workforce continues to produce food.

All food system workers (e.g., farmers, fishers, retail) earn a living wage, have safe and humane working conditions, and have opportunities for advancement.

• Resiliency: The regional food system is resilient in the face of threats to food supply, food safety, and economic volatility.

• Food Choices Restore Cross‐System Respect: Infrastructure supports and enhances direct connections and relationships across the chain of production and consumption.


• In 2005, organic farming accounted for $52,122,197 in farm gate sales in OR and $101,545,406 in WA (WSU CSNAR 2006). Between 2000 and 2005, the number of organic certified operations increased 67 percent in Oregon, 3 percent in WA, and 29 percent in the nation as a whole. • From 1970‐2007, farm real estate values for the US have grown at an average rate of about 7 percent but have spiked over the last several years. • For the US, the loss in realized net farm income, when adjusted for inflation, was about 37 percent from 1970 to 2005. • Nationwide...food commodity exports increased by $8.9 billion/22 percent, from 1997 to 2006. • The highest‐earning food‐related sector in both states is food services and drinking places. Earnings from food manufacturing, when adjusted for inflation, have risen, but more slowly than for food services or food and beverage stores… Nationwide, the hourly median wage for crop, nursery, and greenhouse farm workers and laborers in 2006 was $7.95. From the farmworker’s perspective, this wage compares poorly to jobs with comparable skill requirements. For example, the median wage for a construction laborer in 2006 was $12.66 (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics). • In 2006, OR and WA commercial fisheries landed over 500 million pounds of fish worth about $300 million. But when adjusted for inflation, the value of commercial fisheries have grown very little over the past few decades ‐ in part due to a shift from high value species such as crab, halibut, and salmon, to low‐value species such as whiting and sardines.


36

• OR farms’ spending on petroleum products rose 94 percent from $51 million in 1978 to $99 million in 2002. In Washington, farms doubled their spending on petroleum products from $72 million in 1978 to $145 million in 2002. Spending on petroleum products in both states reflect national trends, although OR and WA farms spend less on petroleum products as a share of total spending than do the nation’s farms overall. • In OR and WA, farmworker wages are higher than in the rest of the nation...OR’s median farmworker wage for 2006 was $8.56, up from $7.21 in 2000. WA’s 2006 median farmworker wage was $9.33, up from $6.73 in 2000. OR’s wages have been lower than WA’s during most of the past 6 years. • Consumers in the Portland‐Vancouver region spent roughly 11 percent of their annual income and 13 percent of annual expenditures on food in 2004‐2005. This finding is comparable to the national figures.

Underlying philosophies values: Assessment focus: This assessment reveals food system sustainability trends in Oregon and Washington, focusing specifically on the producers in both states and the consumers in the Portland‐Vancouver region. Audience: Policymakers, state departments, NGO's and institutions Guiding (research) question(s) and methodology: Excerpt (from Appendix B): In developing this assessment, we used an adaptive learning process, which is an integration of community knowledge and technical expertise (Reed, Fraser and Dougill, 2006). This process... contains a number of steps for using indicators to guide the development of sustainability programs and policies. This food system sustainability assessment and the accompanying stakeholder involvement process drive us through step 5 (see Figure B‐1 in report). Three factors influenced the data chosen for this report: First, we examined existing city, county, state and community‐level food assessments conducted around the nation (Roots of Change Council, 2005; Feenstra et al., 2002; Hammer and Margheim, 2006; Hinrichs, 2002; Ruhf et al., 2002; Pothukuchi et al., 2002). We used these documents as a starting point for data identification. Second, we talked with stakeholders to determine what kinds of data would be most useful to them in terms of assessing whether the system was improving. Finally, we conducted extensive searches and talked with data experts to find reliable sources of information. The resulting set of indicators will be reviewed and discussed in detail by stakeholders at a food system forum on April 25, 2008. Feedback from this event will be incorporated into the final draft of the report. In developing our methodology, we consulted with a number of people who had conducted similar assessments in the past. Significant input was adopted from the following individuals: Molly Anderson, Professor, Consultant on Science and Public Policy; Suzanne Briggs, Consultant; Gail Feenstra, Professor, University of California, Davis; Shanna Ratner, Facilitator and Principal Yellow Wood Associates, Vermont. Common themes: Economic Development, Processing, Distribution, Fair Wages, Health, Sustainability, Waste Reduction/Nutrient Recycling, Water, Energy


37

Key people involved in writing plan: Authors of this report include: Sheila Martin, Meg Merrick, Tia Henderson, Elizabeth Mylott, Kelly Haines, Colin Price, Amy Koski & Becky Dann Editor: Tracy Dillon Includes fisheries?: See page 21 ‐ Value of wildcaught fisheries; Page 29 ‐ Fisheries employment (although, paragraph cut off).

Resetting the Table: A People's Food Policy for Canada

Citation: Peoples Food Policy Project. 2011. Resetting the Table: A People's Food Policy for Canada.

Weblink: http://peoplesfoodpolicy.ca/policy/resetting‐table‐peoples‐food‐policy‐canada Who was Involved?: The People’s Food Policy Project was initiated by members of Food Secure Canada. “Resetting the Table: A People’s Food Policy for Canada” is the result of a collaborative process in which hundreds of people devoted thousands of volunteer hours to create a food policy that genuinely reflects the perspectives of people across the country...3500 people...participated in People’s Food Policy discussions and events, contributing their ideas and visions for a healthy, just and ecological Canadian food system. List priorities and action steps: The People’s Food Policy is based on the work of ten policy teams who have each produced a policy discussion paper:

‐ Indigenous Food Sovereignty ‐ Food Sovereignty in Rural and Remote Communities ‐ Access to Food in Urban Communities ‐ Agriculture, Infrastructure and Livelihoods ‐ A Sustainable Fishery and Reasonable Livelihood for Fishers ‐ Environment and Agriculture ‐ Science and Technology for Food and Agriculture ‐ International Food Policy ‐ Healthy and Safe Food for All ‐ Food Democracy and Governance


38

The policy discussion papers are summarized in (pages 10‐24 of report), with priority recommendations for each one. Any key economic impact statements?: None included. Underlying philosophies values: The People’s Food Policy is rooted in the concept of food sovereignty. This is an internationally‐recognized approach where food is viewed as a primary foundation for healthy lives, communities, economies and eco‐systems. Seven Pillars of Canadian Food Sovereignty:

1) Focuses on Food for People 2) Values Food Providers 3) Localizes Food Systems 4) Puts Control Locally 5) Builds Knowledge and Skills 6) Works with Nature 7) Recognizes that Food is Sacred

Audience: Policymakers, state departments, NGO's and institutions Guiding (research) question(s) and methodology: Excerpt (from page 2): Over the course of two years, over 3500 Canadians participated in a groundbreaking grassroots project to define paths toward a food system that can provide adequate amounts of healthy, acceptable, and accessible food for all. The People’s Food Policy is based on ten detailed policy discussion papers. These discussion papers were generated through an extensive process that included three hundred and fifty Kitchen Table Talks, hundreds of policy submissions, dozens of tele‐conferences, ongoing online discussions, and three cross‐Canada conferences. These discussion papers include both whole‐of‐government policy recommendations and concrete guidelines for how the proposed changes can be put into action. Common themes: Health, Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs), Food Sovereignty, Fair Wages, Sustainability, Agriculture, Fisheries, Waste Reduction/Nutrient Recycling, Commodity Speculation Key people involved in writing plan: The People’s Food Policy Project Includes fisheries?: See pages 16‐17: A Sustainable Fishery and Reasonable Livelihood for Fishers (wild‐caught)


39

The 25% Shift The Benefits of Food Localization for Northeast Ohio & How to Realize Them

Citation: Masi, Brad, Leslie Schaller and Michael H. Shuman. 2010. The 25% Shift ‐ The Benefits

of Food Localization for Northeast Ohio & How to Realize Them, OH. Weblink: http://www.neofoodweb.org/sites/default/files/resources/the25shift‐

foodlocalizationintheNEOregion.pdf Who was Involved?: (T)his study was initiated by major institutions in Cleveland—the Cleveland Foundation, ParkWorks, Kent State University Cleveland Urban Design Collaborative, Neighborhood Progress, Inc., and the Cleveland Cuyahoga County Food Policy Coalition; Steering Committee, 35 Affinity Groups, Numerous stakeholder interviews were conducted; and a 2010 Food Congress involved participants reviewing over 60 recommendations from the Northeast Ohio Local Food Assessment and Plan, and setting their own priorities for programs, policies, and investments. List priorities and action steps: Recommendations are organized into six thematic areas (extensive detail about strategies can be found in pages 85‐103 of the report):

• Food Access and Public Health • Local Food Infrastructure • Urban Agriculture • Rural‐Urban Collaboration • Education and Skill Training, and • Supporting Businesses

Prioritization of strategies are organize into 4 categories where activities and tools are outlined (detail in pages 104‐118):

A. Key Meta‐Business Tools B. Local Food Infrastructure C. Leadership D. Next Step: A Northeast Ohio (NEO) Food Authority


• The following study analyzes the impact of the 16‐county Northeast Ohio (NEO) region moving a quarter of the way toward fully meeting local demand for food with local production.

o It suggests that this 25% shift could create 27,664 new jobs, providing work for about one in eight unemployed residents.

o It could increase annual regional output by $4.2 billion and expand state and local tax collections by $126 million.

o It could increase the food security of hundreds of thousands of people and reduce near‐epidemic levels of obesity and Type‐II diabetes.

o And it could significantly improve air and water quality, lower the region’s carbon footprint, attract tourists, boost local entrepreneurship, and enhance civic pride.


40

• Numerous studies have documented that a dollar spent at a local business yields two to four

times the “economic multiplier”—the underlying source of income, wealth and jobs—as an equivalent nonlocal business. Additionally, there is a growing body of evidence that local businesses are particularly good at attracting tourists and future entrepreneurs, promoting creative economies, and stimulating charitable contributions. Economist Stewart Smith of the University of Maine, for example, estimates that a dollar spent on a typical foodstuff item in the year 1900 wound up giving 40 cents to the farmer, with the other 60 cents split between inputs and distribution. Today, about seven cents of every retail food dollar goes to the farmer, rancher, or grower, and 73 cents goes toward distribution.

• ...annual consumer demand for food in the NEO region is just over $11 billion, with $6.5 billion purchased at stores and $4.6 billion spent eating out. Additionally, NEO residents spend three quarters of a billion dollars each year on alcoholic beverages.

• We estimate that total demand (for local food) by institutions and residents (but not businesses) is $15 billion.

• The urban gardening movement is now growing rapidly, with 50 new gardens appearing in 2009 alone. That year an estimated $2.6‐3.0 million worth of fresh fruits and vegetables were grown on 56 acres—about 2% of the vacant land in Cuyahoga County.

• In 2000, students convinced the college to select Bon Appétit Management Company to run its food services, based in part on the company’s commitment to localize its food purchasing. By 2008, the coops and Bon Appétit spent a combined $1.2 million supporting local farms and food businesses in the greater Oberlin area.

• A huge job stimulus is not the only economic benefit of the 25% shift in food localization. Additionally, each year there would be:

o $4.2 billion of additional output o $1.5 billion in additional value‐added activity o $868 million in additional wages o $126 million of additional state and local tax revenues (primarily through sales and

property taxes) The last item, additional tax revenue, seems especially relevant. It suggests that annual expenditures by state, county, and local governments up to $126 million per year would, if they help achieve the shift, actually be net money‐makers.

• There are other economic benefits of this 25% shift that are harder to quantify, but worth mentioning:

o Branding – As the epicenter of a local food renaissance, the greater Cleveland area would become a powerful new magnet for tourism. The NEO region has far lower tourist traffic than most other regions in the United States, and simply bringing the region up to the national average could generate another 10,000 new jobs in hotels and motels.

o Attraction and Retention – While the value of economic development agencies essentially bribing non‐local businesses to come or stay in the region has been largely discredited, there is no question that being a fabulous dynamic region that naturally attracts and retains non‐local businesses—Richard Florida’s notion of a creative economy—is economically valuable.

o Entrepreneurship – As noted, nearly all of the food businesses in the region right now are small. Indeed, except for a few food‐processing businesses, the vast majority of food enterprises, such as farms and food service operations, can be started by a good entrepreneur with modest capital. The 25% shift would lead to a region‐wide entrepreneurship revolution, with positive spillovers throughout the NEO economy.


41

o Public Assistance – Increased employment and entrepreneurship would lead to

dramatic reductions in public assistance outlays in unemployment, food stamps, housing vouchers, health subsidies, and other government supports. In 2009 the region’s 214,000 unemployed residents received more than a billion dollars from the state’s essentially broke unemployment‐compensation fund. Putting 27,000 back to work would thus save $133 million per year. The state of Ohio currently spends $439 million per year on TANF, just one of its welfare programs, to support 1,133,880 families. Were the 25% shift able to move 27,000 families from TANF, the state would save another $10 million per year.

o Fiscal Health – Reduced government outlays and increased tax revenues would improve the fiscal health of county and local governments in the region. This would improve their credit worthiness, lower their cost of capital, and reduce their payments on existing and future bonds and other debts.

o Capital Improvements – Improved government fiscal health would also allow more investments in public schools (human capital) and infrastructure (built capital), both of which will add to economic vitality, foster entrepreneurship, and increase the attractiveness of the region to outside business and investors.

o Rural Economies – The 25% shift would provide a stimulus for the rural counties in the NEO region to expand existing farms, diversify farm economies, and revive farms that have gone bankrupt or otherwise been abandoned. By connecting urban demand with rural supply, food localization could lead to a renaissance of rural economic life.

o Economic Security – Diversification of the local food system could help inoculate the region against sudden cutoffs in food that might occur because of contamination, war, terrorism, or global shortages.

• How much additional capital might be needed for the 25% shift? We estimate, very roughly, that just under $1 billion would be required. There’s no question that this capital, in theory, is available in the region. NEO residents have approximately $105 billion in local financial institutions in checking accounts ($4 billion), savings accounts ($83 billion), and money market accounts ($18 billion). But unless banking institutions feel confident to lend these savings to local food businesses, they cannot be relied on for the 25% shift.

• According to an August 2009 Ohio Food Policy Council report, Ohio’s agriculture and food related industries contribute nearly $100 billion annually to the state economy, and yet the state is losing prime farmland faster than almost every other state in the country.

• Some have estimated that the city spends about $3.3 million per year to maintain vacant lots. The city should place avoided maintenance costs into an off‐set fund that could provide a new source of capital for urban farms.

• (W)e propose the creation of the NEO Food Authority (NFA), an entity that would provide loans to and mobilize in‐kind support for those local enterprises with the greatest catalytic potential in helping the region realize the 25% shift …Consider just one of many plausible scenarios for launching the NFA. Start‐up funding of $1 million, for example, might come from a combination of state and local economic‐development funds and program‐related investments from foundations in the region. Another $5 million might come from a direct public offering (DPO), in part to raise public awareness of the viability of this kind of emerging financing option for other local food businesses. Just the selling of the shares in the region would provide enormous opportunities for raising consciousness in the region about the potential benefits of the 25% shift. Shares could be bought for $100, and the aim would be to sell these to 50,000 purchasers in the NEO region. The $5 million obtained from shareholders would provide the first tranche of capital for lending. The NEO Food Authority might then seek


42

to leverage its equity capital of $6 million by a factor of five—to $30 million—through additional sources described earlier, such as municipal food bonds. As a publically traded company, its board would need to comport with Ohio business laws. Board meetings would be open to shareholders and the books and quarterly performance would be open to public review.

Underlying philosophies values: (T)he priority must be to create “meta‐businesses” that can support the local food movement on a cash‐positive basis. For example:

• To mobilize consumers in the region to buy local food, we suggest creating local debit, credit, and gift cards, and purchasing platforms that better connect local food businesses to one another and to government procurement agencies. • To increase the competitiveness of local food businesses, we recommend the creation of local business alliances that facilitate peer learning and new kinds of delivery services, local‐food malls, and joint procurement cooperatives. • To make more capital available to local food businesses, we propose establishing new revolving loan funds, municipal food bonds, and a local stock market. • To support a new generation of local food entrepreneurs, we recommend deployment of a network of food‐business incubators and “food hubs” operating in concert within a network of enterprise support.

Audience: Policymakers, state departments, NGO's and institutions Guiding (research) question(s) and methodology: Excerpt (from pages 9‐10): We began our work by synthesizing and analyzing existing studies, reports, and databases (listed in Appendix I of report). While no resources were available to undertake new studies, we did try to tap into on‐the‐ground expertise in the region by speaking to literally hundreds of people involved in the local food movement or in state, regional, and local economic development generally. Some of these conversations occurred with individuals and in small groups, but a large proportion of input was received through a website we created, NEOFoodWeb.org. We organized experts in the region into 35 “affinity groups,” each an important constituent part of the local food economy. The affinity groups (see Charts 2a‐2e) fell into five broad sectors: Agricultural Production; Markets; Supply Chain Infrastructure; Supporting Businesses; and Food System Capacity...Taking input from our steering committee, from members of the Ag‐Bio Industry Cluster Leadership Council (an initiative between Ohio State University and the Fund for Our Economic Future), and from leaders in farming organizations and food policy councils, we identified representatives for each of these groups and invited them to participate in several public events we held between June and November 2010. We also asked them to participate in a virtual think‐tank housed at the NEOFoodWeb.org. The site became an important portal for their input through surveys, discussion topics, and comments on early drafts of this paper. The NEOFoodWeb also provided an information clearing house of reports, previous regional food studies, and video vignettes highlighting diverse perspectives in the region about local food topics. About 200 people participated in the NEOFoodWeb. An analysis of their occupations, residencies, and interests revealed two important points: First, the majority of the participants were from Cuyahoga County, which is unsurprising given that this study was initiated by Cleveland‐based organizations. Yet about a third came from outside Cuyahoga County, which demonstrates the breadth of regional interest in this work and the opportunities for future organizing.


43

Second, half the participants were members of the food system capacity cluster, and a third were in agricultural production. There was relatively limited participation from those involved with markets, supply‐chain infrastructure, and supporting businesses. To remedy this gap, we conducted additional one‐on‐one interviews with key players in these clusters. It is our hope that the sponsors of this study continue to use and grow the NEOFoodWeb as our recommendations are implemented. Common themes: Health, Economic Development, Processing, Distribution, Fair Wages, Sustainability, Waste Reduction/Nutrient Recycling, Water, Energy Key people involved in writing plan: By Brad Masi, Leslie Schaller, and Michael H. Shuman Includes fisheries?: No.

The Good Food for All Agenda Creating a New Regional Food System for Los Angeles

Citation: Delwiche, Alexa. 2010. The Good Food for All Agenda ‐ Creating a New Regional Food System for Los Angeles. Los Angeles Food Policy Task Force, CA.

Weblink: http://goodfoodla.org/single.pdf Who was Involved?: The Los Angeles Food Policy Task Force, with representatives of: Farmers (1), Universities, Co‐op Extension, Journalists, Public Health, Policy Consultants, Los Angeles Conservation Corps, Various NGO’s, Mayor’s Office, Wholesalers, Environmental Groups, Public Works, Community Garden Council, Funders. Additional input from hundreds of stakeholders within the City and County of Los Angeles and throughout Southern California; Individual meetings, interviews, document reviews, stakeholder listening sessions, and the Roots of Change UrbanRural Roundtable all provided valuable expertise and feedback to the Task Force. Next step is for policymakers, community, business, and neighborhood leaders to mobilize a coordinated, cross‐sector, regional movement to advance and implement the Good Food agenda. List priorities and action steps: Priority Action Areas (details on pages 16‐27 of report):

1) Promote a Good Food Economy a. Convene public, private, and non‐profit partners to develop plans for a Los Angeles

Regional Food Hub.


44

b. Urge regional leaders to establish incentives and develop policies for growers,

ranchers, and urban farmers to meet demand for Good Food. c. Review and update codes and regulations to enhance the Good Food system. d. Conduct a Foodshed Assessment. e. Link public investment to creation of good jobs and small food enterprises.

2) Build A Market for Good Food a. Develop City and County Good Food procurement policies and urge school districts to

participate. b. Integrate Good Food Criteria into Green Business Certification Programs for

foodservice providers. c. Promote the brand.

3) Eliminate Hunger in Los Angeles a. Increase enrollment in Food Stamp Program. b. Require full EBT and WIC participation at farmers’ markets. c. Promote funding opportunities and technical assistance for farmers’ markets.

4) Ensure Equal Access to Good Food in Underserved Communities a. Support the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles’s (CRA/LA’s)

Efforts and Strengthen the Market Opportunities: Incentives for Food Retailers. b. Link public investment in healthy food retail to responsible retailers. c. Urge Congress and CA Legislature to approve and fund the Healthy Food Financing

Initiatives and develop innovative healthy food retail proposals. d. Incorporate public health strategies into land use documents.

5) Grow Good Food in Our Neighborhoods a. Streamline permitting and public land leases for Community Gardens. b. Expand joint‐use agreements with school/community gardens. c. Introduce Healthy Food Access Components in Affordable Housing Developments.

6) Inspire and Mobilize Good Food Champions a. Urge Congress to expand definition of SNAP‐ED to include school gardening and

cooking programs. b. Leverage Project RENEW funds to promote Good Food efforts underway.


• The average farmer receives less than 20 cents for every dollar spent at the supermarket. • The food system accounts for one out of every seven jobs in Los Angeles County. If calculated

as an industry, it would be the largest employer in the County. • For every $1 spent in a local community, $.45 is redirected towards the local economy, versus

$.15 if that dollar is spent at a chain or non‐local business. • In 2009, Los Angeles County school districts spent approximately $600 million on school food.

This money could be spent supporting the local food economy and providing nearly one million children with high quality Good Food.

• In 2004, the Pennsylvania state government invested $30 million in the Pennsylvania Fresh Food Financing Initiative and leveraged an additional $90 million in economic development and private funding. The initiative facilitated the development of 22 new stores and renovated 47 additional stores. The program has created or preserved 4,860 jobs.

• Southern California agriculture contributed $12.6 billion to our regional economy in 2007. At the same time, Los Angeles County spent $25.4 billion on food. Yet much of the food produced within the region is for national and international markets, never actually reaching our plates


45

in Southern California. Imagine if we could redirect just one tenth, or $2.5 billion, of that money towards developing a Good Food system.

• Currently, $1.3 billion in federal nutrition benefits are available, but not claimed in Los Angeles County each year, largely due to the low participation rate in the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly known as the Food Stamp Program. In addition to helping people put food on the table, SNAP produces a powerful multiplier effect that stimulates the economy. Full participation in SNAP would generate an additional $2.4 billion in local economic activity. Leveraging purchasing power of federal nutrition programs by increasing participant enrollment is just one low‐cost strategy for stimulating the local economy through a food strategy. Every dollar in SNAP expenditures generates $1.84 in local economic activity.

• In 2006, Los Angeles County spent $12 billion on health care costs and lost productivity associated with obesity and physical inactivity. If California reduced obesity and physical inactivity by just 5 percent per year for 5 years, Los Angeles County would recover over $600 million.

• 1 Acre of Land in Los Angeles Per Year: o Produces 25 Tons of fruits & vegetables o Generates $220,000 o Supplies 36 Families fruits and vegetables o Creates 3 Green Jobs

Underlying philosophies values: The term “Good Food” used throughout this report refers to food that is:

Healthy: o Foods meet the Dietary Guidelines for Americans and provide freedom from chronic

ailment. o Food is delicious, safe, and aesthetically pleasing.

Affordable: o Foods that people of all income levels can purchase.

Fair: o All participants in the food supply chain receive fair compensation and fair treatment,

free of exploitation. o High quality food is equitable and physically and culturally accessible to all.

Sustainable: o Produced, processed, distributed, and recycled locally using the principles of

environmental stewardship (in terms of water, soil, and pesticide management). A healthy, equitable, and sustainable regional food system is a complex set of activities and relationships related to every aspect of the food cycle, including production, processing, distribution, retail, preparation, consumption, and disposal. Audience: Policymakers, state departments, NGO's and institutions


46

Guiding (research) question(s) and methodology: Excerpt (from page 14): The Los Angeles Food Policy Task Force convened in November 2009 to identify a Good Food policy agenda and the steps to get there. The Task Force has worked to develop a Good Food for All Agenda with specific action steps and recommendations for how to advance the Agenda. The Agenda seeks to increase access to Good Food for everyone, improve public health, create quality jobs and small food enterprise opportunities, increase equity in our communities, and improve environmental sustainability throughout the region. Creating this policy agenda required significant input from hundreds of stakeholders within the City and County of Los Angeles and throughout Southern California. The re‐creation of a sustainable and equitable regional food system depends on a solid partnership with our regional neighbors, particularly those who will be tasked with supplying our region Good Food. To begin strengthening these relationships, the Roots of Change, a California non‐profit organization, worked with leaders of the Los Angeles Food Policy Task Force to design a process by which the recommendations of the Task Force could be broadened, informed, and enhanced by the perspectives and insights of food system leaders from around the region. The Roots of Change held three Los Angeles Urban‐Rural Roundtable events and presented a final report with recommendations to the Los Angeles Food Policy Task Force. Individual meetings, interviews, document reviews, stakeholder listening sessions, and the Roots of Change Urban‐Rural Roundtable all provided valuable expertise and feedback to the Task Force. The Task Force was charged with developing a framework for moving forward, which is only the first step in this process. The second step is for policymakers, community, business, and neighborhood leaders to mobilize a coordinated, cross‐sector, regional movement to advance and implement the Good Food agenda. Thus we see this report as a living document and our work as an evolving process that includes the recommendations of where we go from here. Common themes: Health, Economic Development, Processing, Distribution, Fair Wages, Sustainability, Waste Reduction/Nutrient Recycling, Water, Energy, Climate Change Key people involved in writing plan: Research, Principal Writer and Project Management: Alexa Delwiche, Food Policy Coordinator, Los Angeles Food Policy Task Force; Research Support: Clare Fox, Abby Klein, and Cedar Landsman; Editorial Review: Paula Daniels, Gregg Kettles,Matthew Sharp, Robert Gottlieb, Larry Yee, and Amy Sausser Consulting Includes fisheries?: No.


47

Appendix C:

Catalog of Historical and Current Food Plans,

Assessments and Reports

Note: Due to ongoing changes with websites hosting these documents, web addresses for all documents may need to be updated periodically. Also, a NOT printformatted spreadsheet version of this section can be accessed at: http://tinyurl.com/br45h4t.

Title

What is it? (A=assessment; P=plan;

PP=partial plan;

G=guide) Where? Link Year Range Food Plans/Assessments/Reports of and within MAINE

Agricultural Council of Maine: Let's Get it Done ‐ Priority Issues of Concern to Agriculture & 1991‐1994 Progress in Addressing Issues A ME no electronic copy available at this time 1994 State Agricultural Council of Maine: Report of the Long‐Range Planning Committee A ME no electronic copy available at this time 1992 State By Land and By Sea: Connecting Maine's Farming & Fishing Communities ‐ 2010 Regional Forums Report A ME http://tinyurl.com/ca3bb96

2010 State

Cumberland County Foodshed Assessment ‐ Phase 1 (student project/unpublished) A ME https://docs.google.com/open?id=0Bys5pQyvDGxGTGZLME82TE5ndmc

2011 County Maine's Food System: An Overview and Assessment (MPR Special Issue: Food) A ME

http://mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/wp‐content/uploads/files/pdf_mpr/v20n1/PDF_articles/Maines_Food_System.pdf

2011 State Report of the Maine Food & Farmland Study Commission (Draft) (David Vail) A ME

http://efc.muskie.usm.maine.edu/docs/Food%20report%20scans/report_food_and_farmland_study_comm_1979

1979 State The Changing Face of Agriculture in Franklin County: A Vision and Recommendations (Executive Summary) A ME http://www.westernmountainsalliance.org/publication‐attachments/ExecSummary.pdf

2009 County

A Food Policy for the State of Maine A/P ME http://efc.muskie.usm.maine.edu/docs/Food%20report%20scans/food_policy_state_of_me_111th_leg

1984 State Get Real ‐ Get Local: Recommendations for Policies & Programs Needed to Support & Sustain Local Agriculture in Maine Local Agriculture Development Task Force & First Lady Karen Baldacci) A/P ME http://maine.gov/agriculture/co/Local%20Ag%20Devlopment%20Task%20Force%20Final%20Report.pdf

2004 State

Agricultural Council of Maine: A Strategic Plan for Maine Agriculture P ME http://efc.muskie.usm.maine.edu/docs/Food%20report%20scans/strategic_plan_for_me_ag_1998

1998 State


49

Agricultural Council of Maine: Growing Maine ‐ Strategies for Expanding Maine's Food and Farm Economy (2012‐2020) P ME To be scanned. 2012 State

Agricultural Council of Maine: Strengthening Maine Agriculture Today for a Healthier Tomorrow P ME

http://efc.muskie.usm.maine.edu/docs/Food%20report%20scans/agcom_strategic_plan.pdf

? State

A Food Policy for the State of Maine P ME http://maine.gov/agriculture/mpd/information/foodpolicydraft.pdf

2006 State

Revitalizing Maine Agriculture P ME http://efc.muskie.usm.maine.edu/docs/Food%20report%20scans/revitalizaing_me_ag_1976 1979 State

Food Plans/Assessments/Reports of Other Defined CITY/TOWN, COUNTY, REGION, STATE or COUNTRY

Alameda County Foodshed Report A CA http://www.sarep.ucdavis.edu/sfs/files/alamedareport.pdf/view 2002 County

At the Table with the Seattle‐King County Acting Food Policy Council ‐ Issue Paper No. 4 A WA

http://www.mendeley.com/research/table‐seattleking‐county‐acting‐food‐policy‐council‐2008‐issue‐paper‐4‐mapping‐food‐insecurity‐access/ 2008 County

Can Totnes Feed Itself? A UK http://transitionculture.org/wp‐content/uploads/cantotnesfeeditself1.pdf 2009 (?) City/Town

Charlottesville Region Food System: A Preliminary Analysis A VA http://www.virginia.edu/ien/docs/07FoodClassFINAL%20PAPERS/06FINALRept_Jun06_CvilleFood.pdf 2006 Region

Everyone Eats! A Community Food Assessment for Areas of North and Northeast Portland, OR A OR http://www.emoregon.org/pdfs/IFFP/IFFP_N‐NE_Portland_Food_Assessment_full_report.pdf 2007 Region

From Our Own Soil: A Community Food Assessment Benton County, Oregon, and Its Foodshed A OR http://www.emoregon.org/pdfs/IFFP/CorvallisFoodAssessmentReport‐logo.pdf 2006 County

Greater Philadelphia Food System Study A PA http://www.dvrpc.org/reports/09066A.pdf 2010 Region

Local food Assessment for Northern Virginia A VA http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5097195 2010 Region

Mapping Food Insecurity and Access in Seattle and King County A WA

http://www.b‐sustainable.org/built‐environment/access‐to‐local‐food‐by‐neighborhood/AFPCFoodAccessIssuePaperNo.4_000.pdf/view?searchterm=king 2008

County (Multi)

Oakland Food System Assessment A CA http://oaklandfoodsystem.pbworks.com/f/Oakland%20FSA_6.13.pdf 2006 City/Town


50

Our Foodshed in Focus: Missoula County Food and Agriculture By the Numbers A MT http://www.missoulacfac.org/ourfoodshedinfocus.html

2004 (?) County

Placer County Foodshed Report A CA http://www.sarep.ucdavis.edu/sfs/files/placerreport.pdf/view 2001 County

Sonoma County Community Foodshed Assessment A CA http://aginnovations.org/images/uploads/SCFSA_Assessment_FINAL_72711.pdf 2011 County Stanislaus County Food System Project A CA http://www.sarep.ucdavis.edu/sfs/files/stanislausreport.pdf/view 2002 County

The Detroit Food System Report 2009‐2010 (Excutive Summary) A MI http://www.clas.wayne.edu/multimedia/usercontent/File/SEED/2DetFoodReport_2009‐10lores.pdf 2010 City/Town

The San Francisco Foodshed Map A CA http://www.farmland.org/programs/states/ca/Feature%20Stories/documents/foodshed_11X17CentralValleyLabel.pdf 2008 City/Town

Think Globally ~ Eat Locally: San Francisco Foodshed Assessment A CA http://www.farmlandinfo.org/documents/37187/ThinkGloballyEatLocally‐FinalReport8‐23‐08.pdf 2008 City/Town

Vancouver Food Systems Assessment A

BC, Canada http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/socialplanning/initiatives/foodpolicy/tools/pdf/vanfoodassessrpt.pdf 2005 City/Town

Assessing the San Diego County Food System: Indicators for a More Food Secure Future P CA http://aginnovations.org/images/uploads/SDFSWG_Final_Report_optimized.pdf

2010 City/Town

Cultivating Resilience: A Food System Blueprint that Advances the Health of Iowans, Farms and Communities P IA http://iowafoodsystemscouncil.org/cultivating‐resilience/

2011 County

Farm to Plate Strategic Plan (2011 Report) P VT http://www.vsjf.org/project‐details/5/farm‐to‐plate‐initiative 2011 State From Farm to Fork: A Guide to Building North Carolina's Sustainable Local Food Economy P NC http://www.cefs.ncsu.edu/resources/stateactionguide2010.pdf 2010

State (Multi)

Michigan Good Food Charter P MI http://www.michiganfood.org/assets/goodfood/docs/MI%20Good%20Food%20Charter%20Final.pdf 2010 State

Planting Prosperity and Harvesting Health P OR/WA http://www.pdx.edu/sites/www.pdx.edu.ims/files/media_assets/ims_foodsystemsfinalreport.pdf 2008

Region

Resetting the Table: A People's Food Policy for Canada P Canada http://peoplesfoodpolicy.ca/policy/resetting‐table‐peoples‐food‐policy‐canada 2011 National

The 25% Shift ‐ The Benefits of Food Localization for Northeast Ohio & How to Realize Them P OH http://www.neofoodweb.org/sites/default/files/resources/the25shift‐foodlocalizationintheNEOregion.pdf 2010 Region


51

The Good Food for All Agenda ‐ Creating a New Regional Food System for Los Angeles P CA http://goodfoodla.org/single.pdf 2010 City/Town Cultivating the Commons: An Assessment of the Potential for Urban Agriculture on Oakland's Public (Berkeley) PP CA

http://www.oaklandfood.org/media/AA/AD/oaklandfood‐org/downloads/27621/Cultivating_the_Commons_COMPLETE.pdf

2009 City/Town

Food Works: A Vision to improve NYC's Food System PP NY http://council.nyc.gov/html/food/files/foodworks_fullreport_11_22_10.pdf

2010 (?) City/Town

Healthy Food for All: Building Equitable and Sustainable Food Systems in Detroit and Oakland PP MI

http://www.policylink.org/atf/cf/%7B97C6D565‐BB43‐406D‐A6D5‐ECA3BBF35AF0%7D/Healthy%20Food%20For%20All‐8‐19‐09‐FINAL.pdf 2009

City/Town (Multi)

Local Food, Farms and Jobs: Growing the Illinois Economy PP IL http://www.agr.state.il.us/newsrels/taskforcereport‐outside.pdf 2009 State

Toward a Resilient Food System in VT (Vern Grubinger presentation) PP VT http://www.uvm.edu/vtvegandberry/NOFAResilience.pdf

2012 State Understanding Vermont's Local Food Landscape ‐ An Inventory and Assessment of Recent Local Food Initiatives PP VT http://nofavt.org/assets/files/pdf/Nickerson%20Final%20SAC%20Report%2012_15_08.pdf 2008 State Topical Reports/Resources ‐ MAINE Agriculture in Maine: A Policy Report (Maine State Planning Office) A ME no electronic copy available at this time 1979 State

Adrift in a Sea of Information: The Maine Consumer Perspective (MPR Special Issue: Food) A ME

http://mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/wp‐content/uploads/files/pdf_mpr/v20n1/PDF_articles/Adrift%20in%20a%20Sea%20of%20Information.pdf

2011 State

An Abundant Food System (MPR Special Issue: Food) A ME

http://mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/wp‐content/uploads/files/pdf_mpr/v20n1/PDF_articles/An Abundant Food System.pdf

2011 State

Assessing the Proximity of Healthy food Options and Food Deserts in Rural Areas (Teresa Hubley) A ME http://webapp.usm.maine.edu/MuskieWebDBfrontend/publicationView.action?publicationId=8189

2011 Region

Bringing Local Foods to the Farm Bill (MPR Special Issue: Food) A ME

http://mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/wp‐content/uploads/files/pdf_mpr/v20n1/PDF_articles/Bringing_local_foods_to.pdf

2011 National

Building A Sustainabble Seafood System for Maine (MPR Special Issue: Food) A ME

http://mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/wp‐content/uploads/files/pdf_mpr/v20n1/PDF_articles/Building a Sustainable Seafood.pdf

2011 State


52

By Land and By Sea (MPR Special Issue: Food) A ME

http://mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/wp‐content/uploads/files/pdf_mpr/v20n1/PDF_articles/By%20Land%20and%20By%20Sea.pdf

2011 State Campaign to Promote Food Security in Cumberland County Coalition Report 2010 A ME http://muskie.usm.maine.edu/cpfs/Documents/campaign_report.pdf 2010 County Can Maine People Sustain Maine Farms and Farming? (Maine Dept. of Ag) A ME http://efc.muskie.usm.maine.edu/docs/Food%20report%20scans/can_me_people_sustain_me_farms

2003 State Cape Elizabeth Farm Report 2008; Is Your Town Friendly; & Cape Elizabeth Ordinance (Cape Farm Alliance) A ME http://capefarmalliance.org/downloads/

2008, 2011 County

Challenges to Food Access Among Lewiston's African‐American Immigrants (MPR Special Issue: Food) A ME

http://mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/wp‐content/uploads/files/pdf_mpr/v20n1/PDF_articles/Challenges%20to%20Food%20Access.pdf

2011 City/Town Community Food Assessment Survey ‐ Western Hancock County, Maine A ME http://efc.muskie.usm.maine.edu/docs/Food%20report%20scans/cfa_survey_hancock_county_2010

2010 City/Town Crown O'Maine Organic Cooperative (MPR Special Issue: Food) A ME

http://mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/wp‐content/uploads/files/Crown%20O%E2%80%99%20Maine%20Organic%20Cooperative.pdf

2011 State Economic Contribution of Maine's Food Industry (MPR Special Issue: Food) A ME

http://mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/wp‐content/uploads/files/pdf_mpr/v20n1/PDF_articles/economic_Contribution.pdf

2011 State Economic Impact of Organic Farming in Maine (MPR Special Issue: Food) A ME

http://mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/wp‐content/uploads/files/pdf_mpr/v20n1/PDF_articles/impact%20of%20organic.pdf

2011 State

Economic Impact of the Maine Food System and Farm Vitality Policy Implications A ME http://www.state.me.us/legis/opla/agvitrpt.PDF 2002 State Education on Food, Fisheries and Agriculture (MPR Special Issue: Food) A ME http://mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/files/pdf_mpr/v20n1/PDF_articles/Education%20on%20Food.pdf

2011 State

Farm to School (MPR Special Issue: Food) A ME

http://mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/wp‐content/uploads/files/pdf_mpr/v20n1/PDF_articles/Farm%20to%20School.pdf

2011 State

Farms and the Working Landscape (MPR Special Issue: Food) A ME

http://mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/wp‐content/uploads/files/pdf_mpr/v20n1/PDF_articles/Farms%20and%20the%20Working%20Landscape.pdf

2011 State


53

Financing Maine's Food Enterprises (MPR Special Issue: Food) A ME http://mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/files/financing_maines_food_enterprises.pdf

2011 State

Fishing, Farming and Forestry: Resources for the Future (Maine State Planning Office) A ME http://www.maine.gov/tools/whatsnew/attach.php?id=97937&an=1

2001 State

Food and the Urgency of Now (MPR Special Issue: Food) A ME

http://mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/wp‐content/uploads/files/pdf_mpr/v20n1/PDF_articles/food_and_the_urgency_of_now.pdf

2011 National

Food Safety (MPR Special Issue: Food) A ME

http://mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/wp‐content/uploads/files/pdf_mpr/v20n1/PDF_articles/Food%20Safety.pdf

2011 State Franklin County: Agriculture as a "Sleeping Giant" (MPR Special Issue: Food) A ME

http://mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/wp‐content/uploads/files/pdf_mpr/v20n1/PDF_articles/Franklin_county.pdf

2011 County Getting What We Are Paying For: An Overview of Federal Agricultural Policy (MPR Special Issue: Food) A ME

http://mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/wp‐content/uploads/files/pdf_mpr/v20n1/PDF_articles/Getting%20What%20We%20Pay%20For.pdf

2011 National Growing Maine's Foodscape, Growing Maine's Future (MPR Special Issue: Food) A ME

http://mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/wp‐content/uploads/files/Growing%20Maine%E2%80%99s%20Foodscape.pdf

2011 State Healthy Food Access and Affordability (MPR Special Issue: Food) A ME

http://mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/wp‐content/uploads/files/pdf_mpr/v20n1/PDF_articles/Healthy%20Food%20Access%20and%20Affordability.pdf

2011 State Historical Perspectives on Resource Use in Food Systems (MPR Special Issue: Food) A ME

http://mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/wp‐content/uploads/files/pdf_mpr/v20n1/PDF_articles/Historical%20Perspectives%20on%20Resource%20Use.pdf

2011 State

Hunger in Maine (MPR Special Issue: Food) A ME

http://mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/wp‐content/uploads/files/pdf_mpr/v20n1/PDF_articles/Hunger%20in%20Maine.pdf

2011 State It's Growing Season for Maine's Food System (MPR Special Issue: Food) A ME

http://mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/wp‐content/uploads/files/pdf_mpr/v20n1/PDF_articles/Its_Growing_Season.pdf

2011 State

Kitchen Gardens: From the White House to Your House (MPR Special Issue: Food) A ME

http://mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/wp‐content/uploads/files/pdf_mpr/v20n1/PDF_articles/Kitchen%20Gardens.pdf

2011

Community/State/ National

Local and Regional Food Systems: A USDA Priority (MPR Special Issue: Food) A ME

http://mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/wp‐content/uploads/files/pdf_mpr/v20n1/PDF_articles/Local%20and%20Regional%20Food%20Systems.pdf

2011 State/ National


54

Local Food for Lewiston (MPR Special Issue: Food) A ME

http://mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/wp‐content/uploads/files/pdf_mpr/v20n1/PDF_articles/Local%20Food%20for%20Lewiston.pdf

2011 City/Town

Maine Agriculture and Economic Development: Long‐term Issues to Keep Agriculture Strong A ME no electronic copy available at this time ? State

Maine's Climate Future (UMaine Climate Change Report) A ME http://climatechange.umaine.edu/files/Maines_Climate_Future.pdf 2009 State Maine's Connected Food System: On the Web and Online (MPR Special Issue: Food) A ME

http://mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/wp‐content/uploads/files/pdf_mpr/v20n1/PDF_articles/Franklin_county.pdf

2011 State

Maine's Dairy Relief Program (MPR Special Issue: Food) A ME

http://mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/files/pdf_mpr/v20n1/PDF_articles/Maines%20Dairy%20Relief%20Program.pdf

2011 State

Maine's Food‐Related Workforce: Characteristics and Challenges (MPR Special Issue: Food) A ME

http://mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/wp‐content/uploads/files/pdf_mpr/v20n1/PDF_articles/Food‐Related%20Workforce.pdf

2011 State

Meat and Poultry Processing (MPR Special Issue: Food) A ME

http://mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/wp‐content/uploads/files/pdf_mpr/v20n1/PDF_articles/Meat%20and%20Poultry%20Processing.pdf

2011 State Micmac Farms: From Community Garden to Four‐Season Farm and Retail Outlet (MPR Special Issue: Food) A ME

http://mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/wp‐content/uploads/files/pdf_mpr/v20n1/PDF_articles/Micmac%20Farms.pdf

2011 Community

MOFGA: Maine's Organic Farms ‐ An Impact Report A ME http://www.dnnmaine.com/mofga/files/Organic%20Impact%20Report.pdf 2010 State

MPR Policy Catalog A ME https://docs.google.com/open?id=0Bys5pQyvDGxGYUtZVVhrOHhLblE 2012 State New Foods for Thought: Maine Food Producers Add Value through Innivation (MPR Special Issue: Food) A ME

http://mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/wp‐content/uploads/files/pdf_mpr/v20n1/PDF_articles/New%20Foods%20For%20Thought.pdf

2011 State Ocean Views: Coastal Environmental Problems As Seen by Downeast Maine Residents (Carsey Institute) A ME http://www.carseyinstitute.unh.edu/publications/PB_Safford_DowneastMaine.pdf

2009 Region

On Slow Money (MPR Special Issue: Food) A ME

http://mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/wp‐content/uploads/files/pdf_mpr/v20n1/PDF_articles/On%20Slow%20Money.pdf

2011 State

Paths Toward Food Sel‐Reliance: Community Food Councils (MPR Special Issue: Food) A ME

http://mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/wp‐content/uploads/files/pdf_mpr/v20n1/PDF_articles/Paths%20towards%20Food%20Self‐Reliance.pdf

2011

City/Town/Community/Regional


55

Poor Nutirtion Amidst Plenty (MPR Special Issue: Food) A ME

http://mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/wp‐content/uploads/files/pdf_mpr/v20n1/PDF_articles/Poor%20Nutrition%20Amidst%20Plenty.pdf

2011 State

Program Review of The Maine Department of Marine Resources A ME http://www.maine.gov/dmr/news/dmrreview9‐2‐11.pdf

2011 State Recipies for Success: Multi‐District Case Study of Local Foods in Schools A ME http://www.mainesfsa.org/files/Multi‐District_Case_Study_‐_Local_Foods_in_Maine_Schools.pdf

2009 State

Report on the Loss of Farmland A ME no electronic copy available at this time 1979 State Report on the Use of Incentives to Keep Land in Productive Farming, Fishing and Forestry Use (Maine State Planning Office) A ME http://efc.muskie.usm.maine.edu/docs/Food%20report%20scans/report_use_of_incentives

2001 State

Resolve: Establishing a Food Policy for Maine A ME no electronic copy available at this time 1984 State

Resource, Environment and Energy Considerations for Maine Food Security in 2050 and Beyond (MPR Special Issue: Food) A ME

http://mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/downloads/files/pdf_mpr/v20n1/PDF_articles/Environment%20and%20Energy%20Considerations.pdf 2011 State

SARE: Advancing the Frontier of Sustainable Agriculture in Maine A ME http://mysare.sare.org/highlights/states/ME%20portfolio%20summary.pdf

2009 (?) State

Seafood Pies with a Social Purpose A ME http://mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/wp‐content/uploads/files/pdf_mpr/v20n1/PDF_articles/Seafood%20Pies%20with%20a%20Social%20Purpose.pdf

2011 Community/Regional

The Natural Resource Industries of Maine: An Assessment and Statistical Report A ME no electronic copy available at this time 1986 State The Past, the Present and Future Competitiveness of Maine Agriculture (Maine Consortium for Food Self‐Reliance) A ME no electronic copy available at this time 1980 State

The Renaissance of a Food‐Based Economy in Skowhegan (MPR Special Issue: Food) A ME

http://mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/wp‐content/uploads/files/pdf_mpr/v20n1/PDF_articles/The%20Renaissance%20of%20a%20Food‐Based.pdf

2011 City/Town Toward a Working‐Waterfront Ethic: Preserving Access to Maine's Coastal Economy, Heritage, and Local Seafood (MPR Special Issue: Food) A ME

http://mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/wp‐content/uploads/files/pdf_mpr/v20n1/PDF_articles/Toward%20a%20Working‐Waterfront%20Ethic.pdf

2011 State


56

Unity Food Hub: Creating New Opportunities for Local Farms (MPR Special Issue: Food) A ME

http://mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/wp‐content/uploads/files/pdf_mpr/v20n1/PDF_articles/Unity%20Food%20Hub.pdf

2011 City/Town

Valuing Maine’s Natural Capital A ME http://www.manomet.org/sites/manomet.org/files/reports/Troy_2012_Value_of_Maine.pdf 2012 State

Welcome to Portland, Now Let's Eat (MPR Special Issue: Food) A ME

http://mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/wp‐content/uploads/files/pdf_mpr/v20n1/PDF_articles/Welcome to Portland.pdf

2011 City/Town When the Politics of Food and Politics of Immigration Collide‐ Who Wins? (MPR Special Issue: Food) A ME

http://mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/wp‐content/uploads/files/pdf_mpr/v20n1/PDF_articles/When%20the%20Politics%20of%20Food%20and%20Politics.pdf

2011 State

Maine Farm Project Handbook (Maine Audubon Society) A/P ME no electronic copy available at this time 1979 State The Agricultural Creative Economy: Needs, Opportunities, and Market Analysis (Maine Department of Agriculture) A/P ME http://www.maine.gov/agriculture/mpd/information/agcreative.pdf

2008 State Investing in Maine's Environment: A Trail Map to Prosperity 2010‐2015 P ME http://www.maineepc.org/assets/TrailMapRef/EPC_Report_2010_nospread_web.pdf

2010 State

Maine Agriculture and Planning for Climate Change P ME http://efc.muskie.usm.maine.edu/docs/Food%20report%20scans/me_ag_and_planning_for_cc

2008 State A Comparative Analysis of Organic Dairy Farms in Maine & Vermont: Farm Financial Information from 2004‐2006 PP ME, VT http://www.umaine.edu/mafes/elec_pubs/bulletins/b851.pdf

2008 State (2) A Report by the Citizens Committee of the Maine Economy: A Proposal for a Self‐Reliant Economy ‐ Jobs Today Jobs Tomorrow PP ME no electronic copy available at this time

late 70's (?) State

A Study of the Use of Maine Foodstuffs in Public Institutions PP ME http://efc.muskie.usm.maine.edu/docs/Food%20report%20scans/study_use_of_me_food_pubic_institutions

2004 State Downeast Farm and Food Cluster Project ‐ Farm to Cafeteria: New Markets, New Opportunities (A Colllaboration of Healthy Acadia & Downeast Business Alliance) PP ME http://www.mainecf.org/portals/0/pdfs/2/DownEastFarmtoCafeteria.pdf 2009 Region


57

Maine Farmland Trust: Cultivating Maine's Agricultural Future ‐ A Guide for Towns, Land Trusts & Farm Supporters PP ME http://184.154.231.6/~mainefar/wp‐content/uploads/file/The%20Guide.pdf 2011 State Marketing Maine's Agricultural Commodities: A Preliminary Assessment PP ME no electronic copy available at this time 1982 State Topical Reports/Resources ‐ NEW ENGLAND

Climate Change and its Effects on Ecosystems, Habitats and Biota: State of the Gulf of Maine Report A

New England

http://www.gulfofmaine.org/state‐of‐the‐gulf/docs/climate‐change‐and‐its‐effects‐on‐ecosystems‐habitats‐and‐biota.pdf 2010 Region

Climate Change Impacts on Northeast Agriculture: Overview A

New England http://efc.muskie.usm.maine.edu/docs/Food%20report%20scans/cc_impacts_on_noeast_ag_overview

2005 (?) Region

Climate Change, Carbon, and the Forests of the Northeast A

New England http://www.forestguild.org/publications/research/2007/ForestGuild_climate_carbon_forests.pdf

2007 Region

Food Self‐Sufficiency in the New England States 1975‐1997 A

New England http://www.massbenchmarks.org/publications/studies/pdf/foodself00.pdf 1999 Region

Home Grown: The Economic Impact of Local Food Systems in New Hampshire A NH http://agriculture.nh.gov/publications/documents/HomeGrownReport_final.pdf

2010 State

Massachusetts Agriculture Viability Study (USDA) A MA no electronic copy available at this time 1982 State Northeast Food Systems Forum: A Regional Perspective on Food Systems Data (Stephan Goetz, NRCRD ‐ presentation) A

New England http://nercrd.psu.edu/NEFoodSystemForum.pdf

2011 (?) Region

Report on Some Regional Value Chains in the Northeast A

New England http://tinyurl.com/7xeogxy 2010 Region

It Takes a Region: Exploring a Regional Food Systems Approach (A Working Paper ‐ NESAWG) A/P

New England http://www.ittakesaregion.org/uploads/2/7/7/0/2770360/regional_food_system_working_paper_final.pdf

2010 Region

Wildlands & Woodlands: A Vison for the New England Landscape P

New England http://www.wildlandsandwoodlands.org/ 2010 Region

Building the Movement: Labor in the Northeast Food System (NESAWG) PP

New England http://tinyurl.com/78gxcvk

2011 (?) Region


58

Marketing Cooperatively: One Region's Answer (A Handbook for Small Farmers) PP

New England no electronic copy available at this time 1983 Region

Planning for Agriculture: A Guide for Connecticut Municipalities (American Farmland Trust) PP CT

http://www.farmland.org/programs/states/ct/documents/PlanningforAgriculture‐‐AGuideforCTMunicipalities.pdf

2008 (?) State

Regionalizing the Food System for Public Health and Sustainability (Urban Design Lab/NESAWG Presentation) PP

New England http://tinyurl.com/7b79px3

2010 Region Regional Self Sufficiency in Food Production ‐ The New England States ?

New England http://www.massbenchmarks.org/publications/studies/pdf/foodself00.pdf

1979 Region Topical Reports/Resources ‐ OTHER A Practitioner's Guide to Resources and Publications on Food Hubs and Values‐Based Supply Chains: A Literature Review A CA

http://asi.ucdavis.edu/resources/publications/KYF%20grey%20literature%20review%20GF%204‐15%20FINAL_wcover.pdf/view

2012 National

A Review of Scholarly Literature on Values‐Based Supply Chains A CA http://www.sarep.ucdavis.edu/sfs/VBSCLiteratureReview.Lerman.5.31.12_compressed.pdf

2012 National Agriculture and Climate Change: Impacts and Opportunities at the Farm Level: A Policy Position Paper (NSAC) A

DC (NSAC)

http://sustainableagriculture.net/wp‐content/uploads/2008/08/nsac_climatechangepolicypaper_final_2009_07_16.pdf

2009 (?) National

An Annotated Bibliography of Publications and Resources on Food Hubs and Values‐Based Supply Chains A CA

http://www.sarep.ucdavis.edu/sfs/Food%20Hubs%20VBSC%20Annotated%20Biblio%20‐%20Updated%20Apr%209‐%202012_compressed.pdf

2012 National Climate Change Impacts on Dairy Cattle A NY http://climateandfarming.org/pdfs/FactSheets/III.3Cattle.pdf

2005 (?) National

Comparing the Structure, Size, and Performance of Local and Mainstream Food Supply Chains (USDA ERS) A

DC (USDA) http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/122609/err99_1_.pdf

2010 National

Exploring Sustainability in Agriculture A MD http://webpub.allegheny.edu/employee/t/tbensel/FSENV201S2010/Ag_Readings/Sustainable_Agriculture.pdf

? National

Farming and Water: Voter Attitudes ‐ Southern Minnesota A MN http://www.actionmedia.org/Icons/Library/farmsFood/Water%20Quality%20and%20Agriculture.pdf

2010 Region

Food, Farms, Hunger: Report on Focus Groups A DE

http://www.actionmedia.org/Icons/Library/farmsFood/Food%20Farms%20and%20Hunger%20Research%20Report%20September%202010.pdf

2010 Region


59

Food Hubs and Values Based Supply Chains: A Toolkit for California Farmers and Ranchers A CA http://ucanr.org/blogs/food/blogfiles/12208.pdf

2012 State

Greenhouse Gas Emissions and the Local Food System A WA no electronic copy available at this time 2008 National

Good Food + Good Jobs For All A CA/NY http://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/news/publications/good‐food‐good‐jobs‐all 2012 National

Household Food Security in the United States (Annual publication of the USDA ERS) A


2010 National Opening Spaces through Relocalization: Localizing Potential Resistance in the Weakness of the Global Food System A ? http://efc.muskie.usm.maine.edu/docs/Food%20report%20scans/opening_spaces_through_localization

2002 ? Seattle Food System Enhancement Project: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Study A WA http://faculty.washington.edu/bborn/Final_GHG_Report.pdf

2007 (?) City

State‐Level Predictors of Food Insecurity and Hunger Among Households with Children A

DC (USDA) http://www.idph.state.ia.us/hpcdp/common/pdf/food_security/state_level_fs.pdf

2005 National

Understanding New York City's Food Supply (Columbia University) A NY http://mpaenvironment.ei.columbia.edu/news/documents/UnderstandingNYCsFoodSupply_May2010.pdf

2010 NY

Menu 2020: Ten Good Food Ideas for Ontario P Ontario http://metcalffoundation.com/wp‐content/uploads/2011/05/menu‐2020.pdf

2010 State

Urban Agriculture Policy Plan: A Land Use and Development Plan for a Healthy, Sustainable Local Food System (Minneapolis, MN) P MN http://www.minneapolismn.gov/www/groups/public/@cped/documents/webcontent/convert_276069.pdf

2011 City Bringing Local Food to Local Institutions: A Guide for Farm‐to‐School and Farm‐to‐Institution Programs (ATTRA) PP AR https://attra.ncat.org/attra‐pub/summaries/summary.php?pub=261

2003 National Building Successful Food Hubs: A Business Planning Guide for Aggregating and Processing Local Food in Illinois PP IL http://www.familyfarmed.org/wp‐content/uploads/2012/01/IllinoisFoodHubGuide‐final.pdf

2012 State

Creating Change in the Food System: A role of regional food networks in Iowa (MSU) PP IA http://bit.ly/ccfsreport

2012 State


60

Food System Infrastructure: Michigan Good Food Work Group Report Series (Report 5 of 5) PP MI http://www.michiganfood.org/assets/goodfood/docs/Food_System_Infrastructure_Report.pdf

2010 State

Green for All: Green Jobs in a Sustainable Food System PP CA http://www.greenforall.org/resources/reports‐research/green‐jobs‐in‐a‐sustainable‐food‐system

2010 National In Every Community a Place for Food: The Role of the Community Food Centre in Building a Local, Sustainable, and Just Food System (Metcalf) PP

Toronto, Canada http://metcalffoundation.com/wp‐content/uploads/2011/05/in‐every‐community.pdf

2010 National

Market Forces: Creating Jobs through Public Investment in Local and Regional Food Systems (Union of Concerned Scientists) PP MA http://sustainableagriculture.net/wp‐content/uploads/2011/08/market‐forces‐report.pdf

2011 National

Moving Food Along the Value Chain: Innovations in Regional Food Distribution (USDA AMS) PP USDA http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=stelprdc5097504

2012 National

Of Bodies, Place and Culture: Re‐Situating Local Food PP

Ontario, Canada http://forum.wentfishing.net/farmlit/fulltext22.pdf

2006 National Real Food, Real Choice: Connecting SNAP Recipients with Farmers Markets PP OR http://www.foodsecurity.org/pub/RealFoodRealChoice_SNAP_FarmersMarkets.pdf

2010 National

Regional Food Hubs: Linking Producers to New Markets PP

DC (USDA)

http://www.ngfn.org/resources/ngfn‐database/knowledge/RFHub%20Presentation_complete%20version_5.24.pdf

2010 National

State Initiatives Supporting Healthier Food Retail: An Overview of the National Landscape (CDC) PP DC (CDC) http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/downloads/Healthier_Food_Retail.pdf

2011 National The Community Food Centre: Creating Space for a Just, Sustainable, and Healthy Food System (Levkoe, Wakefield, Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems and Community Development) PP ? http://efc.muskie.usm.maine.edu/docs/Food%20report%20scans/community_food_center

2010 ? The Food Commons: Building an National Network of Localized Food Systems PP ? http://swantonberryfarm.com/Documents/Food%20Commons%208‐4.0%20DOC_Final.pdf

2010 National


61

The Local Industrial Complex? Questioning the Link Between Local Foods and Energy Use PP ? http://forum.wentfishing.net/farmlit/fulltext23.pdf

2008 National Assessment & Planning Guides

A Guide to Local Food System Planning for Scott County, Minnesota G MN

http://www.co.scott.mn.us/PropertyGISLand/2030CompPlan/NaturalAreaFarmland/Documents/A%20Guide%20to%20Local%20Food%20System%20Planning%20for%20Scott%20County,%20Minnesota.pdf

2009 County

A Planners Guide to Community and Regional Food Planning (APA) G IL http://tinyurl.com/7jzoxk6 2008

Community/Region

Food Soverignty Assessment Tool (Kellogg) G VA http://falcon.aihec.org/Lists/WhatsNew/Attachments/3/Food%20Sovereignty%20Assessment%20Tool.pdf

2004 Community

Food System Planning White Paper (APA) G IL http://www.scribd.com/doc/34476977/Proposed‐White‐Paper‐on‐Food‐System‐Planning

2005 (?)

Community/State/ Regionl/ National

Food System Planning: Municipal Implementation Tool (18) G DE/PA http://www.ruaf.org/ruaf_bieb/upload/3304.pdf

2010 Region

How to Live in the Real World: A Resource Kit About Sustainable Communities G

Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

no electronic copy available at this time; costs $15, and is available from the Nova Scotia Environment & Development Coalition, 1657 Barrington Street # 502, Halifax, N.S., B3J 2A1. TEL: (902) 422‐4276

mid‐1990’s (?) Community

Local Food Systems ‐ Concepts, Impacts, and Issues (USDA ERS) G


2010 National

Local Food Systems for Rural Futures (RUPRI) G MO http://www.rupri.org/Forms/RUPRI_Rural‐Futures‐Lab_2010_Food_Systems_for_Rural_Futures.pdf

2010 Region Local Foods and Climate Change: An Annotated List of Resources (IATP) G MN http://www.iatp.org/files/258_2_104299.pdf

2008 National Planning Regional Food Systems: A Guide for Municipal Planning and Development in the Greater Golden Horseshoe G

Ontario, Canada http://www.ontariofarmlandtrust.ca/sites/default/files/Planning_Regional_Food_Systems_FinalJanuary25.pdf

2009 (?) Region

Putting a Face on Our Food: How State and Local Food Policies Can Promote the New Agriculture (Drake Journal of Ag Law) G IA http://www.statefoodpolicy.org/docs/aglawjrn.pdf 2002

Community/State

The Planner’s Guide to the Urban Food System G SC http://postcarboncities.net/files/PlannersGuidetotheFoodSystem.pdf

2008 Region


62

The State of Your Food: A Manual for Food Systems Analysis (Cornucopia) G ND no electronic copy available at this time

early1980’s (?) ?

* Catalog compiled by Mark Lapping, Ph.D. & Amanda Beal, M.S. as a product of Phase I of the Maine Food Plan project (May‐November 2012), coordinated at the USM Muskie School of Public Policy.